an other place he asserts that Souls departed live not the life of Spirits and adds that it is contrary to Scripture to assert otherwise And further If souls lived thus it could not be said that the dead ARE NOT because they ARE as is their chief part If you would know the ground of this opinion it is this The Soul they say can't live without the Body and therefore when this dies the other doth so too The foresaid Author expresses it thus As the body without the spirit is a carkase so the spirit without the body can exert no actions i. e. is as it were a carkase is dead and in an other place he is as peremptory Slichtingius labours to prove that humane souls live not on this side of the last and general Resurrection which appears from their not having a Sense of any thing between the time after their departure hence and the Resurrection The dead are not sensible saith he and accordingly Separate Souls having no sense and perception are concluded to have no life Again in an other place in his Commentary he saith the Souls of the just are not sensible of Happiness till after the Resurrection Volkelius would seem at first to be a Trimmer for he tells us the Soul neither dies nor lives it is neither mortal nor immortal But when he comes to explain himself he lets us see that he is no dissenter from his brethren but concludes with them that the Souls of the departed are insensible of any thing before their re-union with the bodies Nay as you shall hear afterwards he improves this Insensibility into an Extinction I will mention Crellius in the last place though he is a Racovian of the first Rate he gives it us as his perswasion that the souls of the dead have no perception no knowledg of any thing And in an other place he determines that the departed Saints enjoy not the Happiness of Heaven before the End of the World And afterwards he undertakes the Proof of this and produces Eight Arguments for this purpose but he generally founds it on this Hypothesis that there is no Perception without the Body and therefore till there be a Reunion of soul and body the deceased can have no feeling of Celestial Joys they remain destitute of all sâ—…se Thus they all agree that Humane Spirits after death have no Life or Activeness for one is synonymous with the other no capacity of exerting themselves But what can be more contrary to those discoveries which are made to us in the Sacred and Inspired Writings Our Blessed Saviour saith God is not the God of the dead but of the living Mat. 22. 32. which words are spoken of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who are long since departed this life wherefore it is undeniably evident that these Patriarchs live But they do not live as to their bodies therefore it must be meant of their Souls The same Infallible Instructer ascertains us that he who hears his word and believes in him who sent him is passed from death to life John 5. 24. Which words though they may be interpreted concerning a state of spiritual death and spiritual life in this world yet they have a fuller meaning and comprehend in them the passing of believers at their death into a better life than they had before viz. that which is Everlasting of which he speaks in the very same verse And such are said to be passed as if it were already done which is usual in the Scripture-stile because of the Certainty of the thing hereafter But the Socinian Theology runs counter to this they say believers pass from life to death to a state that is wholly uncapable of sense life or action Those words of our Saviour this day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43. prove that the Soul enjoys it self immediately after death and is in a state of Bliss and Happiness The Apostle had a desire to depart and to be with Christ Phil. 1. 23. and assigns this as a reason which is far better that is far better than to abide in the flesh to continue in this world which he speaks of both before and after these words But according to Socinus's followers it is far worse for after the Soul's departure from the body it hath no understanding no perception at all of Christ or any thing appertaining to him Again these men confront not only Scripture but reason they shew themselves as bad Philosophers as Divines for if they had a right apprehension of the Nature of Humane Souls they would not talk after this rate Their notion destroys the very Soul of man for it deprives it of its Essential and Inseparable Quality which is Thinking And besides they grosly imagine that the Body helps the Soul in its operations yea that this cannot subsist without the assistance of that whereas according to the best notions we can form of the body as it is now corrupted it is a hindrance to the operation of the Soul And as for the Soul it is so far from being worsted by its Separation that it is in a much better condition as to its actings than it was Death is but snuffing of this Candle so 't is call'd Prov. 20. 27. it makes it shine the brighter When the Soul leaves the Body it becomes more brisk and active than ever being freed from that fleshly clog and luggage which depressed it This is True Philosophizing but the other is the very dregs of Epicurism It degrades the Rational Part of Man especially that of Good Men for all Separate Souls according to them go to the same place the wicked and the godly are alike as to that there is no difference between them till the Resurrection and Last Judgment Which is a great deal worse than the doctrine of the Church of Rome which assigns different Limbus's to the good and bad And then they are all equal as to this that they are Senseless and uncapable of knowing or acting or any ways exerting themselves Though the Soul exists yet it is as if it were not it hath nothing of its True Nature which is in a manner thrusting the Rational Spirit out of its being Who doth not see that the belief of the Insensibility and Inactivity of the Soul makes way for the belief of its Non-subsistence after the death of the body And so all Religion is dampt and the hopes of a Future State are quite laid in the dust The Socinian Writers verge upon this thus from the pen of one of the Authors before mention'd we have such words as these concerning the Soul Properly speaking it neither dies nor lives but only causes Life as long as it is joyn'd to the Body wherefore properly speaking it can't be said to be Immortal for Immortality belongs only to those beings which themselves actually live And speaking another time concerning the Souls that are separated from their bodies he
intimates their Non-Existence for a time for he applies those words to this purpose for to be rais'd from the dead is no other than to exist again after a ceasing to be And you heard before what another of their Writers said viz. that the Saints departed exist not Why is this said but to shake the belief of the Soul's Immortality and to make men stagger about this Important Point It is said that Servetus held the Soul to be Mortal and One of their late Writers a German Noble Man who left his Countrey and came over to Racovia one that hath a Great Encomium from the Party makes way for this Epicuréan notion by publishing to the world that though it be easily granted that the Soul is not made of bone or flesh or muscles or nerves c. yet it remains doubtful whether it be not a very Thin Body consisting of Vapour or Air or Ether diffused through this Crass Body And indeed if God himself be but a Finer Sort of Body as these Racovian Writers represent him it is no wonder that they imagine the Soul of Man to be such for why should they exalt it above the nature of the Supreme Being So the everlasting subsistence both of God and of the Souls of Men is hereby shock'd As to the latter of which I desire it may be observed that though Smalcius one of their Great Scribes will by no means be thought to deny the Immortality of them because that may seem a little too gross yet he industriously and purposely evades yea opposes and so do some others of the Perswasion those Texts of Scripture which are made use of by Divines to prove the Soul's Immortality and Subsistence after the death of the body This shews what they are inclinable to this acquaints us that they have but an indifferent opinion of the Immortality of Humane Souls which the very Pagan Philosophers with great earnestness and concern asserted Is not here then 〈◊〉 great defect of Religious Principles iâ—… not here a demonstration of the Impioâ—… Disposition of their Minds Do they noâ—… discover a tendency to that receiv'd doctrine of the Atheists that the Soul is of 〈◊〉 perishing condition and survives not thâ—… funerals of the body Which opens 〈◊〉 broad door to all Licentiousness and Prophaneness Then as to the Resurrection which iâ—… the next thing I am to speak of theâ—… have been some of the Socinian Way thaâ—… absolutely denied the Resurrection of thâ—… Wicked and in order to that their subsisting after this life Let any man impartially scan what their Adored Patriarchâ—… and what Ostorodus saith and he wilâ—… suspect them to have enclin'd this way But it is true the former of these professes himself unwilling to give offence to some and therefore doth not wholly deny that the Impious shall rise at the last day I confess I find not any of their Celebrated Writers plainly and expresly asserting this yea one or two of them very expresly declare against it But this is that which may unexceptionably be laid to their Charge that though generally they own a future Rising from the dead both of the just and unjust yet they deny that they shall rise with the same bodies They are the express words of Smalcius We believe not that these bodies which we now carry about us shall rise again Volkelius expresses the sense of the rest when he tells us that our bodies which shall be raised at the last day shall have not only other qualities but another matter of substance and in plainer terms Other bodies shall be substituted in their room And what is the reason because saith he these bodies which we now have shall vanish perish and consequently we shall never more have any thing to do with them These Great Pretenders to Reason cannot digest the Identity of the Dying and Rising body because they think it is a doctrine too hard to be conceiv'd it contains many Difficulties in it which it is not easie to solve But what then must it therefore be counted Unreasonable and Incredible I deny the Consequence for there are many things which are hard to be understood and yet we freely give assent to the truth of them We meet with several Occurrences of which we can't give an exact and punctual account Some Secrets in Nature are inveloped with an impenetrable Veil God hath done more than we are in a capacity to comprehend He is pleas'd to reserve some things from our clear and distinct knowledg and yet every wise man believes the reality of them It is so here a Christian man believes that the same flesh which was dissolved by death shall be united to the soul at the last day although he is not able to assign the Manner and Way of it But he looks upon the thing it self as very Reasonable because raising of the Same Flesh is possible with Him with whom nothing is impossible Suppose the bodies of the dead to be reduced to nothing notwithstanding this he can bring them again into being for this was the case of all things at first they were not and afterwards they were by God's Almighty Power Shall we then think it impossible for him to resuscitate the same body though we should grant it to have been for a time annihilated It is true God cannot make the same body to be and not to be at the same time because this is a plain Contradiction but he can make the body to exist at the last day which had lost its existence for a time And so all the Objections about humane bodies being eaten and devour'd by men or beasts and those beasts eaten by Men c. are easily removed But we need not go so high to solve the Phoenomenon for supposing no Annihilation it is sufficient to say that He that made the body of nothing will much more raise it again when it is something or with another of the Ancients He that made all things with a Word can easily Restore Man's body for it is much easier to renew what is decay'd than to make those things which are not without Materials And as another Primitive Writer argues It is more difficult to begin that which is not than to iterate that which was And again in the same place that doth not perish with God which is taken out of our Sight The body is chang'd this and that way and seems to disappear but it is kept safe by the Great Guardian of the Elements he that takes care of all bodies And thence he concludes that there shall be a Resurrection of the same individual body at the last day And truly this is so Reasonable a thing that if we deny it we deny the Resurrection it self for if the rais'd bodies at the last day shall not have the same substance that they now have they will not be Our Bodies and consequently there is no Rising again of our bodies For
nothing is rais'd but what fell or was laid down for Rising answers to these but that Matter which is supposed to be substituted in the room of our bodies did not fall was not laid down therefore it cannot Rise and consequently there is no Rising again at all This Argument is thus represented by a Great Man The Identity of the body rais'd from death is so necessary that the very name of the Resurrection doth include or suppose it so that when I say there shall be a Resurrection of the dead I must intend thus much that the bodies of Men which lived and are dead shall revive and rise again For at the death of man nothing falleth but his Body the spirit goeth upward and no other body falleth but his own and therefore the body and no other but that body must rise again to make a Resurrection So that it follows hence that those who disbelieve the Resurrection of the same body in effect deny the Article of the Resurrection of the body for the same body must rise or none at all This is evident from 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body The same individual body that died must revive that the same bodies wherein sin was committed may be punished for sinning And who can resist the force of those plain words Rev. 20. 13. which are spoken of the general Resurrection at the last day The sea shall give up the dead that are in it and death and the grave deliver up the dead which are in them What means this giving and delivering up the dead in those places unless the very same bodies that fell are to rise For bodies might be made and shaped out of matter in any other Places if the dead were not to appear at the day of Judgment in their own bodies in the very bodies they laid down in the grave or in the sea or any other Place It is true they shall not be the same as to their condition and quality for this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal immortality but their identity shall be preserv'd in respect of their nature and substance these being the same that they were at their fall This doctrine saith that Excellent Writer before named is most agreeable to the language of the Scriptures to the Principles of Religion to the constant Profession of the Church And being so it is no wonder that it is disrelish'd by the Persons I am speaking of who are wont to disregard the Sacred Writings to subvert the Principles of Christianity and to slight the suffrage of the Universal Church In all which they manifest an Irreligious temper and more especially in disbelieving and opposing this Explication of the Article of the Creed they have shew'd an Atheistical Spirit which always disgusts that Truth which flows from the Scriptures and is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit in them for herein they let us see that they are backward to give credit to the Supreme Truth God himself And besides there is a farther Tang of Impiety in this Opinion of theirs because it bereaves God of the Glory of his Infinite Power in reuniting the same bodies to the same souls at the last day it eclipses the honour of his Mercy in rewarding believers in the same flesh wherein they serv'd and worship'd him in this life it obscures his Justice in punishing sinners in those very fleshly Vehicles which they had here on earth and wherein they did so much mischief in the world And lastly it being such a Diminishment of the doctrine of the Resurrection it is to be fear'd it will have too great an influence on the lives and conversations of men They being dissetled as to the full belief of this they will waver in their Faith of the Future State they will be regardless of that Mighty Concern and they will be backward to fit themselves for it Thus the Racovian doctrine is an impediment to Religion and a nourisher of Vice and Ungodliness CHAP. V. Their false apprehensions concerning the Last Judgment are detected They are not consentaneous to the design of that Great Transaction They are contrary to that Description which is given of it in Scripture They are a gratification to Atheists It is their belief and profession that the Ungodly after the Resurrection shall not suffer Torment but shall be Annihilated This is disproved from Luk. 10. 14. Mat. 18. 8. Mark 9. 44. 2 Cor. 5. 10. An Objection answered The Perniciousness of this doctrine and its tendendency to Atheism on several accounts Iâ—… is no wonder that Socinianism for the sake of this doctrine is plausible Nevertheless the doctrine is irrational and groundless and exploded by some of the Wisest Pagans THIS will be further discover'd in their notion concerning the Last Judgment which say they consists not in any Trial or Judging of the World in any calling them to Account but only in assigning them their different lots and conditions To be judg'd saith Slichtingius is to be rewarded or punish'd Volkelius makes no distinction between the Judging and Punishing of the wicked The Judg knows who are to be saved and who to be damn'd and therefore need not use any Formal Citation or lay open mens lives But those who talk thus should remember that human actions are to be exposed at that day not because God hath not a perfect knowledg of them but because it is his Pleasure that Men should be acquainted with them that the Good Actions of the righteous may be applauded and that the Evil ones of the unrighteous may be condemned in the face of the whole World That this is the will of God we learn from the Sacred Writ and where can it be learnt but there Therefore for these men to Argue and reason the matter notwithstanding the express will and appointment of God is a sign of a very perverse and irreligious frame of mind Is not the Transaction of the Last day represented to us as a Formal Judiciary Process Doth not the Scripture speak of the Judg Acts 10. 42. 2 Tim. 4. 8. Heb. 12. 23. Jam. 5. 9. of the Judgment-seat Rom. 14. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 10. or the Throne or Tribunal for Judgment Rev. 20. 11 and yet will there be no Judging Is it not said with particular respect to that day that God will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts 1 Cor. 4. 5. Is it not said he will bring every work into Judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or whether it be evil Eccl. 12. 14. And do we question then whether there will be this Judicial Action which we properly call Judging or Trying Iâ—… there shall be this Manifestation of the Hearts and Actions of Men can we imagine that rewarding and punishing at that day are the very same with Judging Further
Justice for our Sins and thereby reconcile God to us And in the same places of their Writings where they assert this they also add that God remits the sins of men without any Compensation to his offended Holiness and Justice for this they say is contradictory to the other Nay they tell us that there is not in God that Justice whereby he is moved to punish Sin But shall we believe the Racovian Catechism or St. Paul's words God set him i. e. Christ forth to be a Propitiation to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins Rom. 3. 25. and in the next verse to declare his righteousness that he might be just i. e. to make it appear that God would not pardon sin without Satisfaction made to his Justice The Holiness and Righteousness of God's nature and the opposition of them to Sin oblige him to animadvert upon it Wherefore Sin cannot go unpunish'd and consequently it cannot be forgiven without Satisfaction that is either the guilty person must suffer or the fault and punishment must be transferr'd on another And whereas these Great Masters of Reason alledg that Christ could not be punish'd because he was an Innocent Person for it is injustice to punish the Innocent they cannot deny this to be a Maxim of clear Reason that an Innocent Person may voluntarily undertake to suffer for one that is Guilty as a man may take another's Debt upoâ—… him and oblige himself to discharge iâ—… for him This is an act of Mercy anâ—… Generosity And much more such wâ—… Christ's undertaking to discharge oâ—… debts to expiate our sins by suffering foâ—… us And seeing he gave himself for 〈◊〉 Tit. 2. 14. i. e. willingly offer'd himself seeing it was an act of his Choice anâ—… Consent we may conclude that theâ—… was no Injustice done him when the guiâ—… of our sins was laid upon him and wheâ—… he bore the Punishment which was primarily due to us This is so plain a thinâ—… that any man of correct thoughts mâ—… needs discern it The Case then is thiâ—… God would not pardon the sins of meâ—… committed against him without somâ—… Recompence and Satisfaction but weâ—… could not make Satisfaction for our selves therefore an Other did it Christ underwent the Punishment which we deserved and which should have been inflicted on us and thereby he fully satisfied God's Justice which as he is Absolute and Supreme Governour of all the world requires that Sin should be punished How unreasonably then do the Socinian Writers cry out against this Just and Wise Dispensation of Heaven Yea how Irreligious and Prophane are they in exploding and scoffing at that which is the Only Way of Man's Salvation I may justly take up the words of an Ancient and Pious Father on the like occasion I doubt not but if God had taken another way to effect our Salvation they would also have found fault with that for they are fastidious and hard to please and are only skill'd to Cavil at the Mysteries of the Divine Dispensation So far as we know this Particular Method of Redeeming lost Man was Necessary because Satisfaction could not otherwise be made to the offended Majesty of Heaven nor could the Injury done to him be fully repaired But we are sure of this that this Satisfaction and Reparation were really made by Christ the Son of God This is evident from those Texts of Scripture which acquaint us that he took the Guilt of our Sins upon himself He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripeâ—… we are healed The Lord hath laid oâ—… him the iniquity of us all For the transgression of my people was he stricken Isai. 53. 5 7 8. In which words it is as evidenâ—… as any thing possibly can be that the Penalty which was due to us for our sins and transgressions was transferr'd on him and he thereby Satisfied for us And this is the meaning of Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offer'd to bear the Sins of many and of Gal. 3. 13. He was made 〈◊〉 Curse for us he underwent the Punishment for sin which we in our own persons should have undergone and particularly he suffer'd that Cursed death of the Cross. His Satisfying for us is plainly denoted by the frequent mention of Reconciliation i. e. doing some Great thing whereby he purchased the favour of God for us when we were enemies to him When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 5. 18. Or in other terms v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell and having made peace through the blood of his cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself Col. 1. 19 20 21. And accordingly you hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death v. 22. And in several other places this Reconciliation is expresly mention'd And whereas they acknowledg being convicted by these plain Texts that Christ reconciled us unto God but then object that it is not said He reconciled God to us it is a vain and childish suggestion and a mere playing upon words and therefore is not worthy of a serious man for our being reconcil'd unto God and his being reconcil'd to us amount to the same one is included in the other or one at least follows upon the other If we are reconcil'd to God it is a natural consequence that God is so to us and therefore these Objectors shew themselves here as they do upon several other occasions to be very Triflers The Satisfaction made by our Saviour is likewise manifest from those places of the New Testament which make mention of his sufferings for us dying for us laying down his life for us Mat. 20. 28. John 10. 11 15. Rom. 5. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. 1 Thess. 5. 9 10. Heb. 2. 9. 1 Pet. 2. â—…1 3. 18. and many other places which inform us that Christ freely substituted himself in the room of lost men and suffer'd in their stead And this doctrine is undeniably proved from those Texts which represent Christ as a real Propitiation and Atonement for our sins and consequently as a true and proper Expiation for them I say proper because Socinus and his brethren are not backward to acknowledg that he expiated for Sin but then they mean it not in the proper sense i. e. that he deliver'd us from the guilt of Sin by the efficacy and merit of his Blood This likewise is plainly set forth to us in those Texts 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passover i. e. our Paschal Lamb is sacrificed for us Ephes. 5. 2. He hath given himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice for a sweet-smelling savour especially those in the Epistle to the Hebrews which speak of Christ's Offering himself and
being a Sacrifice and thereby making an Atonement unto God for us upon earth which destroys that Senseless Fiction of theirs that he was not a Priest till he came to Heaven This is undeniable that where the Oblation of the Sacrifice is there is the Priest now it was here upon Earth that he was a Sacrifice he offer'd his own blood upon the Cross and therefore he was a Priest upon Earth Therefore it is said When he had by himself purged our sins viz. here by his blood he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high Heb. 1. 3. He first offer'd himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for us and then appear'd in glory and triumph in heaven Other Texts speak of Christ's ransoming us Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. and of redeeming us Rom. 3. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 30. And this Redemption was by his Blood Eph. 1. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 18. call'd the Blood of God Acts 20. 28. This was the Price that was paid for us and so it was a Proper Redemption This Price was paid to God's Justice to free us from the Penalty which was due by the Law to rescue us from eternal wrath and misery This is the doctrine which the Holy Scripture teacheth us and this is the faith of all who rightly understand those Writings viz. that Christ suffer'd and died to satisfie the Divine Justice in our stead and thereby to expiate for our sins and to redeem us from death and hell and to purchase life and salvation for us The Socinians deny this and thereby subvert the whole Gospel turn Christianity upside down ruine the very foundations of our Religion and pluck it up by the roots According to the doctrine of these Men we are yet in our sins for there is no True Expiation for them we are in a State of Misery we are overwhelm'd with our own Guilt we are hopeless helpless creatures and our condition is deplorate for there is no Satisfaction made to God for our transgressions Nay they are not content barely to renounce the contrary doctrine but they explode it with great derision and reproach First as to Christ's Merits we are told by Smalcius that it was taught by Socinus and Ostorodus that the opinion of those is false absurd and pernicious who have invented and feigned that there is any such thing as Merit in Christ. And Smalcius himself is bold to call it the Fictitious Merit of Christ and in another place that Dream of Merit Then as to the Satisfaction it self he is not afraid to stile it a Fiction that hath its rise from the brains of curious men And in his Catechism he hath these reproachful words Though now it is vulgarly thought by Christians that Christ by his death merited Salvation for us and fully satisfied for our sins yet it is a deceitful opinion erroneous and very pernicious Yea this doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is termed Absurd and Impious by Socinus I appeal now to the Reader whether I need prove that those who use such language deserve the last of these Epithets themselves But are the English and Modern Gentlemen of the same opinion Yes as you may see in Mr. Bidle's Scripture Catechism as he calls it but very unjustly Chap. 12. where he shamefully corrupts the sense of Scripture to render his Opinion plausible If you consult one of their Later Writers you will find him in a deriding manner thus representing the doctrine of the Trinitarians viz. that God the Son being incarnate in our nature fulfill'd for us all obedience by his active righteousness and by his passive one he more than exhausted all that Punishment that is or can be due to Sin Whatever he did was for us and what he suffer'd was in our stead and one drop of his blood was sufficient to ransom a thousand worlds from the demerit of their Sins And then they labour to shew that the belief of such doctrine is of very ill consequence it 〈◊〉 the cause of the decay of Piety and it is thaâ—… which bolsters men up in their wicked courses Afterwards in way of derision they thus express the doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction Because they i. e. the Trinitarians pretend that God was incarnate and suffer'd in our stead they are forced to this conclusion that God hatâ—… freely pardon'd and yet was infinitely overpaid for all our transgressions and sins that of his mere Grace the abundance and riches of his grace forsooth he will pardon and save the penitenâ—… because he hath received for them 〈◊〉 you 'll believe it a price of Redemption c. These Tenents they scoff at aâ—… branches growing upon the Trinitarian Stock these they brand as scandalous absurd and heretical doctrines p. 11. 12 14. Iâ—… an other place they declare that the Oblation which Christ made of himself was not made to the Justice of God or by way of a full reparation to it but as all other Sacrifices of beasts formerly were an oblation or application to the mercy of God and as 't is added by way of humble suit In the same place they represent Christ's Satisfaction as a Monster and scoffingly call it the Trinitarians Fetch-back though presently after they seem to retract this Jargon In a pretended Letter to the Clergy of both Universities these New Racovians again ridicule this doctrine and so they do in some others of their late Pamphlets which makes their Character very wretched and dismal and to be abhorr'd by all Good Men and sincere Lovers of Christianity for it is too manifest that they tread under foot the Son of God and count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing and do despite unto the Spirit of grace Thus you see how the doctrine of Socinianism as it respects God in general and more particularly the Persons of the Godhead and in a more especial manner the Second Person or Lord Christ Jesus and his Undertakings you see I say how extremely vitiated it is and fitted to the conceptions and notions of Prophane and Atheistical Spirits CHAP. IV. They maintain that the First Man was not created in a State of Uprightness notwithstanding the Writings of the Old and New Testament expresly assert the contrary Original Sin though attested in the same Holy Writings is pronounced a Fable by them Their groundless notion concerning the Spirit and Divine Assistance With the Pelagians they hold that Man 's Natural Strength is sufficient in order to faith and obedience What are vain and lying words according to Slichtingius Their strange conceptions concerning the Future State It is their opinion that the Souls of the deceased are void of all Perception and Sense that they Live not yea that they Exist not Which notions are proved to be contrary to Scripture and Reason The Immortality of humane Souls is shock'd by these Men. Which shews their Irreligious and Atheistical Propension Some of them disbelieve the Resurrection of the Wicked