Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A40718
|
A parallel wherein it appears that the Socinian agrees with the papist, if not exceeds him in idolatry, antiscripturism and fanaticism / by Francis Fullwood ...
|
Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.
|
1693
(1693)
|
Wing F2513; ESTC R38752
|
24,721
|
38
|
other point lies deeper in the Foundation seeing upon it depends that Resolution whether our Saviour had a being before he was born of the Virgin or no and that is whether our Saviour had a Being with his Father in Heaven before he was born of the Virgin or whether he had not been in Heaven before but ascended or was taken up thither only after he was so born and had been sometime in the Flesh Now the Holy Scriptures abounding with so many plain proofs that our Saviour came down from Heaven Nine or Ten times asserted in that one Chapter the Sixth of St. John Socinus and his Followers dare not do not deny it But 't is so essential to their Religion to deny that our Saviour had any Being before he was Born of the Virgin and in consequence to support their whole Fabrick upon this Hypothesis they at last found out a Salvo to reconcile the contradiction tho' at first they had different Notions and did hesitate about it yet at last they seem to agree and do now unanimously affirm that after our Saviour was born of the Virgin he was taken up into Heaven and then coming down again he is said to come down from Heaven so often in the Scriptures Then this is the very Root Foundation and Corner Stone upon which Socinianism is framed and supported that our Saviour after he was born of the Virgin was taken up in the Flesh into Heaven to receive instructions from his Father for the Salvation of Mankind Now to apply to our purpose if this great point upon Application which Socinianism so intirely depends have no Foundation either in the Word of God or sound Reason and be founded only in Dream or Phansie or presumptive Invention to save the Fabrick their great Hypothesis from sinking or rather in pretended Inspiration or Revelation is not Socinianism as truly Phanatical and Enthusiastical as the Papacy not to say Mahomatism If they are so daring as to affirm 't is to be found in the Not in Scripture Scripture they ought to be so kind to us and so just to their Cause as to shew us where They seem to make us some resemblance of our Lords Assention into Heaven as a Man in Moses's being in the Mount with God and St. Pauls Rapture into the third Heaven but it was St. Paul and Moses where do we find any such thing said of Christ unless it were upon Mount Tabor but that will not serve their purpose 'T is plain our Lord came down from Heaven Our Doctrine is certain that he was there And the Text is evident that he came down from Heaven before he is said to have Ascended And he that came down from Heaven and was on Earth in his Humanity was still equally in Heaven in his Divinity all this is plain Scripture John 3. 13. No Man hath ascended up into Heaven but he that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heaven But where are we told that our Lord in Flesh ascended up into Heaven and then came down again Certainly if this be the Truth that must support so much of Religion 't would have been recorded somewhere in the Scripture and not have been reserved in Silence and Mystery Especially seeing the Socinians themselves observe even with boasting the Fulness as well as the Clearness of those Holy Writings with respect to every thing necessary to be believed methinks their own great Reason should force them to confess that so great a point ought not to be believed by themselves or obtruded upon the World seeing it is no where to be found in those Sacred Books That 't is not to be found therein appears evidently by some observations touching the difference among the Socinians themselves and the difficulties they encounter'd with before they resolved to be satisfied about it First They began to play with the Scripture as they use to do in other matters and pretended a strange discovery of a Figurative Sence and interpreted our Saviours being in Heaven either by his Heavenly Meditations or Divine Knowledge But when he came down did he leave behind him his such Meditation and Knowledge This Non-sence Socinus was soon ashamed of and came to this Resolution that our Saviour after he was in the Flesh did ascend in Person into Heaven but upon the Time when he did so he and his Followers were not agreed Secondly This is the Second difficulty wherein they were plunged that upon a supposition that Christ was taken up into Heaven when it should be Some of them say it was when he was Twelve Years Old and when his Parents missed him As Woâ—zog Schilict Crellius and after three days found him amongst the Doctors Others of great name amongst them suppose it was during his being Forty days in the Wilderness and this now seems to be the general and current Opinion with them But do these Texts say any thing else but that our Saviour was in the Temple when his Parents sought him and that he was in the Wilderness tempted of the Devil an odd discription of Heaven these places of Scripture then will not do Have they any other We hear of no other and therefore we may be bold to conclude there is no ground in Scripture for that great Point that is the Basis of Socinian Religion Secondly Neither in Reason For if it be not Revealed in Scripture Not in Reason 't is beyond the Ken of the most Sagacious without a good Invention to make a Discovery of it for that which can be known only by Revelation can certainly be known no otherwise but none can possibly imagine not the most phansiful Socinian how this matter of Fact could ever fall under the rational understanding of any Man except it were revealed from Heaven If Reason could discover some plausible colour Why our Lord should be taken up into Heaven before his passion yet certainly That he was so is matter of pure Revelation and not to be known otherwise We must conclude also that this their great principle hath no more foundation in sound Reason then in the Holy Scripture That is none at all 'T is unscriptural and no reason can be given for it but the necessity of it to support an Hypothesis that falls with it or without it Thirdly and Lastly To shut up all 'T is not only not founded either Fanatick and Enthusiastical in Scripture or Reason and so Fanatical enough but 't is pure Enthusiasm even by their own Confession How much Fasting how much Study what earnest Prayers to Almighty God did Laelius Socinus pay for this rare great and notable Discovery But was it any more then Dream and Phansie if it deserve not a worse name tho' it commenced Enthusiasm I shall end with that smart and pertinent Reflection of the present Learned Dean of St. Pauls in his late excellent Treatise of the Blessed Trinity p. 143. Speaking of this Text that Christ came down from Heaven Did Socinus saith he find it so easie a matter to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion when he was fain to fast and pray for it and pretend Revelation because he wanted Reason to support it O Merciful GOD who hast made all Men and hatest nothing that thou hast made nor wouldest the death of a Sinner but rather that he should be Converted and live have Mercy upon all Jews Turks Infidels and Heriticks and take from them all Ignorance hardness of Heart and contempt of thy Word and so fetch them home Blessed Lord to thy Flock that they may be saved among the Remnant of the true Israelites and be made one Fold under one Shepheard JESVS CHRIST our Lord who liveth and Reigneth with Thee and the Holy Spirit One God World without End FINIS
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