and that is a very plain one and one would imagine beyond exception 'T is St. Stephen praying in these words Lord Jesus receive my Spirit Act. 7. 59. but behold the fineness of Fr. Davids Invention saith he 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be either the Genetive or the Vocative Case according to the usual art of Socinian reasoning it must be taken in that sence that will best serve a Turn tho' never so alien or contrary to the true interpretation and the Reason of the Context he must have it Lord of Jesus or else it will prove either that 't is Lawful to Worship our Saviour and to pray unto him or this first Martyr died with Idolatry in his mouth But this Criticism is not so fine as 't is forced and absurd The Learned observe that if Jesus had been the Genitive Case the Article would have been added 't would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We find the same words Rev. 22. 20. and there they cannot bear the sence of the Genitive and must be understood in the Vocative Case But besides the ilness of the Grammer the harshness of the Sence and the Novelty of this rare discovery two or three things might abate the Authors confident boasting of this Invention The Syriac is beyond the reach of it Domine Noster Jesu Some Copies have it plainer yet and Read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord Christ And their admired Grotius's gloss is utterly inconsistent with it Invocantem nempe Jesum Christum But why should I trouble my Reader any farther about this Ridiculous shift of David which you may find was long since exposed and baffled by Socinus himself in a very strenuous confutation of it which its Author David had never courage or skill enough to encounter again that I can find Now my Brethren consider 't is eternal Reason that Reliously to Worship any Creature is Idolatry but we have found it the common practice of the best men in Scripture thus Religiously to Worship our Saviour Christ it seems to follow clearly that either these Holy Men so doing were Idolaters or our Saviour Christ is more then a meer Creature that is he is the True God I know you will deny the First I heartily wish you would confess the Second it would be so far well betwixt us However you do not undertake to defend the part of Socinus from Idolatry more haynous then that of the Papists which I hope I have demonstrated sufficiently before CHAP. II. The Socinians Antiscripturist as truly as if not more then the Papists HAving ended our First Parrable betwixt the Socinian and Papist with respect to the Term of Worship we come next to compare them with respect to their Rule of Faith the Canonical Books of the Holy Scriptures Herein also they both concur viz. In their endeavours to undermine their Authority And when they think they have occasion so to do they lay this Rule aside and set up another of their own in the stead of it That the Papists do so the Socinians readily grant and that the Socians do like the Papists and exceed them therein is as easily demonstrated SECT I. The Papists vilifies the Holy Scripture 1. FOR the Papists the World is sensible enough how vilely they deal with this Rule of the Holy Scriptures and make them indeed as they sometimes call them A Nose of Wax and a Leaden Rule They take upon them to sence them as they please and use them only as Tools to serve a turn and little otherwise Sometimes they will admit nothing but the bare Words without any reasonable Construction of them when they would advance their Transubstantiation At other times when the proper and Litteral Sence is against them O then the Scripture is a Killing a Dead Letter and must receive its Life and Sense from their Churches Interpretation how wild and absurd soever it be to serve their Hypothesis Thus when they have disparaged sleighted and set aside the True Rule 't is no wonder they introduce and obtrude another Rule of their own devising which they do not only make equal with it but prefer before it I mean their Oral Tradition and the Authority of the Roman Church Yea when they seem to allow the Holy Scriptures any Authority they at the same time rob them of it by transfering that Authority to themselves their own Sence and Sentiments tho' diverse from and even contrary to the Letter or plain and obvious meaning of the Written Word SECT II. The Socinians vilifie the Scripture more then Papists WHile I have been speaking of the Papist I have given you but an imperfect draught and Character of a Socinian in this point Verily the Papist seems to be the honester of the two His is an open and down-right attacking and villifying those Holy Books while the Socinian doth it in disguise and wounds it deeper lies in its Bosom and stabbs it to the Heart and with splended Colours of Honouring and Arguments proving its Divine Original and Authority makes it utter Non-sense bad sense or any sence that their cause requires Now seeing these men in other things are Masters of a great deal of Reason it may be worth a Question whether their Writing so much for the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures be from a real Opinion of the Truth of it or only in pretence to serve their own purpose and varnish their designs For how is it possible if their Opinion of it were Real they should use it so slightly and after so trifling a manner as 't is pitty to see they do With how much gravity and solemn circumstances do they make the Word of God Felo de se not so much by opposing as by Apposing one part to another and by the idlest Phansies or an odd kind of skill peculiar to themselves make a weaker text take off the life and sense of a Stronger and by a likeness or sameness or neerness of expression when there is no other reason in the World for it to enervate the strength of the best Arguments it affords for the God-head of Christ and the Sacred Trinity To make this out beyond exception give me leave only to mention some Instances of it The mention only is shame and reproach enough one would think as well as confutation in the sense of an Indifferent or modest Man 1. When we prove Three Persons and each of them God from the great Commission for Propagating the Christian Church by Baptising in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost They gravely answer and would have us take it for a full Answer That 't is said the Israelites were Baptized into Moses and in the Cloud and that they believed in God and his Servant Moses 2. When we urge John 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word they reply that it must signifie the Beginning of the Gospel or New Creation And their
proof is because we read from the Beginning in that latter sence Luk. 1. 2. and 1 John 1. 1. 3. When to prove our Saviour's Incarnation we use the Apostles words Joh. 1. The Word was made Flesh they say we must not understand by Flesh there the Humane Nature but a State of Infirmity because in that sence the word Flesh is somewhere else to be understood 4. Where our Saviour tells us John 18. 28. That he and his Father are one They say that is they are one only in Will and Consent forsooth because our Saviour Prays Joh. 17. that his Disciples may be one as he and his Father are one i. e. Not in Nature but in mind and heart and this must be all the meaning of our Saviour in the place we have mentioned notwithstanding the obvious evidence of the Text to the contrary viz. That he and his Father are one in Power and consequently in Nature This is not only the general Sence of the Fathers that weighs little with Socinians but also of their admired Grotius and Erasmus whom they claim for their own Si pereant meâ infirmitate Patris potestas mea potestas my Fathers Power is my Power Grot. in Loc. Potentior est ad servandum Eras in Loc. 5. So our Lord Christ must be a God by Office only and not by Nature Why Because they find Kings and Magistrates are called Gods 6. When we read Col. 1. 16. That by Christ were Created all things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth whether visible and invisible whether they be Thornes c. all things were created by him and for him They restrain all this to the Second Creation or Reformation of Mankind and those great words signifies onely Men and Orders of Men on Earth Confounding Heaven and Earth visible and invisible denying any thing that looks against them and not sticking to say any thing that their Hypothesis seems to need 7. The Name Emmanuel with so much solemnity given by an Angel from Heaven to Christ doth not signifie the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in him because others might have been called so before as since some have as Eniedine gravely instanceth in Emmanuel Tremelius These things are childish and Rediculous and deserve a severe Reflection not any serious confutation SECT III. Socinian Chriticisms in Articles THus the Socinians bandy the Scriptures one against another and 't is hard to think that they believe themselves to be in earnest while they are found Ludere cara sacris and impose such childrens play tho' never so solemnly upon the World especially if we consider their School-boys Criticisms and that with a little Point or a small Article they would weaken and destroy the Arguments of the greatest and strongest Texts in the Word of God against them wherein indeed the Arians lead them the way They are both of them confident that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Father 1 Articles or the Supream God in Scripture it hath its Article always before it but when the Son is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is without an Article prefix'd to it A mighty fine observation this sufficient doubtless to evacuate one of the clearest and strongest Arguments for our Lords Divinity to distinguish the Natures of the Father and Son and to put a final end to this great Controversie tho' it hath no foundation in Reason or Grammer much less in the Holy Scripture as confident as they are Indeed they truly observe that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Joh. 1. 15. signified God the Father and the Article is prefixed But doth it follow that 't is always so within the compass of two or three verses afterwards they may see their Observation utterly undone viz. in ver 6. for there the Father is call'd God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Article So likewise in Rom. 7. 1. the Son is Rom. 9. call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Article And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Article is found to signifie God the Father Why may it not signifie the God-head of the Son likewise tho' it have not an Article before it Erasmus on Rom. 9. 5. would help them to avoid the force of that great Text for the proof of our Lords Divinity with a Point which looks like Push-pin Divinity indeed Punctum post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 choose you whether But Erasmus himself confesseth that without these Nicities in Pointing all the Greek Copies have it as we read it and refers the Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christ which is plainly more agreeable as the Learn'd observe both to the Scope of the Apostle and the Series of the words Besides 'T is worthy our observation that tho' Erasmus is not forward to own that Christ is here meant but thinks God here signifies and is to be taken vel pro totâ Triade vel persona Patris yet by the same Words he confesseth the Trinity and consequently the Deity of the Son as he doth afterwards more expresly on those two famous Texts Phil. 2. 6. and Heb. 1. 6. where these are his words upon the first of them q. d. Qui cum esset sit non usurpativus sed verus Deus non estimavit aequalitatem Dei sibi esse rapinam and on the Second Et etate praecedit quia aeternus dignitate quia Naturalis The Eternal and Natural Son of God which is enough to vindicate Erasmus from being either Arian or Socinian How ever some boast to the contrary we hereby see what credit is to be given them 'T is confessed Erasmus notes that St. Cyprian and Hillary omit the word Deus in Rom. 9. 6. Yet 't is concluded by the Learned that it was omitted not industriously by those eminent Fathers but in curia Librariorum res ipsa ostendit 't is evident it must be so Seeing both these Fathers cite this very Place as a plain proof that Christ is truly and properly God Vid. Pol. Synop. in Loc. SECT IV. The Socinians Enervate the Authority of Gods Word THey farther try their skill to loosen and weaken the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures by Enervating the Credit of the Gospel it self and making the Apostles if not the Lord Jesus too impertinent Sophisters while they Interpret the proofs the inspired Writing bring out of the Old Testament to confirm the New into meer Allusions and accomodations of Old Phraises or Expressions without any further force and use of them But this lays the Ax at the Root and is of such import and consequence that it deserves a larger consideration and reproof then my present design will conveniently permit SECT V. Socinians have another Rule of their own which they prefer above the Scripture WE have seen how perversly and vilely the Socinians treat the only Rule of the Christian Faith which yet will appear more egregiously by our Second Observation
that they lay it aside altogether as a Rule or measure it by a Rule of their own which they set up in the room of it or above as the Papist do This Socinian Rule which they measure the Holy Scriptures viz. The Divine Rule by is nothing else but their own private Sense if not their Wit and Phansie much the same with the Quakers Light within which they call Reason I have elsewhere distinguish'd betwixt a Rule and a Judge and observ'd that these are not the same but two distinct things with respect to Religion I shall explain and apply them more fully in the present Argument We must in order hereunto distinguish betwixt Natural and Revealed 1. Explain't Religion as such 1. I grant with respect to meer Natural Religion Reason seems to be both a Rule and a Judg for we have nothing without our selves that can well be conceived to be either we know nothing of it but the rational Notices which Humane understanding suggest or the Dictates of pure Reason called forth or occasioned by the works of Creation and Providence 2. But Revelation being from without us is therefore a Rule imposed on us from without and must be distinct from Reason which is within us and part of our selves and consequently tho' Reason be a Judge it must Judge of Revealed Religion by a Rule from without us which is another thing and not our Reason I mean we must Judge of Revealed Religion as such by that Rule by which that Religion is only made known to us that is the Holy Scriptures and then 't is no wonder if all our Religion as Christian or Revealed be not dictated or to be comprehended by Natural Reason For if Reason had discovered all before What need of Revelation And indeed those that say all our Religion lies within the compass of Reason are in a fair way to reject all Revelation and to advance the Natural or Pagan Religion in the World in the room of the Christian But seeing Socinus tho' erroneously supposeth the Being of a God could not have been discovered without Tradition or Revelation how absurd doth it seem for him especially to imagine that things that can be known only by Revelation can be known or may be measured by Reason or any other Rule but Revelation or the Writing in and by which they are made known to Reason it self as Sencible Objects being to be known only so far as Sence represents them to our imagination can have no other Rule by which our Reason can Judge or measure them but our Sences And seeing our Revelation is from Heaven we must not only acknowledge the Being of such a Rule but the Fulness Rectitude and Authority of it by which all the rules of Reason are to be determined even in such things as reason falls short of and could not have been any other way discovered or being discovered cannot be apprehended but as they are Reveiled if this be not granted where is the Authority or Divinity of that Higher Rule which is given by God to be the only Rule and Standard of the Christian Religion as such It hence follows that this Divine Rule being supposed Reason my Judge of it but by no means presume to Judge it so as to question mind alter correct or lay it aside or advance it self above it We must indeed judge by Reason what the things are that are so reveiled we must measure all Articles imposed on us by our Reason indeed yet the Rule by which we are to do so is only the Word of God To exalt Reason or the inward rules or dictates of it to be the measure of things reveil'd is to lay aside the True Rule or to judge God himself in the Authority of his holy word A Humane Judge hath likewise his Rule without him viz. The Publick Laws and if he should make his private Sentiments of Justice and Right the rule of his Judgment he falls under his Superiors and every Mans Censure 'T is not his Office to question or mend or any way alter much less abrogate the Law but he is only Jus dicere to declare and apply the Laws in his Jurisdiction not to judge the Laws by the Rule of his own Reason but to use his Reason to know and understand and to pass Judgment according to the Laws much less are we to question the reasonableness or equity of Gods Laws or judge them unreasonable or unfit for reasonable Creatures to give credit to because they seem not to square with our Natural reason This were to believe our selves and not God to exalt our selves above God yea to discredit and make God a Lyar. I am sorry we have so much reason to apply all this to Socinus and Application his Followers how shall we forbear to arraign Arrogance with the Apostles words Thou art not a doer of the Law but a Judge Who art thou O vain Man that repliest against God Is it not a marvelous thing to see poor ignorant lapsed Man to errect a Tribunal against his Maker and with a shadow of Carnal Reason to sit in Judgment upon Gods Word and to level the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith to their own shallow and partial apprehensions And yet thus the Socinian aspires with his presumptuous Reason to dogmatize upon Revelation To judge the Messias and all his concerns His Generation Incarnation Natures Offices Passion Satisfaction Mediation and Intercession To Judge and Condemn the Holy Ghost and the ever Blessed Trinity and to measure the Resurrection of our Bodies by the Model of his private apprehension Yet this sort of Men shew great Reverence to and very strongly argue the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures And they do not deny but these great Articles are matters of pure Revelation in the same Scriptures Neither can they evince any one of these great and misterious Points are repugnant to Sence or Reason or any other part of Gods Word Men should have methinks so much modesty as to judge that their corrupt Reason is as fallible as the Holy Pen-Men Or That it may be reasonable we should have a Rule without to Discipline and bound our extravagant Phansies in matters of Faith Or that private reason may be mistaken in judging that a Contradiction which the Church of God I mean the generallity of Christians Semper ubique could never discover and have hitherto verily believed that it is none I think 't is plain from what hath been said that the Socinian falls in with the Papist and goes beyond him not only in villifying and laying aside the True Rule of Faith but in setting up another Rule of his own instead of it They both are guilty only with this difference The Papist's Rule is the Publick Reason and sence of his Church The Socinians Rule is his own and every particular Mans private Reason and which of these is the wiser and safer let every Mans Reason judge That I do not herein