Fellow heirs with the believing Jews then it ceased to be a Mystery and surely there is another Mystery in v. 9. of that 3d Chapter which our Doctor cannot yet apprehend thô plainly revealed viz. That God created all things by Jesus Christ See Crellius Heb. 1. v. 10. which though frequently asserted in the Scripture as Col. 1. Heb. 1. c. yet the Socinians utterly deny nor can they apprehend what is that Righteousness which is by Faith as opposed to that which is by the Law or to our Doctor 's Natural Faith but the Doctor tells us of another Mystery little less than a Contradiction as p. 1. c. 2. viz. The Patriarchs knew only the Fathers yet Abraham had the knowledge of Christ and our Saviour says that Moses spake of him and the Doctor affirms the same That Moses spake of Christ Deut. 30.12 for the Doctor saith p. 41. c. 1. that the Apostle applied that place to Christ If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved It was not so much in dislike of the Popish Mysteries that the Doctor so often rejects whatever is above human Reason under that Notion as in dislike of the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Eternal Generation of our Saviour of which he speaking p. 34. c. 1. says If you understand not this you must not wonder at least not gain-say it for it is a Mystery which Reason cannot fathom and therefore must be rejected as one of the Packs of Impertinent Mysteries p. 58. c. 2. The Doctor that writes so mystically himself should not be so much displeased if he meet with some Mysteries in other Writings especially in the Scripture wherein as St. Peter observes of St. Paul's Epistles There are some things hard to be understood and will not be fully explained till Elias come And indeed as Naked as his Gospel is it is darkned with so many obscure mists and subtle insinuations that it will appear to some of his most diligent Readers to be one continued Mystery of Iniquity It is a sorry shift which Sandius and others that write against the Trinity make to excuse themselves for thus Sandius pleads see his Appendix p. 107. That he wrote his Book on behalf of the Protestants against the Papists to convince them that the Scripture is the only Rule of Faith because they could not prove the chiefest Articles of their Faith viz. the Trinity Consubstantiality and Coequality from the Tradition of the Fathers of the three first Ages In this our Doctor follows Sandius and would perswade us to renounce the Doctrine of the Trinity because it is a Popish Doctrine See more of this in another Epistle of Sandius p. 261. I have proved saith he that the whole World in the fourth Age was Arian and the Arians enjoyed Temporal Felicity and wrought Miracles to shew against the Papists that these are not marks of the true Church I reckoned diverse Councils of the Arians who condemned the Catholick Faith to shew that we ought not to depend on their Determinations in Matters of Faith but on Scripture only I have shewn that the Church of Rome hath honoured many Arians that were of very evil lives as Saints to shew you what manner of Saints the Papists do Invocate by the Authority of the Infallible Church of Rome c. All this is right but when the whole design of his Book is to shew that the Doctrine of Arius denying the Godhead of Christ and making him a Creature is more consonant to Scripture and Antiquity than that of the Trinity in the Church of Rome is to condemn all other Churches that maintain the same Doctrine for to this purpose tends that which remains in the Third Enquiry concerning the Papists who do impose new Articles of Faith and set their Traditions and Decrees in an equal rank with the Scriptures and sometimes above them with a Nonobstante to Christ's own Institutions as the Socinians do by their Reason let them therefore dispute the Case with each other and let Baal plead for himself He cannot wound the Church of England through their sides unless he can prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Popish Tradition which he doth more than intimate and herein he would do them more service than any of their Champions by proving Popery to be more ancient than the Council of Nice I am now come to the Conclusion of the Author who shuts up his Naked Gospel as generally the Socinians do with a Plea for Toleration to all that confess the Lord Jesus and believe that God raised him from the Dead though they leave him as Naked a Lord as the Doctor hath left the Gospel robbing him of his Eternity and Deity and that Honour and Worship which on those considerations are due to him our Faith in his Name Obedience to his Commands a devout use of his Holy Sacraments and so turn Turks Jews o◠as some English Socinians have done Quakers and live above Ordinances satisfying themselves with a Christ within them and a Natural or Naked Gospel as Mr. Pen in a Socinian Tract hath done This he calls giving Faith its due Bounds by imprisoning it and dismembring it separating Obedience and Love which are inseparable from Evangelical Faith And as for Love saith he we must give it its due boundlesness even to them that love not but deny and bid open defiance to the Godhead of Christ to whom the Apostle denounceth Anathema I wish heartily the Doctor had shewn more Charity to the Church of Christ in general than to think and speak of them as guilty of Idolatry in all Ages for so are they that give Divine Worship to a Creature and that he who stiles himself a Son of the Church of England would not defame her as tainted with Popish because she holds the Athanasian Doctrine for he calls that and the Nicene their Creeds and our Litany their Litany and so becoming a Papist to the Papists and it 's much better to be an Athanasian Papist than an Arian or Socinian Heretick The Doctor tells us in the Vindication p. 7. of his intention to have presented his Naked Gospel to the Convocation that they might be induced to enlarge their Charity at a time when all the Christian World expected it from them And was all the Christian World once more become Arians that they should become Disciples to his Naked Gospel I cannot conceive what compliance the Doctor could presume of from that Convocation he well knows their Prolocutor was the same that agreed shortly after to the burning of it in the Convocation at Oxford and doubtless both he and the several Members would have had the same Resentment of it at Westminster as the Oxford Convocation had When therefore we see a Viper rising out of the Fires of Oxford and hissing p. 5. That the Heresie lay not in the Book but in the
entred into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh This is a deceiver and an Antichrist And 1 Job 5.7 he plainly asserts the Doctrine of the Trinity There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. It is very observable what Grotius says in the Preface of his Annotations on St. John The Ancients among other causes of St. John 's Writing this Gospel do generally assign this as the chief that he might apply a Remedy to that Poyson which at that time was dispersed in the Church among all that professed the Name of Christ which could be no other than the denying of the Eternal Deity of the Son of God which that Evangelist asserted Now tho' it may seem a superfluous work to enquire into the Opinions of the Author of the Naked Gospel after the Censure of the University the reading whereof may satisfie any Judicious and Impartial Reader yet least I should seem to make an Adversary where I find none and to fight against my own Shadow as against some formidable Monster I shall 1. Consider what the Author hath said to clear himself from the Reasons of that Decree 2. Make some few general Remarks on the design of the Naked Gospel And 3ly More particularly Examine the Opinions asserted or insinuated by the Author In his Vindication p. 4. he declares his Faith to be no other than that of the Church of England and renounceth any word which in that or any other Book may seem to contradict it The Contradiction is not seeming but real and differs as much as Time doth from Eternity or the Doctrine of the Church of England of which I have given an account from the Arrian and Socinian Heresies if he renounceth any thing he must renounce almost all but how he will do it so as to remove the Scandal from the Church of England which as Monsieur Jeru observes is now conceived to be tainted with Socinian Doctrines from such Writings as this of the Naked Gospel I cannot well conceive unless he disclaim his being a true Son of the Church of England He says The Author of that Book is so far from denying the Divinity of Christ that he plainly asserts it But what Divinity is that is it the Eternal Godhead and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father This is not to be found yea it is the whole design of the Author to impugne it he grants him no other Divinity than the Arrians did of a created God nor indeed so much for he speaks of our Saviour under the same Notions and Expressions as Socinus and Smalâ—ius did granting him a Divinity but not a Deity of which more hereafter But he would prove his Assertion from these words of his That the Author of our Gospel was not only great but infinite But the Question is whom he means by our Author whether God the Father the prime or God the Son as the immediate Author for thus the Moral Law was given by Moses yet God was the prime Author and in this sence an Arrian may and the Socinians do say Christ waâ— the Messenger of God and received all his Commands from God and so the Author of the Gospel in the Socinians sence is infinite for thâ—s Crellius on Heb. 2. v. 3. says Christ was not the first Author of the Gospel as neither were the Angels of the Law but God was the prime Author of both the Law and Gospel though the Law was published by Angels and the Gospel by Christ so that Christ was no otherwise a Law-giver in publishing the Gospel than Moses was in proclaiming the Law which Crellius in his Book de Uno Deo endeavours to maintain at large and in the same sence I fear the Doctor calls the Author of our Gospel infinite viz. that God the Father is the Author of the Gospel But being conscious that some Expressions unsuitable to so plain an Assertion as that of the Infinity of the Author of the Gospel might drop from his hasty Pen he says p. 5. that such hasty Expressions ought to be thereby i. e. by the word Infinity to be interpreted Answ And so it might if he had applied it to the Person of Christ but he tells us the occasion of that Expression was Ch. 11. from the assurance of a Christian grounded on the Resurrection beyond the hopes of a Heathen and the Persons in whom the one and the other believed Now whom do the Arrians believe to be the Author of that Resurrection but God the Father whom they often affirm to have raised our Saviour from the Dead and it s no wonder if they own his Infinity this being the substance of what they say is necessary to be believed viz. That God raised Jesus from the Dead and to confess him our Lord denying that Christ arose by any power of his own Therefore he would not have his Expressions imputed to his setled Opinion but his too great hast and heat in a Question which did nor concern the Divinity of Christ but the manner of his Generation the former as he adds was on both sides acknowledged the latter was the whole subject of the Dispute which Constantines Letter so often calleth Silly Answ If the Divinity of Christ in its proper sence i. e. his Deity had been acknowlegded I believe there had been no dispute concerning the manner of his Generation the Question was Whether he were Consubstantial with the Father or not not concerning the manner or modus but whether he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance with the Father If the Dispute in Constantine's time had been only about the manner of Christ's Generation the Doctor might have taken in the Parenthesis of Dr. Wallis that it is not distinctly declared by God nor are we able fully to comprehend it nor is it necessary for us to know but it is necessary to know that this Generation was from Eternity that we may ground our Faith and Hope in him that is God and so is able to save to the utmost all that come to God by him he being the Lord i. e. Jehovah our Righteousness What the Controversy in the Nicene Council against Arrius was and how it was decided shall appear anon 2ly He says the design of his Book was only to disable Humane Authority from imposing on our Belief more Doctrines than Christ and his Apostles declared to be necessary Here are two bold Strokes first the Doctor will determine what those necessary Doctrines are and then he will disable Magistrates from imposing any other and so we shall lose the great Fundamental the Eternal Godhead of Christ which his Naked Gospel doth impugne 3ly Another design of this Author he says is By a due confinement of Faith to enlarge Charity Ans The Apostles method to enlarge Charity was not to confine but propagate the Faith once delivered to the Saints as the best motive
which term he may comprehend all sort of Heresies an universal Toleration without any reserve which hath been pleaded for in former times 2. That through the whole Book it is not so much the manner of the Generation that is insisted on but the Eternity of it is denied and to this end the Arguments of the Arrians are applauded and the Reasons and Scriptures that affirm it are either suppressed or ridicul'd To begin with the Propositions referred to in the Decree he tells us That Mahomet did profess all the Articles of the Christian Faith but Mahomet did not profess the Eternal Generation of the Son of God therefore this is no Article of the Christian Faith in the Doctor 's Opinion What the Charity of the Socinians is toward such as hold the Doctrine of the Church of England we may learn from Smalcius at the end of his Book concerning the Divinity of Christ We doubt not to affirm boldly that not one of all those who believe Jesus Christ of himself God can ever by any means have certain hope of Eternal Life by vertue of his Opinion concerning Christ Hence they call us Polytheists Antichristians and say we are not worthy of the Name of Christians This is Charity enlarged In the same Paragraph he says When by nice and hot Disputes concerning especially the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity the Minds of the People had been long confounded so that to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-worship did of Idolatry then was there a tempting opportunity offered to the Impostor and he laid hold on it to set up himself for a reformer of such corruptions as were both too gross to be justified and too visible to be denied Now what did this Impostor reform but the Doctrine of the Trinity denying the Godhead of the Son and Holy Ghost as such corruptions which were too gross to be justified and too visible to be denied It is a credible History of those Times which I have related that one Sergius a Monk and some other Apostate Christians join'd with Mahomet in compiling the Alchoran these retained so much veneration for our Saviour as to grant him what the Socinians do a kind of Divinity for they acknowledge him to be a true Prophet and so he may be called Divine as we call St. John by way of Eminency The Divine and so our Socinian Reformers agree with the Mahometan some say the Doctrine of the Trinity was laid aside to make way for the Turks to become Christians but we find a contrary effect that many Christians turn Turks I hope the Reader is satisfied by what I collected out of the Alchoran that Mahomet and his Arian Genius purposely designed to overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity and to represent our Saviour as a meer Man though as a Messenger of God And what less is implied in these words of the Doctor 's That to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-worship did of Idolatry The next Proposition is This When the great Question concerning the eternity of his i. e. Christ's Godhead first embroiled the World Constantine condemned it as a silly Question fitter for Fools and Children than for Priests or wise Men. Note here The Question was not concerning the Manner of the Generation of our Saviour but the Eternity of his Godhead and how justly this Censure of Constantine's was past on that Question this Author says we may discover in three particulars 1. It was impertinent to our Lord's Design 2. Fruitless to the Contemplator's own purpose 3. It is dangerous This is Socinianism in grain Now because the Author would excuse himself from this Charge by pleading that he only relates the Opinion of Constantine the consideration of that good Emperor's management and determination of this great Question is more strictly and fully to be weighed This Author tells us p. 31. Col. 2. Such was the judgment of the great Constantine when the Game was first set on foot How it was then by the Arian party represented to him is not evident they dealt subtily but after that he had called the Nicene Council and was fully informed of the state of the Question he was so far from thinking it silly and vain that he wrote Letters to several Churches to inform them that after mature consideration the Opinion of Arius was condemned branded the Arians with the Name of Porphyrians caused their Books to be burnt and threatned death to any that should conceal them and hearing of the miserable end of that wretched man as it is described by Socrates he made it his business to extirpate it No doubt the Doctor knew these passages related of Constantine as well as those which he mentions calling it a Silly Question and fitter for Boys than for Priests what can he plead then for proclaiming the one and wholly suppressing the other which were Constantine's second and best Thoughts and his setled Judgment after mature deliberation Yet our Author still ridicules the Athanasian Doctrine as a Pushpin Controversie and says that Leonas reprimanded that party with Go and play the Fools at home Leonas was an Arian sent by Constantius the Arian Emperour to awe the Council nor did he bid them go and play the Fools at home I find no such thing in the place quoted by the Doctor viz. Socrates l. 2. c. 23. But there is a full Character of this Leonas in Soz. l. 4. c. 22. how that Acacius an Arian Bishop held private Conference with him and consulted for that Interest but could not prevail insomuch that when both Parties were met in his Lodgings and he found the Arian Party like to be baffled he bid them in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I think no good Man would translate Go and play the Fools at home Socrates l. 2. c. 40. which signifies only Go and talk it out in the Church Leonas supposing they would be more modest and reverent in that Holy Place than in his House But of this the Historian observes in the next chap. 42 That Acacius and Eudoxius made great advantage For says he they perceiving the Indignation of the Emperour against Macedonius and other Hereticks deposed many of them and advanced Eudoxius to the Bishoprick of Constantinople for the contention was not so much for Religion as for Preferment the contending Parties having deposed each other and Acacius and Eudoxius with their Party did especially endeavour to depose the adverse Party and coined their New Creeds to that end being so confident of the Emperour's Favour and hence grew those various Confessions of some Councils under Constantius whereof p. 34. c. 4. the Doctor says That Socrates reckoned no less than Nine not Nine Councils but Confessions of which the Historian gives this particular Account calling them a Labyrinth of Expositions two of which were
stupid belief of a multitude of impertinent and incredible Propositions without yea some of them against all Reason without any fruit but strife contrary to the Simplicity wherein the Gospel glorieth and to that contempt which God himsef sheweth to acts of mee◠Understanding which opprobrious Terms he mentioneth also p. 51. c. 1. Doth not the Doctor fix these opprobrious Terms on our Blessed Saviour when it is evident that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of Baptism to be administred in his Name as well as in the Name of the Father and the Holy Ghost especially seeing the Doctor cannot deny Baptism to be a Fundamental of the Christian Religion as having an express Precept and a Promise of Eternal Life annexed to it And to be baptized in the Name of the Father c. is to devote ourselves to the Worship and Obedience of the Person in whose Name we are baptized and by consequence being we are baptized equally into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost we acknowledge them to be of equal Dignity and are obliged to pay them equal Worship This Precept of our Saviour being no part of the Doctor 's Natural Religion but a prime Fundamental of the Christian doth irrefragably convince the Doctor to be guilty of gross Impiety when he in p. 57. c. 2. and p. 51. c. 1. discoursing of the Changes which later Ages have made in Matters of Faith under which by the tendency of the whole Book that of the Doctrine of the Trinity is chiefly intended he infers our Saviour to be a humorous and capricious Lord and what means this passage p. 30. c. 1. That it must cast dishonour no less on his Wisdom than his Majesty c. if we think he will grant Salvation on no other Terms than a belief of the whole truth concerning the Dignity of his Person for this will imply that he came and suffered on purpose to purchase to himself the honour of such a Belief c. P. 52. c. 2. The proper Dominions of Faith he says exceed not this one proposition That God cannot lye Ans What difference then is there between the Faith of a Jew or a Turk and that of a Christian they believe this as firmly as the Doctor doth and are they as much Christians as he He allows it no value from its relation to the Person of Christ though he doubteth not the Person of Christ to be infinitely valuable The Turks grant he was a just Man and a true Prophet but not an All-sufficient Saviour But who are they that advance Faith above Holiness yea against it too not only the thorough pac'd Antinomians and Solifidians but many who call themselves Orthodox who say Faith is the hand whereby we apply Christ to ourselves and by this application Christ is made ours and his Righteousness imputed to us as if it were our own and it justifies not by its own worthiness but by the Merit of Christ which it lyeth hold on and applieth I perceive the Doctor learnt this from Mr. Beedle's Preface to his Socinian Catechism where he rejects the same Tenets because they are not to be found in express terms in Scripture viz. The apprehending and applying of Christ's righteousness to ourselves by Faith of Christ's righteousness imputed to us of Christ's dying to appease the wrath of God and reconcile us to him of Christ's Merits or his meritorious Obedience both active and passive of which he says That as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture so neither the things contained in them I doubt not but the Doctor read that Preface and applies it to the same end And where in the name of Christ saith our Author do we in all the Book of God or in Reason which he alway equalleth with the Scripture meet any intimation of this fine Doctrine Application of Christ to our selves the hand of Faith imputed Righteousness c. What are they but Terms of Art invented by false Apostles But were the Compilers of our Liturgy false Apostles Or do we not find the matter if not the words therein when we pray God to deliver us by his Cross and Passion Or is there no Merit in them when we are taught to pray That by the Merits and Death of Jesus Christ and through Faith in his Bloud we and the whole Church may obtain Remission of Sins and all other benefits of his Passion See the Prayer after the Communion Do not they inform us of the * In Warning the Communion meritorious Cross and Passion of our Saviour whereby alone we obtain Remission of our Sins and are made Partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven Or was he a false Apostle that teacheth us That Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him But the Doctor will not recede a hairs breadth from his Socinian Principles lest he should acknowledge that Christ died for our Sins and rose for our Justification which he says the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not bear p. 14. c. 2. The Doctor is much pleased with his Microscope which discovers a multitude of little Animals where the best eye sees nothing but limpid Water But had he a spiritual Eye he might by the Mirror of the Gospel discover many saving Truths which to a carnal Eye are not discernable Another Complaint against Faith is p. 54. That it is exalted above and against Charity and he calls the Dispute between the Arians and Catholicks concerning the Eternal Deity of Christ the first and most uncharitable Dispute that ever rent the Christian World P. 55. c. 1. But who began these Disputes but Ebion Cerinthus and the Arians who used the Gospel as the poor Man was used that fell among Theives left it naked and wounded and opposed all that came to its relief were we all united in the Faith of the Gospel which teacheth us that we have one Lord one Faith one Baptism viz. in the Holy Trinity it would be a more effectual means to enlarge Charity than the new Heresies that deny the Lord that bought them and being uncharitable to their Lord cannot be otherwise to his Servants they that thus wound the Head the Deity of Christ cannot but rent the Members who by that Faith are united to him The old Serpent was permitted to bruise the Heel of the Messiah i. e. as Commentators say his natural Body of flesh and blood but these Serpents attempt his Head i. e. his Divinity but in vain for he shall break their heads The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against our Faith that Christ is the Son of the Living God upon which Christ hath founded his Church The great Complaint against Faith is yet behind That it is exalted above and against Reason for nothing is to be believed further than Reason proveth it to be true p. 56. c. 1. That is the Socinians Reason But by the assistance of Faith the Christian may believe
Trino Uno P. 419. He relates that famous Story of Uladislaus and Hunniades his General who having sworn to Articles of Peace with Amurath they laying their hands on the Evangelists and he on the Alcoran Pope Eugenius perswaded them to make War against Amurath notwithstanding their Oaths from which he sent Cardinal Julianus to Absolve them pretending they had no power to conclude a Peace without the Pope's approbation whereupon they assaulted Amurath with a great Army who being surprized and trusting to the Articles of Peace had made no great Provision for the War was at first put to flight but having gathered more Forces he bids them Battle and seeing the Banner of the Cross in his Enemy's Camp he takes the Articles of Peace out of his Bosom and says O Jesu Christ this is the Peace which they who glory in thy Name confirmed with me by their Oaths which they have perfidiously broken if thou be a God avenge this Perfidy and renewing the Fight routeth Hunniades and in the Flight Uladislaus is slain and the Cardinal having hid himself was discovered and slain and seventy Ships destroyed in the Hellespont which signal Providence was enough to convince a Turk that Christ was God Blandrata a Physician was for his Skill in that Science entertained by Prince Radzivil who being a Protestant Calvin wrote to him advising him to beware of Blandrata as a Man infected with the Error of Servetus On this Information he was summon'd to a Meeting at Pinkzove and being accused he fraudulently subscribed his Belief of the Trinity to keep up his Reputation with that Prince but finding himself suspected he gets into Poland and for his Skill in Physick was admitted as Physician to King Stephen and having gotten Liberty and Power he declared himself an Anti-trinitarian and wrote and acted very much in defence of his Opinion but was at length found dead in his Bed his neck being broken Socinus to prevent the Scandal that might be taken from the unfortunate Death of a Patron of his Heresie gave it out That he was strangled in his Bed by a Kinsman who being made his Heir strangled him that he might possess his Estate We have only a Comment of his on St. John chap. 1. which Junius de Trinitate and Zanch. de Tribus Elohim do recite and confute Lismaninus another Anti-trinitarian was accused for being an Arian by a Synod held at Morden where getting off upon his false Protestations he was afterwards convicted of it at Wodreslaw and drowned himself in a Well as Beza in his 81st Epistle Paulus Alciatus and Bernardinus Ochinus who both wrote against the Trinity did both turn Turks Beza reports that Gentilis being asked what became of his Friend and Companion Paulus Alciatus answer'd That he was turned Turk So Beza's Epistle 81. Puccius a Man of a Noble Family but a wavering Judgment for improving his Knowledge came and studied a while in Oxford where finding few Men of his mind he went to Basil and meeting with Socinus after much Discourse with him professed they could agree in nothing concerning Religion but that there was a God This was the Man that pleaded for a Natural Faith as our Doctor doth and other Wild Opinions for which he was driven thence and returned to England where he his Opinions being made known was cast into Prison and on his Release went into Holland from whence he went to Cracovia where he wrote a Book called The Bible Shut denying all Ordinances Ministry and Preaching till Elias should come and restore all things His Reason was from the Apostacy of the Church and he fancied that he was this Elias and expected a Call from Heaven to Commissionate him At length God having in his just Judgment given him up to such strong Delusions he meets with too English Men who came to Poland who pretended to Revelations and Converse with Angels but one of them was a Papist that acted a Mountebanck and the other a Magician with these he travels to Prague where the Papist having insinuated himself with Puccius perswaded him that he had a Revelation that Puccius must turn Papist which after a while he did and was reconciled to the Church of Rome but in a short time died a desperate Magician Franciscus David having long studied the Socinian Tenets was at length convinced That if Christ were a meer Man he ought not to be Invocated and Adored as God This troubled Socinus as foreseeing what a Scandal it would bring on his Opinions and therefore opposeth him with all his Industry professing he could not account them Christians that would not worship Christ which Worship he endeavoured to prove due to him by the Scripture but on his Supposition that Christ was a meer Man he could not evince for Christianus Franken took the part of Francis David and confounded Socinus by his own Arguments for having denied the Deity of Christ which was the Foundation of Religious Worship all his Arguments fell to the ground Socinus impatient of this Baffle and fearing it would be the utter overthrow of his Party draw up some Opinions of Franciscus David which were indeed as Gross and Heretical as any that had been thought of but such as were built on Socinian Principles one was this Jesus of Nazareth that is called Christ was a Man that spake not by the Spirit of Prophesie but by a Holy Spirit and though he was sent of God yet we may not account that whatever he spake came from the Mouth of God Hence it follows that both his and the words of his Apostles are to be brought and tryed by the Rule of the Law of Moses and the Prophets and if any thing in their Writings be found disagreeing from that Rule it is to be rejected or at least to be interpreted so as to agree with that Rule is not this the same as to equal a Natural Faith with the Evangelical which is the Standard of Faith and Manners These Opinions with an Antithesis to them Socinus presents to Barthoreus Prince of Transilvania who had cast David into Prison on the Persecution of Socinus and Blandrata who would put it off on the Samosatenians and other Sects who thereupon accused one another of Craft Treachery and Cruelty and being imprisoned in June died in November following During his Imprisonment he fell into great distraction through anguish of Spirit through the just Judgment of God upon him saith Socinus and in his distraction cryed out Behold who do expect me to be their Companion in my Journey and in this dreadful condition he expired But his abominable Heresies died not with him for one Martyne Seidelius was over-run with this Leprosie who gives this account of his Opinions That the Doctrine of the Messias did not belong to him for he was promised only to the Jews as the promise of the good things of Canaan had been so neither Circumcision and the Sacrifices and Ceremonies appointed by Moses do concern me but