The Real Christian, To the reader – Errata
TO THE Chriſtian Reader.
THey that read our Engliſh practical Divines, either they do not mind what they read, or underſtand not what they read, (the caſe of too many I fear.) If they do underſtand, they believe not what they read; if they believe, they apply not what they read: If they do underſtand, believe, apyly, and experience all they read in ſeveral Books of our eminent Divines, (I ſpeak not of all, for ſome write ſo, that they leave nothing for Chriſtians to ſtumble at) then the Chriſtians in England are much richer in Grace than I took them to be, and much ſtronger than as you I find them to be: but if they underſtand, believe, and cannot experience what they read, then they muſt needs meet with thoſe troubles which others have done, unleſs upon examining their works by the holy Scriptures they have found eaſe, becauſe they have found their works in thoſe particulars which did cauſe their troubles, not to agree with holy Writ: To the Law and to the Teſtimony, if they ſpeak not according to this Word, Iſai. 8.20. is a ſtanding Rule, and bleſſed he God we have this to judge by. Of theſe Books, ſome reſpect the Conſtitution of a Chriſtian, ſome the Converſation of a Chriſtian conſtituted. The firſt ſort are thoſe, which have cauſed the moſt trouble; ſome in the preparation of the Soul for Chriſt, amongſt which are the Works of the eminent Servants-of Chriſt, Mr. Thomas Hooker, and Mr. Thomas Shepherd. Others in the work of Faith, or the cloſing of the Soul with Christ, amongſt whom chiefly is the reverend Mr. Daniel Rogers, As for that trouble, which the holy men of God, Mr. Perkins, Mr. John Rogers of Dedham, with our ancient Divines, have cauſed, through their deſcription of Faith, that begins to be removed in great part, our late Divines having cleared out the work of Faith, in that manner, as it was not underſtood before: but for the former, I meet with none as yet that have ſpoken to them, though their Works in thoſe particulars have cauſed great troubles among Chriſtians, who through the high reſpects they bear to the perſons of theſe men, being holy and eminent, have believed what they write muſt needs be the Truth of God in every particular. I was ſomething troubled at them my ſelf at my firſt reading them, but upon ſerious examining them, I began to queſtion the truth of thoſe particulars, and having a little acquaintance with Mr, Shepherd, I wrote to him about that particular of which I doubted, and gave him two or three Arguments againſt it: He was pleaſed to write to me at large; his Letter deſerves the Preſs, and had ſeen it, were it not for one paſſage in it; his Anſwers to my Arguments did not ſatisfie; what they are I ſhall give the Reader faithfully, without leaving out, adding or altering one word: Preaching once abroad I cloſed up the Point in hand, by applying it to what Mr. Shepherd had delivered, to ſee how thoſe two Doctrines agreed: A Gentleman and a Scholar meeting me ſome time after, gave me thanks for the cloſe of my Sermon: I asked him, why? he told me, he had a Maid-ſervant who was very godly, and reading of that particular in Mr. Shepherd's Book, which I oppoſed, ſhe was ſo caſt down, and fell into ſuch troubles, that all the Chriſtians that came to her could not quiet her ſpirit. For Mr. Daniel Rogers, I have met with ſeveral Perſons who have felt enough of temptations about their Faith, and could not be reſolved that ever their Faith was trus, becauſe of that which he had written: but two I took notice of eſpecially; One was a Miniſter of a gracious ſpirit, and a faithful Labourer in the Lords Vineyard, Mr. John Glaſcock of little Canfield in Eſſex, who laboured much under temptations, from this Doctrine of Mr. Rogers. The other was a good Woman, but under as great deſertions as ever I ſaw one; there was another Miniſter with me in the Room that came to viſit her: I obſerved the Womans diſcourſe well, and what anſwers ſhe gave us; I perceived at laſt (though I did not know whether the Woman had ever ſeen the Book) ſhe was upon Mr. Daniel Rogers Divinity, and ſo I told the other Miniſter, this is Mr. Daniel Rogers Divinity: yea, ſaid the Woman preſently, I read it this morning in his Book: long it was before this good Woman got out of this darkneſs. Another Perſon given much to reading of good Books, and I hope made good uſe of them, ſpake theſe words to me, As for Mr. Daniel Rogers, and Mr. Shepherd, I am afraid to read their Books, they have laid ſuch blocks in my way. By theſe experiences which I had found, the Books of theſe worthy men being in the hands of many Chriſtians, I thought there might be many whom I knew not, that had met with the ſame affticting thoughts from them, which my ſelf and others had done; upon which grounds, and partly being moved thereto long ſince by ſome godly Divines, I have brought their works, and with them my ſelf, to the tryal; profeſſing, if they be right, then muſt I go look for another work then ever yet I met withall in my own heart: As to Mr. Daniel Rogers, what he met with in the cloſe of his life I was a little acquainted with it: He was a man of great parts, great grace, and great infirmities: My Father Ward would often ſay of him, My Brother *Mr. Rich. Rogers. Father to this, married the Widow of Mr. John Ward, that excellent Divine, of whom Doctor Whitaker would ſay, Give me John Ward for a Text.Rogers hath grace enough for two men, and not half enough for himſelf: A moſt woful temper, or rather diſtemper in his conſtitution, which hindered much the luſtre of that grace which was-in him: By one paſſage we may judge of his grace; he dined one day at a Knights Table, what company was there I knew not, but he had not that liberty to be ſeaſoning his meat with ſavoury and ſpiritual diſcourſe, as he was wont to do; to ſit at meals, and not one word for God, was to him ſtrange: The next day he comes to my houſe, the man was ſadly dejected, in ſuch a manner, that thoſe who fall into groſs ſins ſcarce know ſo much ſorrow: What is the matter, ſaid I? This was the reaſon, that he was a man of ſuch a baſe daſtardly Spirit, that he could not ſpeak for God. I told him, your Father would ſay, in ſuch companies, if you cannot ſow any good, you do well if you can keep out evil. Much ado I had to get, up his Spirit. Though he was a man of ſuch grace yet in the laſt year of his life coming to my houſe, he threw himſelf upon my bed in a great Agony, with this expreſſion to me, Couſin, I would change with the meaneſt Chriſtian-in Wetherfield, that hath but ſoundneſs of grace. God did handle him strangely beat him about in ſuch a manner, that had it been another perſon I ſhould have pitied him more than I could pity him, who had troubled ſo many ſincere Chriſtians with his Doctrine, and being one of ſuch a Spirit, that ſuch poor Creatures as I am, muſt not have lived by him, nor had communion with him, had he not been ſorely beaten, and kept under: A quartan Ague had ſo ſhaken his head, that he ſcarce ever recovered it again. He had ſome fearful apprehenſions of death, and no wonder, when God was ſo dark to him. I obſerved him often to make uſe of the ſaying of a godly man in his Town (I think it was on his death-bed) To dye is a work by it ſelf. When his turn came to go off the Stage, I obſerved, his frame was very heavenly; ſeveral times, as I ſate by, he would cry out, O glorious Redemption! but for that full aſſurance, and joyes, which ſome, that had not the tenth part of his grace, have expreſſed, he found not, as I underſtood by diſcourſing with him; but that which he ſo much feared, he was not ſenſible of, for the Diſeaſe taking his brain, in a fit he went off, and fell aſleep. I have wondered ſometimes to ſee and hear, how joyfully ſome weak, poor Chriſtians have entertained death, what aſſurance they have expreſſed, when men of great parts, and eminent in grace, have been more timorous: and as for ſome I have not much delighted to hear their Aſſurances, nor their Joyes; there can be no more in the Concluſion then was in the Premiſes, if there be, the Syllogiſme is fallacious. A mans life doth but lay down the Premiſes, for death, the Concluſion: And to find great joyes, and great aſſurances of Gods love in death, when a mans life hath not expreſſed grace proportionable, I much ſuſpect ſuch joyes and aſſurances. I do value at a far higher rate bleſſed Auſtin's broken and repenting heart, with the Penitential pſalms about his bed, than the joyes and raptures of theſe kind of Chriſtians, where grace in their life time hath been but low: I hope the Reader will not be offended at the little account I give of this man ſo eminent in parts and grace. As for that deſcription of Faith which that holy man, Mr. John Rogers, hath given in his Book, the first that ever I heard oppoſed it in his own Pulpit, was his own Son, Mr. Nathaniel Rogers, a man ſo able, and ſo judicious in Soul-work, that I would have betrusted my Soul with him, as ſoon as with any man in the Church of Christ: when his own Son thus in his Fathers own place oppoſed it, (as I have been informed) his reverend old Father, who dearly loved him, ſtood by and heard him with great attention; the people, they heard him with ſome amazement, and got him to preach over the Sermon again the next Sabbath. Now though it is true, this Head of Divinity is cleared already by more able men, yet being it is that wherein for many years I found trouble my ſelf, in reference to my own state, I hope it will not be unpleaſing to the Reader, to give him an account upon what grounds I was ſetled my ſelf, after many years enquiry. Honourable reſpects, I hope, the Reader ſhall find I give to theſe men from whom I diſſent, whoſe parts and grace I am ſure I eſteem far beyond my own.
As to the Socinians, the thread of my diſcourſe leading me to ſpeak of the Perſon of Chriſt briefly, I thought it not amiſs to put in one or two things, which I had been meditating upon, and which I found not in others; not intending in the leaſt any Controverſie, but only to leave a word or two, as I paſſed by, fearing that Doctrine did ſpread in England; but before I had finiſhed, I heard of publick diſputes, I heard of one, and ſaw another Socinian book newly printed: I understood that they in Polonia ſent over ſome of their Scholars to learn our Language, and are lately returned: Now our Nation is like to be filled with theſe Books, and it will be the ſpreading Hereſie: I did ever fear it, and now that which I feared is come to paſs. The conſequence of this is terrible, for it overthrows our Chriſtian Religion, raſeth the very foundation: God told the Serpent, Gen. 3.15. The ſeed of the woman ſhall bruiſe thy head, and thou ſhalt bruiſe his heel. The Serpent is not content with bruiſing his heel, but now is endeavouring to put forth the utmoſt skill and power he hath to break his head: he hath taken the right method, if he can but null his Divinity, cut off that, and he cuts off his head.
What the thoughts of other Divines are about theſe Socinian Doctrines I know not: for my own part I never bleſſed God for help in any Controverſie as in this: for the Popiſh Controverſie, that is, for that part which is meerly Popiſh, wherein they ſtand alone by themſelves, I ever thought it to be ſtuffed with ſuch pitiful dunghill queſtions (as Doctor Whitaker called them) that they were not worthy for a rational learned man to ſpend his time and thoughts about them: What ſhould allure a man to embrace that Religion I could not tell, until I did read the Myſtery of Jeſuitiſme, then I ſaw there was ſomething to perſwade a man given up to his luſts, to give up himſelf to that Religion. I know there are Queſtions among them which deſerve the thoughts of the moſt able, learned Chriſtian, but in thoſe they do not ſtand alone: Others who renounce Popery in a ſtrict ſenſe, do yet embrace thoſe Doctrines, and have fetched their ſtrength from the Jeſuites School. But the Socinians are as high in thoſe points as any other. As this is not a place, ſo neither have I time or intention to meddle with that Controverſie, only two or three things I will ſay concerning it, knowing how ſome are troubled about it.
Firſt, It implies no contradiction, nor is contrary to any principle of right reaſon, that the infinite Creatour, and Soveraign Law-giver, in revealing his Mind and Will; ſhould give to his Creature Propoſitions, or Articles, to be aſſented to, barely upon his Authority revealing them, though his Creature is not able, by his created reaſon, to demonſtrate how theſe Propoſitions can be true.
I read indeed the Socinians affirming the contrary all of them in effect, and in particular Schlichtingius, Nothing can be believed, which cannot be apprehended and underſtood by reaſon, ſaith he: And again, It implies a contradiction, while he (that is, Meiſner, againſt whom he diſputes) affirms, it exceeds the reach of reaſon, and yet owns it for an Article of Faith: But I wiſh he had proved it, as he hath ſaid it. What Contradictions are, whether Topical or Axiomatical, I know; but how this ſhould imply a Contradiction (That I aſſent to this Propoſition of my infinite Creator, and Soveraign Law-giver, becauſe he hath ſpoken it, I believe it therefore, and receive it for an Article of my Faith, though my Reaſon is not able to graſp it, or demonſtrate how it is true) I cannot yet underſtand: I challenge all the Socinians Logick to make it good. That the Socinians can impoſe upon us Contradictions to be aſſented to, and thoſe groſs ones too, is well known; Chriſt is a Dependent God, a Made God; What is this but a Contradiction? A Dependent God is as true, as Corpus infinitum. God may give his Creature a Command to be obeyed, of which Command he gives no reaſon, nay, the Command appears contrary to reaſon, and yet his Creature is bound to obey that Command. God commands Abraham to offer his Son, Gen. 22.2. Whether it was his Intention, Decree, that Abraham ſhould offer his Son, was none of his duty to enquire into; a Reaſon for this Command he gives none; What reaſon Abraham could find out for this Command, I cannot tell. It appeared quite contrary to the light of natural Reaſon, and as contrary to the Promiſe of God made to Abraham as could be: Yet the Soveraign Authority of God was reaſon enough for Abraham to yield obedience to the Command. Audeciam eniſtimo de bono Divini praecepti diſputare; neque enim quia bonum eſt, idcirco auſecultare debemus, ſed quia Deus praecepit. Tertul. de Panitentia.If then the ſame Soveraign Authority gives me a Propoſition, or Article (call it what you will) to be aſſented to, believed, the Soveraign Authority of this Prima Veritas, to whom Truth is eſsential, who cannot lye, Tit. 1.2. is as ſufficient a ground for me to aſſent unto it, believe it, though I am not able to demonſtrate the truth of it by my reaſon: And I do aſſent to, and believe the truth of it, becauſe he ſpeaks it, as ſtrongly, as if I could make never ſo clear demonſtration of it; this is ſo far from implying a Contradiction, that it is a plain moral Contradiction, not to believe it. Muſt the Soveraign Law-giver reveal nothing for us to aſſent to, and believe, but what we can graſp with our reaſon? Hath he ſaid he will not? Our Reaſon ſaith, this is ſufficient reaſon, Thus ſaith the Lord: And our Reaſon thinks it very well becoming, that thrice dreadful Majeſty, our Soveraign Abſolute Lord, and Law-giver, who is truth, and cannot poſſibly lye, to give to his Creature Propoſitions to be believed barely upon his Authority.
Yet a little further, That which is Supra Captum Rationis, what exceeds their reaſon, that it cannot reach and comprehend, this they will not believe, nor receive for an Article of Faith: upon this ground eight or nine of the chief Articles of our Faith are rejected by theſe Miniſters of Reaſon. Hence Socinus ſaith, Although the Scripture it ſelf ſhould ſpeak any thing that fights with, or oppoſeth Reaſon, (their Reaſon it muſt be) it muſt not be believed, that the Scripture intends, or means as it ſpeaketh, but there is ſome other hidden ſenſe in that Scripture; (though Socinus ſpeaks more broadly, Etiamſi Scriptura dicat, tamen non eſſe credendum quod cum ratione pugnat.) Hence come thoſe torturings of the Scripture, thoſe corrupt and vile gloſſes which they put upon plain Texts, while they tell us the hidden ſenſe that lyes in thoſe Scriptures, which do plainly oppoſe their corrupt Doctrines. That any thing in the Scripture is contrary to, or fights with ſound Reaſon, we deny: No more of that now.
But to return to Schlichtingius with his followers. I ever thought, and I am ſure it is true, that Chriſtian, or Divine Faith, Nititur Teſtimonio Divino qua eſt Divinum, I mean that Chriſtian Faith, Quae locum habet in intellectu; it leans, ſtayes, reſts and grounds upon Divine Teſtimony. So that Divine Faith relates to Divine Teſtimony, it looks no further; when I aſſent to, or believe a Propoſition, a Teſtimony of God, becauſe I ſee a Reaſon, if you will have any other Reaſon than the Authority and Veracity of God, Faith ceaſeth: Did I not believe God to be truth it ſelf, ſo true as impoſſible he ſhould lye, I would not believe the Teſtimony of God, barely becauſe he ſpeaketh it. But theſe men destroy all Faith, they will believe no further than they can ſee with the eye of their reaſon, and demonſtrate the truth by their reaſon; but this is not Faith. Divine Faith doth not lean, reſt, or ſtay upon my Reaſon, but barely upon the Teſtimony of God. The aſſent which the underſtanding giveth to any Truth, for the Authority of the witneſs, or him that ſpeaketh, this *I ſay properly, becauſe ſometimes to believe is taken largely any way to aſſent to a thing to be true; as we ſay, I will believe my eyes.properly is Faith. If I give aſſent upon other grounds, it is not Faith. It may be perceptio, experientia, vel ſcientia, vel opinio, according as are the grounds or reaſons of my aſſent, but not Faith. Theſe Rationiſts know that Teſtimonium is Argumentum inartificiale; hence they call for artificial Arguments, they muſt ſee things in Artificio rerum, elſe they will not receive them. But with their favour, we look upon the Almighty, to be ſo faithful and true a Witneſs, that, Omnia Teſtimonia Divina ſunt foreign, imo foreign, omnique artificiali argumento certiora, omnique exceptione majora: So that to me this great Rationiſt ſpeaks but abſurdly: If a Divine Propoſition be not above the reach of his reaſon, but his reaſon can comprehend it, then he will believe it, and receive it for an Article of his Faith, otherwiſe he will not. For now it is not the Teſtimony of God which he believes, and his Authority and Veracity for which he believes, but the ſtrength of his own reaſon is the cauſe why be aſſents to ſuch a Propoſition, and receives it not as an Article of Divine Faith, but an Article of Socinians Reaſon. Whence the Socinians muſt either expunge that Topick of Argumentum inartificiale, which Reaſon will not ſuffer, or confound artificial and inartificial Arguments, making the Membra diviſionis, which ought to be contraria at leaſt, to be the ſame, which is good Logick; for Argumen tum is diſtributed into artificiale and inartificiale. Not that we wholly deny the uſe of Reaſon in the Divine Myſteries; we will allow Reaſon a judicium Diſcretivum, but not judicium Dociſivum, this we give wholly to the Scriptures. Scriptura judicat de veritate ſententiarum Theologicarum. Ratio judicat de veritate connexionum, regulae conſequentiarum pertinent ad rationem: But the Socinians make humane Reaſon the Judge of all Theological Controverſies, to conclude this Head. If then God in the holy Scriptures reveals and teacheth me, that the Divine Eſſence is ſingular, or but one; yet reveals again that this Divine Eſſence is predicated of three Suppoſitae, or diſtinct Subſiſtences, Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. How can this be, ſaith humane Reaſon, I cannot reach it, this is ſupra captum Rationis meae, what then? Muſt I not therefore believe it, when God reveals it, becauſe I cannot demonstrate the Truth by my Reaſon? Let God be true, and humane Reaſon a Lyar. Eſſentia Divina licet ſit ſingularis, refert tamen naturam univerſalis in eo quod ſicut univerſale de pluribus praedicatur, ſic Eſſentia Divina de pluribus diſtinctis ſuppoſitis aut perſonis contra ingenium aliorum ſingularium, & tamen manet ſingularis: quia eſt de natura univerſalis, ut in iis de quibus praedicatur natura ejus multiplicetur; ut natura humana multiplicatur in Petro & Paulo, &c. That the holy Scriptures are clear in aſſerting the Divinity as well as the Humanity of Chriſt, the Diſciples of Mahomet *Vide Hornbeck Sum. contro. p. 131.will acknowledge, if we own Paul's Epiſtles to be Canonical; therefore in their Diſputations with us Chriſtians, upon that Point, about the Divinity of Chriſt, they decline the Authority of Paul's Epiſtles, and ſay, they were adulterated by the Chriſtians: this is very ſtrange, that Mahumetans can ſee this, and the Socinians, that own theſe Epiſtles, and dare not ſay they are adulterated, yet cannot read this. It is ſomething, that we have theſe Mahumetans determining for us, that thoſe who own thoſe Epiſtles to be authentick, muſt own Chriſt to be God.
Secondly, There is no Article of our Chriſtian Faith, which the Socinians oppoſe, that is ſeemingly ſo contrary to reaſon, as is the meaſuring of an Infinite Eſſence by Finite Maximes.
1. We deny that any Article of Faith which we maintain is contrary to ſound Reaſon, though it be above Reaſon; therefore I put in the word ſeemingly contrary. Let that which meaſures be able to contain the thing meaſured: And is not this the Logick of the Socinians? How do they judge of the Articles of our Faith, how do they meaſure them, the unity of the Eſſence in the Trinity of the Perſons, the union of the Divine and Humane Nature in one Perſon, but by theſe Maximes, by which they meaſure a finite Eſſence. In a finite Eſſence it is impoſſible that one ſingular Eſſence ſhould ſubſiſt in three diſtinct Perſons, therefore it is impoſſible it ſhould be ſo in the Infinite Eſſence. To have two diſtinct Natures unite in one Perſon, this cannot be; Therefore it cannot be in the ſecond Perſon of the Trinity: (Yet the Miſleto and the Apple-tree are united together, and are diſtinct.) The ſum of their Logick is this, what cannot be found in a Finite Being, muſt be denied in the Infinite Eſſence. foreign, we account a great piece of Sophistry in diſputing. Certainly a moſt groſs abſurdity to take Maxims fitted for finite Creatures, and limit the Infinite Being unto them, when as Infinite and Finite differ toto Coelo. What uſe theſe Maxims may be of, laying down firſt the Scripture for my Major, to which I aſſent, upon the Authority of God revealing, I have touched in my former Head, but cannot now inſiſt upon it.
Thirdly, To give Divine or Religious worſhip to a Creature, is not only above Reaſon, but is contrary to, and repugnant againſt ſound Reaſon.
But this is the Socinians practiſe; Chriſt is but a Creature, a meer man, yet to Chriſt do they give Religious worſhip, in ſo much that Socinus will not own him to be a Chriſtian, who will not worſhip Chriſt with Divine or Religious worſhip. Let the Socinians name one Article of our Faith that is ſo contrary to reaſon as this. I argue upon the Socinian Principle, which is, that all Articles of Faith, all the Propoſitions in the Scripture muſt be brought to the Bar of our Reaſon, yea, Socinians Reaſon, and there they muſt receive their ſentence, whether they be true or falſe, whether they are to be rejected or received. Hence the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Eternal generation of the Son, the Perſonality of the Holy Ghoſt, the perſonal union of the two Natures in Chriſt, the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, Imputed Righteouſneſs, the corruption of our Reaſon and Will after the Fall, the Reſurrection of our Bodies, the ſame bodies which we lay down, theſe among others receive their ſentence of condemnation at this Bar, yea, though the Judge, Reaſon, be dim ſighted, corrupted, yet ſo it muſt be, Why? Becauſe all theſe do not agree with Reaſon, therefore they are all condemned. If Reaſon then muſt judge all, let us try this at the Bar of Reaſon. I will only uſe one Argument that Chriſtianus Francken uſed againſt Socinus, being one of the ſame Opinion with Socinus, as to the Divinity of Chriſt, and therefore looking upon him as Man only, would not have Religious worſhip given to him, which Socinus did. Several Arguments he hath, to which Socinus gives miſerable anſwers; and truly we may ſit ſtill, till we ſee how Socinus and his party can clear themſelves from being Idolaters, which Chriſtianus Francken, Francis David, with their party (who deny Chriſts Divinity alſo) do prove Socinus and his followers to be for worſhipping Chriſt with Religious worſhip, whom they deny to be God, and but a meer Creature. His Argument is this. How great is the diſtance between a Creator and Creature, ſo great ought to be the difference between the honour which is given to the Creator and the Creature. But between the Creator and the Creature is the greateſt (infinite) diſtance, whether you reſpect the Nature and Eſſence, or the Dignity and Excellency. Therefore, there ought to be the greateſt difference between the honour of God and the Creature. But the honour which is chiefly due to God is Religious Adoration. Therefore this is not to be given to a Creature: Therefore not to Chriſt, whom you confeſs to be a pure Creature. This was his Argument, and now let Reaſon judge. I urged this Argument, of giving Religious worſhip to a Creature, againſt a Socinian. The anſwer he gave me was this, If it were the Pleaſure of God to have it ſo (as it was) then it ought to be ſo, and it was righteous and good it ſhould be ſo.
To which Anſwer of his I reply: This Pleaſure of God leads us to another Queſtion, An beneplacitum Dei ſit prima regula Juſticiae; which ſome affirm, others deny. The Socinian by this Anſwer did affirm it implicitely, making this to be a duty and righteous act, to give Divine worſhip to a Creature, becauſe it was the good pleaſure of God to have it ſo; invincible Arguments to prove that Theſſs, would have been acceptable.
Secondly, What ſhall become of the Socinian Principle? Now you, Judge, Reaſon, may ſit alone upon the Bench, we ſhall carry away all the Court to another Tribunal, the good Pleaſure of God; and to this we are willing to go.
Thirdly, This good pleaſure of his muſt be known by the holy Scriptures, in which he hath revealed his pleaſure as to our duty. But then I will ſay with your Maſter Socinus, If the Scripture doth ſay ſo, it muſt not be believed, becauſe it is contrary to reaſon; therefore there is ſome other hidden ſenſe in that Scripture which muſt be ſearched out, this is fair dealing, I do but meaſure to Socinus in his own buſhel, for I am ſure here is a Principle contrary to Reaſon, and ſound Reaſon.
Fourthly, I utterly deny it, that ever it was the pleaſure of God, that religious worſhip ſhould be given to any meer Creature. Take Christs word for that, Matth. 4.10. It is written (there is an old Law for this, God hath manifeſted his pleaſure as to this point) Deut. 6.13. and 10.20. Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him only ſhalt thou ſerve. Crellius makes great uſe of this excluſive Particle only, in John 17.3. which he puts in the front of all his Texts against the Divinity of Chriſt, becauſe he ſaid in his Prayer, This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God: Crellius putting the ſtreſs upon the word only, proves that Christ excludes himſelf from being the true God. By the ſame word, and as good reaſon, ſay I, doth Chriſt exclude himſelf from being the Object of religious worſhip: Let the Socinians ſay what they can, I know what diſtinctions Socinus uſeth to help himſelf here; but whence had he them? Out of the Turkiſh Alcoran, not out of the holy Scriptures I am ſure, they are wholly ſilent as to any ſuch Notions; ſo that thence he muſt have them, or they are the putrid Figments of his corrupt brain: But let Francken alone with him, I will not multiply more Texts being now I am in an Epistle to the Reader. Only one Text more which Francken urgeth againſt Socinus, Iſai. 42.8. My glory I will not give to another. So Iſai. 48.11. here God declares it plainly, that it is not his pleaſure to give away the glory due to him unto any other, he is peremptory against it. Francken urgeth the Text tus, Religious worſhip is the glory of God, and God ſaith he will not give his glory to another: Therefore he hath not given it to Chriſt if he be not God. Socinus may ſcratch his head, but ſhall never be able to anſwer it. But one word more concerning this Text, I think it will afford ſome thing againſt Socinus and Francken too, denying the Divinity of Chriſt; foreignthe words are, I am Jehovah, that is my Name, and my glory will I not give to another: What glory is here eſpecially meant? That which he had mentioned juſt before, Gloria Jehovitatis meae, as Calonius phraſeth it; the glory of my Deity, that name Jehovah, which is proper to me, this glory I will not give to another. So Chap. 83.18. That men may know that thou whoſe Name alone is Jehovah, art the moſt high, &c. Jehovah then is Gods Name, and his alone, and he that bears this Name is the Moſt high over all the Earth. This glory he will not give to another. But this Name Jehovah, is given to Chriſt in the holy Scriptures, as Calonius in his learned Tract, Theolog. Nat. & Rovel. p. 218, &c.De Nomine Dei Tetragrammato, hath ſhewn and defended them againſt all the windings of that ſubtle Serpent in Crellius and his Companions; but were not Christ of the ſame Eſſence, he ſhould not bear the glory of that Name Jehovah.
Fifthly and lastly, I anſwer, It is very true, the holy Scriptures do clearly manifeſt, that Divine worſhip is due unto Chriſt, and it muſt be given to him; both natural and inſtituted worſhip, we ſhall find given to him.
But firſt, That this depends upon the meer pleaſure of God I deny; as if God might have otherwayes diſpoſed it, that no religious worſhip ſhould be due to him, unleſs that Theſis I mentioned before be true, That the good pleaſure of God is the firſt Rule of all Righteouſneſs, which ſome do maintain, and from hence argue, that if the Lord had ſo pleaſed, there ſhould have been no worſhip due to himſelf from his Creature; the Creature ſhould not have needed to love God above all, to fear him, truſt in him, or ſerve him any way; pray unto him, &c. only it was his good pleaſure to have it ſo; but this makes all the worſhip due to the Father depend upon his meer pleaſure, and doth not hurt our Canſe at all: whether that Theſis be true or no, doth not now concern me.
Secondly, I anſwer: Religious worſhip is not given to him as a Creature, but as he is a Creator, (God over all bleſſed for ever) for which there are Texts plain enough, would but the Socinians hold to the Rules which they ſeem to approve of, viz. Non eſſe recurrendum ad Figuras, donec abſurditas Sermonis proprie ita ut ſonat intellecti monſtretur. If Schmalzius would but hold to what he ſayes. Ludum & jocum e Scripturis facere pronunciat, qui abſque neceſſitate a foreign diſcedunt: Would but the Socinians hold to theſe Rules, we ſhall find Chriſt to be a Creator, not of the new Creature only, but of the Creature; the Scripture cannot ſpeak plainer than it doth as to this Point: Coloſ. 1.16. confutes that Socinian corrupt gloſs which they put upon thoſe Texts, which declare that all things were created or made by Christ, for the Angels, I hope, had no need of any new Creation: Now if the holy Scriptures muſt be believed, when they tell us Religious worſhip muſt be given to Chriſt, who is but a Creature (as ſay the Socinians) though this be contrary to ſound Reaſon (yea, and as contrary to the holy Scriptures, which will call this Idolatry.) Then I hope the ſame Scriptures may as well be believed, when they tell us of one ſingular Divine Eſſence ſubſiſting in three Perſons, and of the Humane and Divine Nature united in one Perſon, which things are above, but not contrary to Reaſon. Our Reaſon at the beſt before our fall being but finite, but ſince our fall corrupt and dim. For my part I cannot ſee how this practiſe of the socinians can ſtand, but were. I of their opinion, I muſt go over to Franciſcus David, and Chriſtianus Francken, and ſo I believe will our Engliſh Socinians ere long, upon ſeveral grounds which move me to think ſo, but this among the reſt perſwades me, becauſe they are fallen off from ſome part of his worſhip already, as I learn by the Socinians with whom I had diſcourſe. For the Saoraments it is true, the Socinians differ from others as to the uſe and end of them: And they do differ among themſelves about Baptiſm; Socinus did not judge it to be a perpetual Ordinance, yet others of the Socinians do uſe it. And in Tranſylvania, as Calo. Sociniſ. profliga. p. 851.nius tells us, the Socinians do baptize with water, and that, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, and that ſo it was decreed, in a Socinian, Synod, hold Anno 1636. But as to the Lords Supper, I cannot ſee but they all agree in that; and Socinus acknowledges it to be, Sacramentum perpetuum & Univerſale. Now being this was the judgment of all of them, for ought I ſee, as to the uſe of it, however they are erroneous as to the end of it, I asked him what was the reaſon they did not adminiſter that Ordinance: He anſwered: Though Socinus was of that Judgment, yet they would follow Socinus no further than they ſaw cauſe; But for the Sacraments, let thoſe who feel the need of them make uſe of them. To wit, ſuch a God as they make Christ, ſuch Subjects they are to him. I thought the Inſtitution and Command of Chriſt, with the worſhip and honour which is given to Chriſt, had been grounds ſufficient to command our obedience, if we were attained to ſuch a height of what I cannot tell, for Grace I muſt not call it, that we felt no need of his Inſtitutions: but it ſeems his. Inſtitution, Command, and worſhip in this particular are little with them, if they feel any need they may uſe them. Obedience good enough for a Dependent God. Now if men can thus diſpenſe already with one part of his worſhip and throw it by, I doubt not but upon the ſame principle they may caſt off the other part of his worſhip; and the Reaſons urged by Francken and others of that party are ſo ſtrong, that they will at laſt prevail with Engliſh unſound Chriſtians, whom God for the abuſe of his Goſpel will (I fear) give up to their own Reaſon; and ſince Reaſon they will have, Reaſon they ſhall have: When the Religious worſhip of Chriſt is caſt off, then the Turks will be every way as good Chriſtians as theſe Socinians, for they ſpeak honourably of Chriſt, and acknowledge him to be a great Prophet.
Bradwardin was a man ſound in the Doctrine of the Trinity, De Cauſo Dei P. 29.and the union of the two Natures in the Perſon of Chriſt, and in other Articles of our Faith: And thus he ſpeaks concerning theſe Articles, Scio Philoſophe, & confidenter me ſcire affirmo, quod non eſt Articulus aliquis magnus vel parvus, de ſubſtantia fidei Chriſtianae, quam Deus non prius multis temporibus ante Fidei hujus exordium per Prophetas ſolennes, velut per quoſdam praenuntios revelavit, &c. non enim eſt Articulus Fidei Chriſtianae, qui etiam Philoſopho judice non corrupto, non ſophiſtico, non protervo: ſed indifferente ſolido, ſobrio, & veritatis amico, efficaciter poſſit fundari in veteri Teſtamento, in veteribus Prophetiis, ſicut & conſtat antiquitus veraciter contigiſſe. What kind of Philoſophers the Socinians are in Bradwardin's account, we may eaſily judge. Afterwards *p. 59.he frames this Argument.
Whatever God hath revealed and atteſted, that is true.
But God hath revealed and atteſted the Chriſtian Faith.
Therefore, The Chriſtian Faith is true.
(The Chriſtian Faith that Bradwardin means, is that which the Socinians do oppoſe) then he anſwers to that, which ſome wanton cavilling Wits might object, that he had not demonſtrated that God hath revealed this Faith; the anſwer is too long to tranſcribe.
The Socinians I ſee are very angry with Athanaſius, and look on him as if he were the firſt Inventer of theſe Articles of the Trinity, and of the Divine and Humane Nature united in the Perſon of Chriſt; making the world believe (if they could) that none of the ancient Writers before him were of their Opinions: As appears by Mr. Biddle's Quotations out of thoſe Authors, whom he labours (by the gloſs he caſt upon them) to make them ſpeak his Doctrines, againſt the Divinity of Chriſt, and the Trinity. Thus the Socinian Pamphlet, lately printed and publiſhed by William Pen, tells the Reader, as I obſerved the little time I had it in my hand. I ſuppoſe that Author took it out of Mr. Biddle. I ſhall briefty give the Reader what I find in thoſe Authors which I have, but not tranſcribe all that I find to this purpoſe.
For Clemens Romanus, in his Epiſtle to the Corinthians, I find not much, the occaſion of that Epistle did not lead him to ſpeak of the Verſon of Chriſt, he contents himſelf with the phraſe of the Apostle, calling Chriſt as the Apostle, Heb. 1.3. foreign. p. 47.The brightneſs of his (that is Gods, of whom he ſpake before) magnificence, being ſo much greater than the Angels, as he hath obtained a more excellent Name: The Angels are miniſtring Spirits, but to the Son he ſaith, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, ſet thou at my right hand, &c. I think he intends his Divinity, in his ſecond Epiſtle, of which only we have a Fragment: beginning his Epiſtle, foreign. And after, pag. 6. ſpeaking of Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour, ſaith of him, foreign. How far thoſe words are from Chriſts ſatisfaction in his firſt Epistle, the Reader may judge: p. 64.He gave his blood for us, and his fleſh for our fleſh, and his Soul for our Soul. And for our Justification, (which concerns the Socinian Doctrine alſo) We who are called in Chriſt Jeſus, p. 41are juſtified not by our wiſdom, underſtanding, piety, or works which we have wrought in purity and holineſs of heart, but by Faith, by which the Almighty God hath juſtified all from the beginning.
The next are the Epiſtles which go under the name of Ignatius. In his Epiſtle ad Epheſios, ad Magneſianos, ad Trallianos, ad Romanos, ad Philadelphenos; in all theſe Epiſtles I read Ignatius aſſerting Christ to be God man, and giving warning to the Churches to take heed of thoſe, who ſaid he was but meer man. I will only write one Sentence out of this laſt Epistle. If any one ſay, there is one God, and doth confeſs Jeſus Chriſt, but thinks the Lord to be foreign, a meer man, and not the only begotten God, the Wiſdom and word of God, (what Word, he tells us in his Epiſt. ad Magneſianos, foreign, &c.) but thinks he conſiſts only of Body and Soul, this is a Serpent and Seducer, preaching an error for the perdition of men, &c.
Juſtin Martyr, Apolog. 2. aſſerts the Divinity of Chriſt; and in his Dialogue with Trypho he often aſſerts it, in ſo much that Trypho tells him, That Chriſt ſhould be God before the world began, and after to be born, though not as other men, ſeemed to him not only a Paradox, but fooliſh: foreign. Ʋnto whom Juſtin Martyr anſwers, page 267.
Irenaeus, Adv. Haereſ. l. 2. cap. 43.comparing man with the Son of God, ſaith to man, Thou, O man, art not one that is not made, neither didſt thou alwayes coexiſt with God, as did his proper or own Word. And in the third book, cap, 8. thus he writes, Never did any Prophets, or Apoſtles, call any other God, or Lord, beſides the true and only God. To the ſame purpoſe he ſpeaks in the ninth Chapter, and there Fevardentius in his Animadverſions upon the Chapter, hath out of ſeveral places of Iraeneus ſhewn how oppoſite he was to this Doctrine of Mr. Biddle and the Socinians, that he declares himſelf as erroneous in his quoting of Authors, as he is in his Opinion.
Clemens Alexandrinus ſpeaking of Chriſt the Word, Admon. ad Gentes p. 11.ſaith, He the Word appeared to men, foreign, Peddagog. l. 1. p. 113.He only is both God and man: In another place ſpeaking of God and the Word, foreign, They are both One, Strom. l. 7. p. 702, 703.that is to ſay, God. But in another place he inſiſteth largely upon this, ſhewing the Divinity, as well as the Humanity of Chriſt.
Origen againſt Celſus, l. 1. Celſus, ſaith Origen, thinks there is no other Divinity in the Humane Body which Chriſt carried about, than in Homer's Fictitious Fables; we affirm he doth conſiſt of the Humane together with the Divine Nature. In another Book against Celſus: l. 2.In that we do ſharply accuſe the Jews, that they did not believe their own Prophets, who in many places did teſtifie that he is God, God and Father of all. Several other places I have noted in Origen.
Tertullian, De Carne Chriſti, acknowledgeth Chriſt hath two Subſtances. And again in the ſame Book againſt Marcion, he aſſerts the Divine and Humane Nature of Chriſt. In his Book concerning the Trinity, and his Book against Praxeas, he clearly holds forth, that Chriſt was God and man.
Cyprian thus, Jeſus Chriſt God, and our Lord; De bono Potientis.though the Son of God did not deſpiſe to take the fleſh of man: Though immortal, ſuffered himſelf to be made mortal. In his ſecond Book againſt the Jews, he brings ſeveral Scriptures to prove Chriſt to be God and man.
Arnobius, Contra Gentes, I have obſerved in five places maintaining the ſame Doctrine of the Divinity and Humanity of Chriſt: His eighth Book I do not reckon, becauſe it is ſuppoſed not to be his.
Lactantius, in many Chapters of his fourth Took. De Vera Sapientia, doth manifeſt his faith plain enough, that Chriſt is both God and man.
Theſe Authors I have, who all lived before Athanaſius, if they ſay, that Chriſt was inferiour to his Father, or was ſubject to him, did receive from him, &c. Who deny this? And doth not the Soripture ſay the ſame, conſidering the Humane Nature of Chriſt, the Offices he undertook, the state of a Servant which he underwent; we ean eaſily tell how to underſtand theſe things, and yet believe he was true God, as the Scriptures have declared, and theſe Ancient Writers have believed. Theſe things conſidered make me believe the Truth of what Athanaſius reports, Contra Arian. diſput. 1.That in the Council of Nice all the Biſhops, as many as were there preſent, when they heard Arrius Doctrine concerning Chriſt, they ſtopped their ears, and all of them with a common ſuffrage condemned that Hereſie, and Anathematized it, ſaying it was ſtrange to, and diverſe from the Faith of the Church. So it appears by the Quotations I have given out of the Ancient Writers from the Apoſtles dayes, whence Athanaſius, and that Council were not the firſt that broached the Doctrine which we maintain as Orthodox; but they maintained the ſame Doctrine which the Prophets and Apoſtles (as Bradwardin offers to juſtifie) had taught.
But I have done with this; hoping that God will stir up thoſe to whom he hath given abilities, and have time for ſtudies, to appear againſt theſe Doctrines, ſo deſtructive to the Chriſtian Religion, and tending ſo much to the perdition of mens Souls.
As to this Treatiſe, I know it is that Subject upon which ſeveral men of better heads and hearts than mine have already written: But that which is the main thing in it, and without which I had no thoughts of ever ſetting Pen to paper, I have not met with any man that hath ſpoken to it; yet the conſequence is ſo great, that the ſoundneſs or unſoundneſs of our Converſion depends upon it: Whether that which I have written be fatisfactory to the judicious Reader, I muſt leave it, being willing to be taught if I have erred.
If the Reader be offended at the language, being ſo plain, I ſhall not be much troubled at that, it hath been ever my unhappineſs, to prefer an Apodictick Syllogiſme, before a Jingling Paranomaſie; my buſineſs is with thoſe who are troubled about their Spiritual ſtate whether it be ſound or falſe; and Silken language ſutes not thoſe who are cloathed in Sackcloth. I am much encouraged as to this Point, by the ſtile in which the Holy Spirit guided his Servants to write, alſo by obſerving whom they were that God hath made the greateſt uſe of in his Church as to bringing home Souls to Chriſt; neither Mr. Richard, nor Mr. John Rogers were John Chryſoſtom; yet God honoured none more in theſe parts of England with Converſion of Souls than theſe men: Gallant language never did Gods work that I have obſerved: what is it indeed, as to a mans Judgment or Conſcience? I write as I love to read; when I read Divinity Books, I look for Divinity and ſolid Reaſon not for Language; that man to whom ſound Divinity will not be acceptable, unleſs it be cloathed with embroidered language, had beſt make ſure that his heart be ſound; theſe are not the Readers for whom I intend my Diſcourſe, being ſuch, I believe, as never were acquainted with the works, or troubled with thoſe temptations of which it treats. Some Quotations there are out of Latine Authors, which I have not tranſlated into Engliſh, ſuppoſing they would not be underſtood by moſt, though they were tranſlated. If God ſhall pleaſe to make my labours helpful to thy ſpiritual eſtate, let God have the praiſe, and let him have thy Prayers, who is,
One of the meaneſt of Chriſts Servants, GILES FIRMIN.
ERRATA.
By reaſon of the Authors remote diſtance from the Preſs, many faults have eſcaped, which the moſt material are here taken notice of, and the Courteous Reader is deſired to correct them, as any other here not ſpecified.
INtroduction Page 1. line 12. read them: p. 2. l. 1. r. allude. Treatiſe Page 2 line 29. read praeparationibus: p. 5. l. 10. dele all: p. 9. margent r. foreign foreign: p. 13. l. 15. r. ſignal: p. 16. l. 5. r. to: p. 18. l 7. r. Mechanicks: p. 19. l. 4. r. make: p. 23. l. 11. dele firſt: p. 27. l. 11 dele his: p. 30. l. 28. r. ſo: p. 30 l. 31. r. Sculls: p. 31, l. 10. r. as: p. 32. l. 25. r. only: p. 34. l. 13. r Joh. 16. p. 45 l. 8. r. Parſon: p. 58. l 33. r. his: p 91. l. 25. r. extrinſece: p. 98. l. 27. r. foreign: p. 99. l. 28 r. as: p. 100. l. 24. r. own: p. 108. l. 23. r. it. p. 109. l. 9. r. it: p. 115. l. 4. r. ſtick: p. 116. l. 9. dele it: p. 133. l. 19. r. volitum: p. 142. l. 10. dele after: p. 156. l. 27. dele laid: l. 28. r. Egyptians were: p. 158 l. 21. r. King: I ult r. attribute: p. 162 marg. r. ignorance: p. 162: l 36. dele not do: p. 166. l. 26 r declaring aſſent: p. 177. l. 20. dele wretched, p. 178 marg. r. ſuavitas: p 198. l. 16, 17, &c. concurſe: p. 199. l. 3 r. me: p. 226. l. ult. r. edification: p. 228. l. 14. r. latitudinarians: p. 235. l. 4. r. roll: p. 240. l. 27. r. ſave: p. 251. l. 10. r. is: p. 252. l. 11. r. ſhe: 256. l. 11. r. roll, and ſo often p. 282. p. 274. l. 31. r. to: p. 289. l. 35. r. election.