in the writings of the New Testament first the Gospel secondly a firm and certain hope of eternal life This is the only acception of the word Spirit in the New Testament so far as we that are under the present dispensation of the Gospel are concern'd As for the former all Christians enjoy it as to the latter it is given only to those that believe and obey the Gospel whence it necessarily follows that it is not requisite before our belief or obedience There is no such thing as the Spirit in order to these i. e. in order to the producing of them in our hearts and lives But though they thus in plain terms renounce the Spirit is there not some Divine Help necessarily requisite for the begetting of faith and holiness in us Yes they grant there is an Outward Help vouchsafed viz. the Promises and Threatnings in the Scripture And there is an Inward one but what is that It is no other than this God's sealing what he hath promised in the hearts of those that obey him which is the same with what was mentioned before viz. a certain hope of eternal life and this is wrought in those that already believe and obey So that it is manifest when they speak of the Spirit and Divine help they mean no previous assistance or operation in order to believing and obeying These spiritual acts according to them are not the product of Divine Grace and the Help of the Spirit for they do not follow these but go before them This is the exact account of the Racovian Perswasion concerning this matter The present Set of Unitarians hold the same they scoff at the particular aids and efficacy of the Spirit in order to Conversion they mock at the inward word which God speaks to the heart whereby the word written or preach'd is rendred effectual whereby Sinners are first convinc'd and then reclaim'd They with Nicodemus profess that they know nothing of this marvellous doctrine they can't imagine what kind of thing this inward word is They will not by any means allow that all is done in Religion by the Grace of God and the assistance of the Spirit beginning continuing and perfecting good actions in us This was the very Heresie of Pelagiâ—…s he and his abettors held it was in every man's natural power to believe and repent without any inward operation of the Grace of God or influence of the Holy Ghost In this the Socinians agree with the Old Pelagians if the Writers of those times give us a true account of them These let us know that it was confidently affirmed by them that it is in the power of man to choose spiritual good without the special assistance of God yea that it is possible to keep the Commandments so strictly and exactly that they shall not stand in need of Pardon that they may arrive to such a Perfection in this life that they shall be able to live without sin as St. Jerom and St. Augustin who narrowly inquir'd into the Sentiments of these men expresly inform us That the Socinians have a Touch of this last to say no more might easily be proved from what is said by Smalcius and Crellius and Bidle and others of them and indeed it partly follows from the abovesaid Principle But the falseness and impiety of it are discernible by those who regulate their thoughts and apprehensions by the Holy Scriptures and who attend to that Article of our Church The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will There is nothing plainer and clearer in the New Testament than this that man can do nothing without the particular assistance of God that will be available to his Salvation And if any man asserts the contrary he makes void the Undertakings of Jesus Christ for he came to redeem us and save us because we were not able of our selves to effect any such thing Wherefore to say we that can of our selves and by our own natural strength do the things that are acceptable to God and will be conducible to our Eternal Salvation is to render the Redemption of Christ useless and unnecessary And this is that which the persons I am speaking of drive at and thereby undermine Christianity it self In brief judg of the Doctrines of the Socinians from what we find in one of the Heartiest Souls of them all who in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians reckons these following Particulars among Vain and Lying Words i. e. Groundless and False Doctrines viz. Justification by the grace of God and not by good works Christ's Obedience and his dying for our sins Faith in Christ Confession Repentance Remission of Sins Baptism and the other Sacrament Also he reckons up among these the Fall of Adam Divine Predestination and Election and afterwards false opinions concerning God and Christ and the Holy Spirit i. e. according to his meaning the believing of the Sacred Trinity Need I now come with my old Charge Do not these men talk like Infidels Fourthly I proceed to display their strange conceptions concerning the Future State and those things which relate to it and to examine whether upon that account they deserve the Character that was given them I will reduce all to these Four Heads viz. their perswasions concerning the Souls of the deceased concerning the General Resurrection concerning the Last Judgment and concerning the Punishment that follows it And the Reader will soon perceive that their apprehensions about all these speak them to be Irreligiously disposed Nay it will be as plain and evident as any Demonstration in Mathematicks that these Writers promote the Cause of Atheists in the world First As to the Souls of those that are dead Socinus holds that till the Resurrection they are devoid of all perception and sensation In these formal words he speaks The Soul of Man after this life doth not so subsist of it self as that it is sensible of any rewards or pains or that it is capable of feeling them And he adds that this is his firm opinion And that we may not mistake him he adjoyns this It sufficiently appears that my sentiment is this viz. that the soul of man doth not so live after his death as that of it self it is capable of rewards and punishments His friend Smalcius is more positive and down-right for these are his words We firmly believe that the deceased Saints exist not for as he explains himself the body perishes and the soul hath no life and perception therefore it may be said that the Saints exist not at all nullâ—… modo In
there are above fourty Clear places of Scripture that express the Plurality of Persons in the Deity and yet they refuse to attend to them Which shews that their eyes are blinded and that they wilfully give themseves up to Mistakes The Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church who may well be supposed to have some knowledg and insight into this Catholick Doctrine unanimously assert the Distinction of Persons or Subsistencies in the Godhead Which is freely acknowledg'd by their Great Master who expresly tells us that the Fathers both before and after the Nicene Council asserted the same doctrine that we do And this hath been the constant profession of the Orthodox Churches of Christ in all ages But notwithstanding this there have been some since unmindful of what their Master had acknowledg'd that have endeavour'd to make the Writings of those Ancients speak for them therein both contradicting Socinus and the Truth it self Nay even among the late Tracts published by the Socinians there is a formal Collection of the Testimonies of Greek and Latin Fathers against the Doctrine of the Trinity So contradictory are these men to one another There is no need of quoting any Particular Authors under this Head for they all appear in a full body against the doctrine of the Trinity Here the whole Posse of the Racovians shew themselves unanimously and without exception declaring that there is but One Person viz. the Father in the Deity and that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God As for the Blessed Son of God who is the Word of the Father begotten from everlasting by him they affirm him to be no other than a Man dignified with the title of God And as for the Holy Ghost who is co-essential with the Father some of them who adhere to Bidle hold he is an Angel or Messenger of God and consequently a Person but the rest of them deny his Personality and averre him to be only the Power or Influence of God and so is only a Quality or Operation as if the Apostles were commanded to baptize all Nations in the name of an Operation and at the same time were enjoyn'd to baptize in the name of Two Persons This is very harsh yea it is very inconsistent and absurd However these Gentlemen are resolv'd to adhere to it and they bid open defiance to the Contrary Doctrine One of the New Racovians tells us that the doctrine of the Trinity hath been partly the direct and necessary Cause and partly the unhappy occasion of diverse Scandalous and Hurtful Errors and Heresies And in an other place he declares that this doctrine is as little consistent with Piety towards God as it is with Reason But this is very mild and gentle in respect of what some other Unitarians belch forth Servetus when he speaks of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God ridicules it in such blasphemous terms as are not to be mention'd and he often calls the Trinity the Three-headed Cerberus Others of them stile it a Monstrous Idol a Fiction of Antichrist an Infernal Imposture Nay our very Modern Socinians our English Unitarians discover a very Prophane Spirit when they speak of this Sublime Point The language of the Church say they concerning the Trinity is BARBAROUS the faith of it is Monstrous And how elegantly do they express themselves when they tell us that the doctrine of the Trinity is a dry and empty notion a bone without marrow or meat What can be more prophane than their stiling the Three Divine Persons a Trinity of Cyphers a Club or Cabal of Gods a Council or Committee of Gods where sometimes one is President and sometimes another is in the Chair and in another place a Castle in the air Let any one peruse their late Prints and observe the freedom of their Stile and he will find it light and frothy as one of their late Converts expresses it he will find them irreverently deriding this Profound Mystery in such terms as I forbear to rehearse because they are most unworthy of Christian and Pious Ears he will find that there was reason to tax them with Irreligion and Prophaneness and that I did not reproach them when I laid these to their Charge But more especially as to the imputation of Atheism which is yet a more Heinous Crime I request the Reader to consider and weigh 1 John 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father Take it thus with the preceding verse which will lead us to the true sense of it Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son As much as to say if there ever was a Person that might be truly call'd a Liar if ever any one deserved that name then certainly he that gainsays so plain a Truth as this that Jesus is the Messias is an egregious Liar and Falsifier and merits to be call'd so Yea to such a one belongs not only the Title of a Liar but of Antichrist because he is a direct Opposer of Christ as he is the Son of God the Father and therein he denies both the Father and the Son For it follows Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father i. e. he denieth the Father as well as the Son for not having the Father is the same with denying him as is most evident from the preceding clause where it is call'd the denying of the Father Now I suppose the Socinians will grant that the denying of the Father is Atheism wherefore they must also acknowledg that the denying of the Son is Atheism because in this is included according to these words of St. John the denying of the Father This is a Text which it may be they never thought of i. e. of the force and influence of it therefore I intreat them to ponder it now and therein to see a Character of themselves There were in St. John's days some of their Perswasion some that opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and especially the Deity of the Second Person they labour'd to perswade the People as their Successors do in our days that the Father only was God and that the Son was excluded wholly from the Divinity Against these this Apostle writes and lets them know that the Son as well as the Father is God and that he who hath the confidence to deny the Deity of the former doth also deny the Deity of the latter For such is the nature of the Godhead that one of these cannot be Alone The Father is not without the Son neither can be as this latter cannot be without the other They are so mutually joyn'd together that they cannot be separated This Coherence is inviolable and therefore he that denies the Eternal Son of God denies the Father he that holds Christ is not the Son of God by Eternal Generation in effect disowns the Godhead of the Father
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
Scriptures is a considerable Branch not to say Root But this is but mean and inconsiderable in respect of what they further hold and maintain For they not only find fault with some passages here and there but they question the Authority of whole Books and even vilifie the Old Testament it self What think you of those words of the Ring-leader of the Party The Precepts of the Old Testament are for the most part such that it is hard to believe that they proceed from God they are either so Light or Vain or Superstitious or even Foolish and Ridiculous and in sum they seem not to be worthy of God Is this the Language of one that hath a due respect and reverence for the Scriptures And in an other place you will find him particularly disparaging the Book of the Proverbs of Solomon And one of his Friends declares that when Solomon in his Proverbs speaks any thing concerning Manners if it be not expresly spoken that is either commanded or forbid by Moses in the Law is no more obligatory than the wise advice and doctrine of any other man What is this but bringing down this Inspit'd Author to the same level with Plato and Seneca or any other honest Moralist But would you know what is the true reason of their slighting and undervaluing this Royal Penman who dictated all by an Infallible Spirit It is this without doubt because there is in that Book so Remarkable a Confirmation of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity chap. 8. v. 22. to 32. where any unprejudic'd man cannot but see that by Wisdom is meant the Son of God Christ Jesus whose Eternal Being and Godhead are there in plain terms express'd I might observe how an other Celebrated Racovian disparages those Writings of Solomon which bear the Title of Ecclesiastes but I shall have occasion to mention this more particularly afterwards Then for the New Testament we are rightly told by an Excellent Pen that our Unitarians undermine the Authority of these Books and so introduce Deism amongst us There are some of these Writings either slily carp'd at or more positively call'd in question by them The Subtilty of Enjedinus an Overseer of the Socinian Churches in Transilvania is to be taken notice of in his Explication of the Epistle to the Hebrews who though he saith he hath an esteem for this Book and will not detract from the Authority of it yet thus speaks It is to be known that this Epistle is very much suspected among the most nor hath it obtain'd the same repute and dignity with the other Writings of the New Testament And then he assigns his Reasons why he questions the Authority of this Epistle one whereof is this The things which this Author writes concerning the Tabernacle chap. 9. v. 1. may be confuted out of the Old Testament An other is that he seems to use foolish Arguings and to assert some things which are manifestly false And lastly this Epistle seems to favour certain Heretical and Erroneous Opinions All this and much more he rehearses in contempt of the Divine Authority of this Epistle and saith not one syllable to shew his dislike of it or to let the World see how these Cavils may be confuted The true reason is because this part of St. Pauls Writings is such an Eminent and Illustrious Attestation of the Divinity of our Saviour and of his making Satisfaction unto God the Father by the offering of himself a Sacrifice upon the Cross for us Again the Writings of St. John the Evangelist and Apostle have been struck out of the Canon of Scripture by these men It is the frank acknowledgment of our New English Unitarians as may be seen in one of their late Prints that the Antient Unitarians generally disregarded the Gospel and Epistles which are ascribed to this Author and held that they were writ by Cerinthus an Heretick in those days But this must be said they pitch'd upon a very unlikely man to be the Author of those Writings for this Cerinthus as Irenaeus Eusebius and others of the most Credible Writers of the Church inform us was the Chief Man in those days that opposed the Divinity of Christ and held him to be a Mere Man whereupon St. John drew his Pen against him Can we think then that the Gospel of St. John was writ against Cerinthus and yet that Cerinthus writ it Besides it is easily proved that both the Gospel and the First Epistle which bear this Apostle's name were universally held to be Canonical Scripture and written by him as Eusebius testifies nay a professed Unitarian Writer firmly vouches this Wherefore it is probable that the only reason why any of the Old Unitarians disallow'd of St. John's Writings was because there are such passages as these in them In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father I and my Father are one He that hath seen me hath seen the Father I am in the Father and the Father in me Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father There are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one In brief because these Writings assert the Holy Trinity and more especially the Divinity of Christ thence they are resolved to defame the authority of them thence our very Modern Unitarians publickly declare that St. John makes use of certain terms and phrases as life light fullness only begotten c. by chance and by other crafty insinuations they would diminish the esteem of those Writings Nay they endeavour to blast the Credit of All the Canonical Books by telling us that some have been modelling the Common Bibles far above twelve hundred years So saith the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity and he speaks in the name of all the rest Thus they would make the World believe that the Whole Sacred Volume is corrupted and thereby our Religion and Faith are rendred Uncertain and Dubious which is the thing aimed at Moreover their vilifying and abusing of the Holy Scripture are seen in their Wild Interpretations of it merely to evade plain Texts which are against them and to establish their own fond Principles I deny not that some of them have very laudable descants on several passages of the Bible Faustus Socinus hath excellent Discourses and Commentaries on sundry Texts he treats excellently of the Authority of the Scriptures and very admirably and judiciously of the Truth of Christianity But at other times he generally dodges and higgles and uses quirks and subterfuges to support his Cause So true is that of our Learned Stilling
make them serviceable to the foresaid Conceit But they alledg another Text What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascended up where he was before John 6. 62. but this is as wide from their purpose as the other for these words were spoken after Christ began to preach and therefore can't be understood of that Ascension which they dream of because they suppose that to have been before his Publick Preaching whereas our Saviour here speaks of something to come What and if ye shall c. His Ascension therefore was not past at that time And further our Saviour acquaints us here that he was in heaven before his Ascension thither which is a plain and undeniable proof of his Divinity for he was not there before as to his Humane Nature that these Gentlemen themselves acknowledg and consequently the words must be meant of his being in heaven with his Father from all eternity and of having the same Glory which he had with him before the World was as he speaks himself John 17. 5. And the other forecited place confirms this for 't is expresly said he came down from heaven and he could not do that unless he were before in heaven yea and is in heaven which both passages are meant of his Divine Eternal Nature as to which he always was and is in heaven He is said to come down thence when he undertook to assume our human nature to be made flesh and with this ascended a short time after his Resurrection and not before Thus they have unwarily made choice of these Texts from which the very Deity of Christ is so plainly deduced a doctrine which they can't endure to hear of Besides from what hath been said it appears that these Texts are nothing to that purpose for which they alledg them and particularly this latter is spoken of the Ascension of Christ which was then to come and therefore can't be meant of that which they talk of Yet notwithstanding this the Socinian Writers hold a Double Ascension of our Saviour and they had it from their Great Master who was the first Inventor of this Figment Smalcius a Racovian Minister the Author of the Racovian Catechism Crellius a German but resident at Racovia Slichtingius a Polonian Knight Volkelius and others publish it as a very Great Truth nay they fancy it to be the First Step to all Christ's Undertakings and therefore must be of mighty Concern The New Set of Socinian Writers hold the same Before Christ enter'd on his office he was taken up into heaven say they to be fully instructed and inform'd in the nature and quality of his Office and of that whole charge which he was to deliver to men Yet this Invention hath nothing in the whole Evangelical History to favour it If there had been any such thing the New Testament would not have been silent it would have been mention'd by the Evangelists or one of them at least as a very considerable part of Christ's Transactions Yea the Apostles Creed without doubt which mentions his Ascension into heaven after his resurrection would have particularly mention'd this if he had before ascended it being as they say of such eminent importance viz. to fetch down from heaven a Religion for us as they are pleas'd to speak This Ancient Symbol would have taken notice that our Saviour went up twice into heaven once to take his Instructions from God the Father and afterwards to sit at his right hand But neither here nor in the whole Narrative of his Actions in the Gospels do we meet with any thing concerning the former Ascension If the Reader is desirous of a farther confutation of this Antecedent or Preparatory Ascension let him consult the Admirable Bishop Pearson who excellently shews the improbability unreasonableness and absurdity of it I will only add this as observable that they confute their New Doctrine themselves for concerning the very Texts which they alledg for it which speak of Christ's being in heaven and coming down from heaven a late Writer of the Socinian Perswasion saith thus These Texts amount to no more than this that the Lord Christ is a Messenger really come forth from God to Men as much is true of every Prophet And so every Prophet ascended up to heaven as much as our Saviour did Thus they baffle themselves and they must needs do it it cannot be help'd because they make use of Scripture to such evil purposes because they study to pervert and distort the sense of it Their business is to bring the Bible to their Sentiments and Opinions and not to form these by that Nay if Scripture be so express against them that they know not how to evade it they abandon it rather than they will quit their own Conceptions This is the way of them all and one of them who was more open-hearted than the rest le ts us know by his own practice what those of his Perswasion should do on the like occasion I would not saith he believe that the Son of God was Incarnate though I should find it in express words in Scripture And Socinus hath something like this concerning the Satisfaction of Christ For my part saith he though it were extant in the Sacred Monuments of the Scripture and there written not only once but many times I would not for all that believe it To summ up all then that hath been said I ask whether the Socinians asserting of Repugnancies in the Holy Scripture whether their questioning the Authority of some of the Books and representing the whole as deprav'd whether the wilful wresting of particular places to establish their own Opinions whether I say these be not plain Marks of Irreligion and such as directly tend to make men Atheists CHAP. II. The Writings of some of the Socinians as well as of Vaninus and Machiavel who seem to assert a God prove them not to be no Atheists They have a Licence to Dissemble Socinus allows not of the proof of a Deity either from any inward dictates in a mans Mind or from any outward operations in the World Some of the Chief of Gods Attributes are question'd if not denied by the Racovians They admit not of his Spirituality The Absurdity of which Opinion is discovered They reject his Omnipresence Which doctrine of theirs is shew'd to be repugnant to Reason and Holy Writ They deny his Foresight of future Contingent Actions Which Perswasion is evinc'd to be inconsistent with the Nature of God the discoveries made by the Inspired Writers the Predictions recorded in the Holy Scriptures the Providence of God which extends to future events which depend on the Free Will of man Their notion concerning God's Eternity is Unscriptural and unworthy of his Excellent Nature Therefore no Learned Writer allows of a Successive Duration in God properly and strictly speaking SEcondly we will see what their Opinions and Apprehensions are concerning God which is the next
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
it is said expresly that then Men shall give an Account viz. of their words and actions Mat. 12. 36. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Pet. 4. 5. and can any but Volkelius imagine that this Form of Speech signifies that they shall be punished if they be guilty of such and such Crimes Again in the Description of the General Resurrection and Last Judgment it is said The Books were opened and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books Rev. 20. 12. which imports that there shall be a Scanning of their Lives their Thoughts words and deeds shall be plainly Discover'd these as well as the Persons of Men shall appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ they shall be manifested and laid open Thus the Socinian Error as it is repugnant to Good Reason and Common Sense so it contradicts the Holy Book of God and the Revelation made to us there But this is not all can there be a greater Gratification excepting what I shall mention next to all Atheists than this that none of their actions shall be accounted for Let men blaspheme curse God and Man abjure Religion persecute the faithful Professors of it give themselves up to all manner of Debauchery and Immorality and live and die in the commission of all that is impious and execrable yet they shall never hold up their hands for this at the Last Bar there shall be no particular Account given or taken of any thing of this nature Yea let Men live all their Days in a course of Dissembling in a mere form of Godliness in an external Shew of Religion whilst they inwardly abhor all that is Good and Vertuous nay let them be guilty of the most horrid villanies and impieties in secret let them privily commit murder adultery incest and whatever fact is Horrid and Detestable and let them descend into the grave with the guilt of these upon them without the least motions of Godly Sorrow and Repentance yet be it known to them that they shall never be Examined concerning any of these past actions no not concerning the most secret of them Whatever Enormities they have been guilty of here they shall be passed by in silence hereafter and never be mention'd to their Shame and reproach Surely this doctrine was calculated for the Meridian of those whom I before named Surely none but persons of Atheistical Principles could oâ—… would vent such Conceptions as these and none but those who are Lovers of them can embrace them The last thing which I propounded to speak of under this Head of my Discourse is the Punishment which is awarded at that Final Close of the world And here I shall shew that the Socinians have wretchedly perverted the Holy Scriptures and have thereby gratified those persons who live without God in the world and make their Lusts the only Rule of their actions Though they generally grant that the Ungodly shall rise at the last day yet they tell us that immediately after that they shall be Annihilated or which is the same thing they shall utterly cease and eternally perish as Socinus expresly saith This Perishing of the wicked was at first but hinted by this Writer and therefore a Judicious Author calls it the Covert Doctrine of the Socinian but afterwards he and others were plain and open enough for according to him the Punishment of the wicked is a Total and Eternal Dissolution not a Perpetual Torment but a perpetual Extinction Smalcius interprets Mat. 10. 28. where Christ threatens destruction both of soul and body in hell of the utter Perdition of them and not of the Tormenting of them He propounds it as credible that Ungodly Men as well as Devils are to be utterly destroyed and annihilated and that the Righteous only shall survive And if he did not believe it why did he make Reply to those places of Scripture which are produced to prove the contrary as you may see in his Disputation concerning the Last Judgment In the same place he hath these words The Soul or Spirit can't be cast into hell because according to Solomon it returns unto God Slichtingius is positive that all the future Punishment of the Reprobate is that they shall be eternally destroyed or consumed According to Crellius the punishment of Christ's Enemies after the day of Judgment ends in the Delection of them I 'll mention one Writer more whose words are these God will inflict upon 〈◊〉 man a Punishment that is greater than his Demerits now there can be no Sins so grievous as to equal Eternal Torments Eternity is a long time and this is the Greatest Punishment that can be to be deprived for ever of eternal happiness and to perish for ever As for the English Socinians they are presumed to write after the Copy of their Countryman who hath publickly told the world that all the Wicked are to be burnt up and to perish eternally and never to be any more And I have lately receiv'd it from a Professed Friend of the Gentleman whom I have had to do with about the One Article that he hath sometime express'd his thoughts to this purpose concerning the Eternity of Hell-Torments when it hath been propounded to him but he knows best whether he hath given occasion for such a Report It is certain that this is a doctrine disallow'd of by the Church of Christ in all ages and therefore disallow'd because repugnant to those discoveries of God's will which we have in the infallible Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles Our Saviour told the inhabitants of Choâ—…azin and Bethsaida that it should be more tolerable for those of Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for them Luke 10. 14. And again he saith It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrain that day than for that city which receiv'd not his Apostles Mat. 10. 15 But could he thus speak if the Racovian Position be true that the Punishment allotted to the wicked at the last day is their Utter Dissolution Can the condition of some persons be more tolerable than that of others if their Punishment be the very Same And must it not be the same if it be Annihilation This makes the punishment of all Equal for one can't be more Annihilated than another and consequently it can't be more tolerable for one than another But if we embrace the other Assertion viz. that the Wicked being raised to life at the last day shall be continued iâ—… that life for ever that thereby they may suffer that Torment which they deserve for their Sins then we may understand what our Saviour saith then we may apprehend how it shall be more tolerable for some than others at the day of Judgment that is the Misery of the damned shall be proportion'd to theâ—… Crimes they shall be punish'd according to the Heinousness of their Enormities mighty men shall be mightily tormented But there can be no such thing
they shall not be Tried or Judged Only they shall be Punished and their Punishment is this To utterly eease and perish for ever the Unquenchable Fire is nothing but Annihilation I believe as to Christianity it self that every thing in it is to be submitted to the dictates of Humane Reason and what cannot be explain'd and made out by this is no part of the Christian Religion and consequently that there are no doctrines appertaining to it which are Mysterious and Superiour to our Reason I believe as to Divine Worship that it may be given to another besides God that a Creature may if God thinks fit be the object of Adoration and consequently Christ who is but a Creature may be worship'd with Divine Worship even the same that is paid to God the Father I believe that Prayer as eminent an act of Worship as it is was not required in the Old Testament for God's people had no need of Praying then they were able to do all that was commanded them in their Religion without the Divine Assistance and therefore the Invoking of God became not a Duty till Christ's time I believe the Lord's day commonly so call'd is a Ceremonious Observance and abolish'd by the Gospel which takes away all Choice of Days I believe that there is no Spiritual Blessing convey'd or conferr'd in the use of the Sacraments and particularly that Baptism is an useless Rite which the Christian Church under the Gospel hath nothing to do with but more especially the Baptizing of Children is insignificant vain and childish and hath neither Precept nor Example to commend it to us I believe there is no Distinct Function or Office of Ministers in the Christian Church and that the Lord's Supper it self may be administred by any private Christian or Brother As to Moral Points I believe that Officious Lies are lawful that the Motions of Concupiscence are not Vitious that idle or obscene words gluttony drunkenness riot luxury and all impure desires and lusts were not forbidden till Christ's time and consequently were no Sins I believe concerning Magistrates that they have no power of Life and Death it is not lawful for them now under the Gospel to inflict Capital Punishments on any Offenders or Malefactors no not Murderers and Cut-throats Concerning some other Articles I believe as the Church believes I mean the Church of Rome for we symbolize with them in several points of doctrine Lastly after all I believe that though the foresaid Articles are necessary to make a man a Socinian yet the belief of only One is enough to make a Man a Christian and that One Article is that Jesus is the Messias in which it is not included whether he be God or Man whether he satisfied the Divine Justice for our sins and by vertue of his Death purchas'd Life for us But when I say I believe Jesus is the Messiah I mean only this that such a Man of Nazareth was Anointed Ordain'd and Sent of God to be a Saviour and that this is He who was foretold and promis'd to be sent by God This is all I believe and there is no Necessity of believing any thing more This is the Socinian Creed and I have faithfully drawn it up out of their own Admired and Applauded Writers I know it will be said here that some besides professed Socinians hold some of these things To which I answer I made it not my present business to observe what Others say but to represent what that body of men who are known by the name of Socinians profess and own Again it is not one of these Opinions alone excepting that concerning the Blessed Trinity which can give the denomination of Socinian it is the Complication of them that must do it Therefore Iinsist not on any one Single Opinion of lesser importance Those that bear upon them the General and Complex Characters which I have layd down in the preceding Discourse are the Persons that I design'd In short I write not and never will by God's assistance to humour and gratifie any Party of Men but to assert and vindicate the Truth which is pleasing to all Good Men. And therefore if any sort of persons shall censure my freedom I shall have recourse to my own Innocence and Integrity that is my hearty designs and indeavours to advance that Cause which I verily believe hath Truth on its side because it hath the Scriptures on its side If they shall say and what will they not say that the English Socinians give not their suffrage to all these Particulars which I have produced and named and therefore my Charge against the Foreigners doth not reach them I desire these following things may be considered and then this Evasion will be found to be very weak and useless and nothing to their purpose and it will appear that this Scheme of Socinianism belongs to them as well as to the rest First we are not sure that some of those who go under the name of English Socinians are not Foreigners Is not Crellius's Stock somewhere harbour'd among them Have there not been seen strange Outlandish Books at the Press of late May we not suspect some Transylvanians and Polanders employ'd in the work lately Are we not sure that there are some Irish as well as English ingaged in the service Why then are we nice in distinguishing when they are not differenc'd as to their work and design Secondly as for our very English and Native Socinians they borrow'd their Opinions from those Foreigners they fetch'd them from those Writers and they maintain them by the same Arguments that they did They use the very same Texts and urge them after the same manner they follow them step by step vouch their Reasonings applaud their Discoursings only they dress up their notions in an English garb and give them a more Modish Turn than they had before That 's all the difference between those Authors and these of late in England Thirdly though some of the Moderns are so politick as to be silent about some of the Points that I have mention'd yet we have no reason to gather thence that they are not inclin'd to imbrace them It is a remarkable hint of a very Observing Person There is reason to suspect saith he that the Socinians have some other odd Tenents which they think fit rather to conceal than to deny For we must consider this that they would first gain their Main Point the overthrow of the Trinity and all the Maxims that relate to that This is the Leading Card with them and therefore they chiefly insist on this intending we may suppose to urge the rest afterwards For it would be too much to undertake at one time to defend all the other doctrines And besides it would be too odious to reject so many receiv'd Propositions at once Therefore they go not this way to work lest they should be universally cried down It is their cunning to proceed gradually and to undermine Christianity
out of their favour They laugh at the Orthodox as they call them for thundring it from their Pulpits that matters of Faith are above Reason So the Letter to the Clergy of both Universities chap. 10. And those that will not reject the Trinity and other doctrines exploded by the Socinians are Priest-ridden Letter of Resolution p. 19. They adhere to other Enthusiastick Spirits as to their mistaken conceits concerning Magistracy and the Secular Sword They perfectly accord with the Quakers in their opinions about the Trinity Christ's Satisfaction Original Corruption concerning the Ministerial Function and Mission concerning Infant-Baptism the Observation of the Christian Sabbath going to War c. So that any considerate man may observe that Quakerism is the spawn of Socinianism Nay they seem to have given rise to the wild Sect of Muggletonians who from them have learnt to hold but One Person in the Godhead viz. God the Father and to call the Trinity or a God of Three Persons as they speak a Monster as our Gentlemen are pleas'd also to express themselves They have been taught from them to renounce the Power of the Christian Magistrate and the Office of a Christian Minister they are instructed by them in their Tenents concerning the Spirits or Souls of men viz. that they can't act without the body and that therefore they are extinct as soon as they are separated from it They are the very words of this late Party and they are taken from the Racovians An other detachment is that the Bodies of the deceased wherein they lived and died shall not rise again shall not appear any more This is their language whence it is evident that Reeve and Muggleton suck'd their Principle from Faustus Socinus and his Adherents And thus you see that as the Socinians borrow from several Sects so they set up others they receive and distribute Poison and thereby doubly endanger mankind Lastly it is apparent that they borrow from Deists and Atheists and thereby yet further bring mischief upon the world And from the whole it is evident that these persons are corrupted not only in some matters of lesser moment but in those that are of the highest concern not only in merely Speculative doctrines but such as immediately relate to Practise not only in some Principles that respect the Circumstances of Christianity but in those that are Substantial and Fundamental those that are of the very Essence of the Christian Faith Let this be seriously thought of that we may have a true apprehension of the mischief of Socinianism Secondly Observe the strange boldness as well as falshood of these men They are often in their Writings insinuating into their Readers that they build all their Assertions on the Scriptures and thence they require their assent to what they deliver But from the several Particulars which I have insisted upon it is clear that they have no ground to require or claim it upon that account for I have manifestly discover'd the opposition of their Tenents to the plain dictates of the Holy Spirit in the Bible There they are condemned as spurious and adulterate Notions there they are rejected as Pernicious and Poisonous doctrines And yet they have the confidence to ground these on the authority of the Inspired Writings the Sacred Oracles of Truth yea One of them tells the world that he was brought to these Perswasions by reading the Scripture that hereby they may the more effectually impose upon the minds of men who they think will be ready to attend to that which they pretend is bottom'd on the Word of God Thirdly These things which have been suggested may be serviceable to give us a Right Idea of the persons I have been dealing with Surely those who have thus mangled and abused Religion cannot be thought to have a Good Intention in the work which they are about at this day yea they must be thought to have a very Bad one We may argue thus It is no wonder that they that pervert and deprave so many doctrines of Religion do more especially enervate the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity If it were only on the account of all their other wild notions we might have reason to suspect yea to condemn their blasphemous Opinion concerning our Lord Jesus Christ viz. their flat denial of his Godhead and of his Satisfaction c. It is not to be marvel'd at that they proceed thus far having done so much besides having in other Points of Christianity shew'd what a faculty they have of perverting and distorting the Truths of the Gospel What I have said therefore will be useful to enlighten the Reader that he may understand what manner of persons these are that to speak plainly he may be convinced that they are no Christians Whatever pretences they make to that Title it is impossible they should with reason lay claim to it for they neither are baptised into the Christian Faith nor do they make Profession of it as you have heard but on the contrary they subvert Christianity it self and deny the Divine Author of it How then can these men challenge the name of Christians Nay I could observe that they industriously comply with Jews and Turks in opposition to and defiance of all Sober Christians To gratifie the former they think fit to renounce the avowed Principles of the latter Herein they follow their Old Friend Servetus who had convers'd a long time with Jews and Mahometans and had espoused many of their Opinions and was a great Admirer of them Especially he declar'd his approbation of the Alcoran and thought it reconcileable with the New Testament if the doctrine of the Trinity were laid aside It is often mention'd by Socinus and other Racovian Writers that this doctrine and that of the Incarnation hinders Jews and Turks from embracing the Christian Religion And even the late Socinian Penmen in their New Tractates talk much of this that the doctrine of the Trinity puts a stop to the conversion of Jews Mahometans and Heathens and thereupon they are very earnest with their Readers to abandon this Great Point of Christianity in mere complacency with those Infidels And more particularly it is observable how favourably they speak of Mahometism or Turcism they profess themselves forward to believe that Mahomet had no other design in pretending himself to be a Prophet but to restore the belief of the Unity of God which at that time was extirpated among the Eastern Christians by the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation Mahomet meant not his Religion should be esteemed a New Religion but only the Restitution of the true Intent of the Christian Religion Therefore the Mahometan Learned men call themselves the True Disciples of the Messias They further in the same place insinuate their approbation of the Mahometan Religion above that of Christianity they magnifie the Alcoran and the more plausible Sect of Mahomet as the Saracens call'd it and at the same time they represent the
Modern Christianity which professes the doctrines of Christ's Incarnation and the Trinity no better or other than a sort of Paganism and Heathenism These are their very terms P. 19. and they are answerable to what was said by them before viz. that the Trinitarian doctrines are of Heathen descent and original P. 15. and afterwards to vary the phrase of Paganick Extraction P. 16. I appeal now to the Reader whether this be not right Sclavonian whether it be not the very language and dialect of the Polonian Divines which shews that these are identified with the English Unitarians as to this matter and at the same time it yields us a true Pourtraiture of the persons I have been representing to the Reader Fourthly we should be very careful that we entertain none of their foresaid Opinions I question not but the Reader would have made this Inference though I had not But this I request of him that he would out of Choice and Judgment do this as being throughly apprehensive of that Evil and Danger which attend those Principles For this purpose I have display'd them and I hope that Special Hand of Providence for I cannot but acknowledg it as such which directed me to it will back it with a Blessing Fifthly and lastly see the tendency of the Unitarians and of the whole mass of the Socinian Points to Atheism They vilifie the Scipture they adulterate the true Meaning of it they introduce unbecoming sentiments concerning God and Religion they decry the great and necessary Truths of the Gospel they baffle the apprehensions which we ought to have of a Future State and what doth all this drive at but the undermining of Religion yea and Divinity it self So fitly was this Question inserted by a Learned Man above sixty years ago among his other Enquiries at the end of his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History Whether Socinianism be not an Introduction to Atheism So truly was it said lately by an Observing Pen In several respects our Socinians seem to be serving the designs of the Atheists I wish the Christian world would open their eyes and see this betimes and thereby prevent the unexpressible Danger which otherwise will unavoidably follow I offer it to be taken notice of that the Socinian and Atheistical party joyn hand in hand at this time and agree together in a very friendly manner to laugh at and defie the Fundamental Principles of Religion Such a Reflection methinks should be dismal to those of the Modern Penmen of the Socinian Perswasion who are sober and considerate They write whether they know it or no to please and humour the Wild Gallants those in city and countrey that are of Lewd Principles or of none at all Nothing is more evident at this day than that the Socinian Writings are highly acceptable to those that espouse the Cause of Atheism to the profesâ—…edly Prophane and Irreligious These are the men that applaud them and cry them up and think they are fraught with great Wit Argument and Reason I appeal to Impartial Judges whether this doth not shew the near Affinity if not Identity between these persons and those I am mentioning He that doth not see this sees nothing To conclude if what I have said sound harsh in these Gentlemens ears I request them to call to mind how severe they have been in censuring the Trinitarians and particularly in charging them with Idolatry Though Slichtingius and one or two more are unwilling to say in express terms that we are Idolaters yet both he and all the party assert that which is equivalent for they say we worship a mere Figment a Fancy of our own for so they blasphemously stile the Holy Trinity we set up an Idol of our own brain for an object of Divine Worship But our Home-bred Unitarians are yet bolder and speak it out without any mincing that the Trinitarians are Idolaters and Pagans and much worse and this they often inculcate But certainly to tax us with Idolatry when they themselves professedly worship a Creature as hath been observ'd before is the wildest Conceit that ever enter'd into any man's head the Boldness Inconsistency and Non-sense of it are so great that we can't sufficiently stand amazed at it Nay not only Idolatry but Atheism is laid to our charge I find that Servetus calls the Trinitarians Atheists very frequently And even the Modern Unitarians in their late writings expresly fix this Crime upon them for their words are these concerning the doctrine of the Trinity By its natural absurdity and impossibility it did not only at first give a check and stop to the progress of the Gospel but ever since it hath served to propagate Deism and Atheism The doctrine it self cannot do this without its being urged and managed by those that assert it therefore it is as much as if they had said Those who defend the Trinity propagate Atheism Now it will not be denied I think that those who propagate Atheism are Atheists Wherefore according to these men a Trinitarian is an Atheist In an other place they say he may be justly suspected of Atheism and they mention on what account Others of them tell us that Whatever Zeal the Trinitarians may pretend to have for Religion they take the right way to make men Scepticks and Atheists And the last man that wrote in defence of the Socinian Cause complains of us that we make that a Fundamental of Religion which contradicts the best reasonings of mankind whereby they prove the existence of God Thence loose men deny there is any God at all Thus you see what the Socinian Charge is against us Whence you may perceive that Mine is but a Counter-Charge and therefore they have no reason to find fault with the foregoing Retaliation especially when with the utmost Sincerity I declare that my Charge against them was not founded upon theirs or occasion'd by it for it was since the time that I drew up mine against them that I found this Accusation in some of their Papers Which may convince any unprejudiced person that what I have said with reference to the Anti-Trinitarians is not in way of Recrimination for I did not know that their Writings had any thing of that nature against those that defend the Trinity But it was and is from a sense and perswasion of the truth of the thing it self and that alone that I have and do at present thus tax them and turn their Obloquy upon themselves And truly I have done it with a sensible compassion all the while for I cannot rejoyce as some seem to do at finding an occasion of Censuring and Blaming others I submit what I have said to the Consciences of all Sober Faithful and Judicious Men all Sincere Lovers of God and Religion Let these judg between us and our Adversaries And now to shut up all if any one with calmness and sobriety laying aside all levity and scurrility all artifice and
Clergy of this Nation and they are the far Greatest Part of those that dissent from our Church in the point of Discipline and Ceremonies They are all the Sober Heads of both these Perswasions who unite in the Main Articles of Religion profess'd and subscrib'd to by the Church of England Nay they are the Whole Body of the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad as well as at home These are the Men of Art who by this Gentleman's friends are at other times call'd Systematick-Men and sometimes Mystery-Men and by way of derision Orthodox These are the Men of Art who are also so called you must know in Contradistinction to the Plain Fellows for so the Racovians stile themselves in their Treatise of the Trinitarian Scheme of Religion But when this writer saith these men of Art are in an Evil Conspiracy what is the meaning of that It is no other than this that they joyntly agree to disallow of and condemn a late upstart Conceit viz. that the belief of One sole Article of Christianity is sufficient not only to denominate but to constitute any Man a Christian. Now would not a Considerate Man perswade himself that this Unanimous Concurrence of all the Learned Wise Sober and Religious in this matter is rather to be deemed a Happy Union than a Conspiracy and that an Evil one And whereas this Writer tells us that the book of the Reasonableness of Christianity is of eminent use to overthrow and ruine Faction p. 51 I must needs declare that I 'm of the contrary opinion and I conceive I have abundantly proved in a late Discourse I publish'd that the Notions which the Treatise of the Reasonableness of Christianity is fraught with administer to Faction and something Worse amongst us which I have been warning the Reader of in the preceding Discourse The short is this Gentleman and I can't agree about Mr. L.'s Book for he at least saith for we are not certain of his Thoughts and that without any Proof that it is one of the best books that hath been publish'd for at least these sixteen hundred years p. 52 but I 'm of opinion and I 'm sure I have Proved it that it is one of the Worst that hath appear'd in the world since the date of Christianity FINIS * Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity p. 3. * Preface to his Discourse concerning Christ's Satisfaction * P. 33 Psal. 11. 3. * Socin de Author S. Script cap. 1. †De Vera Relig l. 5. c. 5. ‖ Cat. Racov. de Scriptura cap. 1. * Institut Theolog. lib. 4. ‖ A brief History of the Unitarians ‖ Socin Epist. 2. ad Dudith * Explicat 5. Mat. 4â—… †Ostorodus in Institut cap. 30. * Smalc cont Frantz ‖ Bishop Stillingfleet's Pref. to the Discourse of Christ's Satisfaction * Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 49 50. ‖ Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 24. lib. 5. cap. 8. * Sandius de Script Eccles. †Considerations on the Explications c. p. 49. * Preface to the Discourse of Christ's Satisfaction * An Accurate Examination of the Principal Texts alledged for Christ's Divinity p. 24 25 26. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. hist. l. 1. c. 3. †Sulpit. lib. 2. ‖ An Answer to a Letter touching the Trinity * An Accurate Examination of the principal Texts alledg'd for Christ's Divinity chap. 5. * Socin in Catechesi †De Divin Christi cip 4. Cont. Frantz Exam. cent errorum ‖ In Epist. ad Hebr. cap. 1. v. 6. ** Commentar in Heb. 1. 6. ††De V. R. l. 3. c. 5. ‖‖ An Accurate Examination of the principal texts alledg'd for Christ's Divinity chap. 5. * On the 2d Article of the Creed †Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity * Smalc Hom. 8. in cap. 1. Johan †De Servatore cap. 6. * De Deo Attributis * Disp. de Repub. l. 1. c. 11. †De Deo Attrib cap. 5. ‖ Cap. 6. * H. Grotii Pietas ad Ordines Holland * Praelect cap. 2. * Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity * Crellius de Deo Attribut cap. 15. †Commentar in Johan 4. 24. ‖ Comment in 1. Epist. ad Corinth cap. 15. v. 45. * Scripture Catechism Chap. 2. †Sine corpore ullo Deum vult esse ut Graeci dicunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Nat. Deor. l. 1. * Tractat. breves de diversis materiis c. †Socin in Catechismo * Cont. Frantz Disp. 1. de Trin. †De Deo Attrib cap. 27. ‖ Institut l. 4. c. 13. ** Bidle Scripture-Catechism Chap. 2. The Exceptions of Mr. Edw. in his Causes of Atheism examined p. 18. * Plin. Nat. Hist. l. c. 7. * Cont. Frantz Disp. 1 and 12. †De Deo Attrib Cap. 24. ‖ Cap. 9. 11. * Socin Praelect cap. 8 9 10. * Praelect cap. 8. †Not. ad Disp. 5. de Deo †De Deo cap. 18. ‖ Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity ** The Trinitarian Scheme of Religion p. 4. Praelect cap. 8. * Socin cont Wiek cap. 9. †Moscorov cont Smiglecium Slichting cont Meisnerum * A Letter to the Clergy of both Universities p. 11. * P. 5. †Lib. 1. de Trinit Error ‖ An Answer to a Letter touching the Trinity ** A Postscript to the Answer to a Letter touching the Trinity * Letter to the Clergy of both Universities p. 15. †P. 24. ‖ P. 26. ** Of worshiping the Holy Ghost p. 12. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Orat 32. * Socin de Servat par 1. c. 2 3. †De Servat par 3. c. 5. ‖ De V. R. l. 5. c. 20. ** Praelect cap. 18. ††De Christo Servatore par 3. cap. 4. * Cat. Racov. de Prophet Christi munere †Socin de Servat par 2. c. 15. Praelect cap. 24. Cat. Racov. c. 8. de Prophet Christi munere Item de munere Christi Sacerdotali qu. 8. ‖ Praelect Theolog. ** De Christo Servat ††Smalc de Satisfactione contr Smiglec Cat. Racov. de Prophet Christi mun cap. 8. Crellius contr Grotium * Cat. Racov. cap. eod * Theodoret. de Provid Serm. 6. * Rom. 3. 25. 1 John 22. 4. 10. †Rom. 5. 11. ‖ Chap. 9. 26. 10. 10 12. and other places * Cont. Frantz Disp. 4. †Ibid. ‖ Disp. 6. ** Homil 4. in 1. Johan * De Morte Christi qu. 12. †De Servatore ‖ A Letter of Resolution concerning the doctrine of the Trinity p. 7. * The Antitrinitarian Scheme of Religion p. 18. * Chap. 6. and 8. †Heb. 10. 29. * Prâ—…ct cap. 3. †Instit. cap. 1. * Smalc contr Smiglec de Dei filio cap. 7. * Praelect cap. 4. De Christo Servatore par 4. cap. 6. De Officio viri Christiani cap. 5. †Volkelius de
V. R. l. 5. c. 18. Smalc Disp. 4. de Justificat De Pecc Orig. disp 2. De Poenitent disp 2. Catech. Racov. de libero Arbit qu. 2. Slichting Comment in Rom. 5. 12 13. Comment in Johan 9. 3 34. Episcop Instit. l. 4. §. 5. c. 2. * Quòd Regn. Polon c. cap. 5. †Diâ—…g de Justificat * De Div. Christi cap. 7. †De V. R. l. 3. c. 11. ‖ The Trinitarian Scheâ—…e of Religion p. 21 22. * P. 11. †Socin Praelect cap. 5. Smalc de Justific disp 4. ‖ De Prophet Christi munere cap. 6. qu. resp 9. * Cat. Rac. de proph Christi mun c. 6. Resp. 8. †Ibid. cap. 10. qu. 〈◊〉 8. * Resp. 9. †Trinitarian Scheme of Religion p. 24. * P. 26. †P. 21. ‖ Epist. ad Cresc ** Lib. 2. de Peccat Merit * Cont. Frantz disput 12. †Eth. l. 2. c. 6. ‖ Scripture Catechism chap. 16. ** The 10th * Slichting in Eph. 5. 6 * Epist. 5. ad Volkel * Exam. cent Errorum †De vero nat Dei filio cap. 6. ‖ Cont. Frantz disp 7. de extremo judicio * De Div. Christi cap. 13. †Comment in 〈◊〉 Câ—… 20. ‖ In Heb. 11. 40. ** De V. R. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 * In Epist. 1 Petr. cap. 1. v. 5. †In Epist. ad Hebr â—…p 11. v. 40. ‖ In Epist. ad Hebr. cap. 12. v. 22. * Volkel de V. R. l. 3. c. 11. †Lib. 3. cap. 19. ‖ Wolzogen in 6 Meditat. Mâ—…phys Câ—…rtes * Epist. 6. ad Volkel †Instit. cap. 41. ‖ Epist. praedict ad Volkel * Exam. cent ertorum †De V R. l. 3. c. 35. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isidor Pelus Epist. l. 2. †Theodoret. de Provid Orat. 9. ‖ Difficilius est id quod non sit incipere quà m id quod fuetit iterate Minut. Felix ** Deo elementorum custodi reservatur Ibid. * Bishop Pearson on 11th Article of the Creed * In Heb. 9. 27. †De V. R. l. 3. c. 33. * De V. R. l. 3. c. 34. * In Johan 1 11. †Bishop Pearson on the 12 Article of the Creed ‖ Resp. ad defens Puc cap. 8. ** Cont. Meisner ††Disp. de Baptismo Disp. 7. de Extremo Judicio * Cont. Frantz disp 7. de extremo judicio †In Hebr. 10. 27. ‖ Comment in 1 Cor. 15. ** Wolzogen Comment in 25. chap. Matth. v. 46. ††J. Bidle Script Catech. chap. last * Cont. Frantz disp 7. †Comment in 1 Cor. 15. ‖ 43 44 45 46 48. * On the 11th Article of the Creed * In his Treatise of Humane Understanding book 1. †Praelect cap. 2. * Essay of Humane Understanding book 4. chap. 4. * P. 151. * P. 149 150. †See Miscellaneous Letters for the Month of September 1695. page 465. * Refut lib. de Verbo Incarnato cap. 3. * History of the Unitarians pag. 24. †A Defence of the brief History of the Unitarians ‖ Some Thoughts upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trinity * Letter to the Clergy of both Universities chap. 10. * Dr. Owen of Apostacy * Refut lib. de Verbo incarnato cap. 9. †De via salut cap. 1. Qu. Resp. 7. ‖ Refut lib. de V. J. cap. 8. ** Cont. Frantz disp 3. de Sacrament * A Letter of Resolution concerning the doctrine of the Trinity p. 1. * Mat. 13. 11. 1 Cor. 2. 7. Eph. 6. 19. Col. 2. 2. 1 Tim. 3. 16. * An Impartial Account of the word Mystery c. * Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity * Some Thoughts concerning the Causes of Atheism p. 71 72. * Some Considerations concerning the Trinity p. 7. * P. 33. * Respons ad Johan Nievojev †3. ad Radec. ‖ Examinat Argument pro Trino Uno Deo ** Disp. cont Francken Wiek ††Disp. praedict * De V. R. lib. 5. c. 29. †Smalc Exam. cent error ‖ De Errorib Arianorum * Exam. cent error †Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity * Christianity not Mysterious †An Accurate Examination of the Principal Texts alledg'd for Christ's Divinity chap. 10. * Of Worshiping the Holy Ghost c. †P. 7. ‖ A Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity according to the Scriptures p. 12. * Explicat cap. 5. Matth. †De V. R. l. 4. c. 9. ‖ De Divin Christi * De Prophet Christi mun cap. 1. * Volkel de V. R. l. 4. c. 9. * Smalc de Div. Christi cap. 5. Volkel l. 4. c. 9. * Lib. 4 c. 14. †De Prophet Christi mun cap. 1. * Barclay's Apology †Article 25. ‖ Article 2â—… * Socin in Paraenesi cap. 4. Epist. 3. ad Radec. Volkel l. 4. c. 12. l. 6. c. 14. Smalc cont Frantz disp 5. de Ministr Eccles. Item Disp. 9. de Hypocr Item Disp. 3. de Sacramentis †Lib. 4. c. 22. ‖ De Coena qu. 5. * Wolzogen Comment in Mat. 26. 26. †Trinitarian Scheme of Religion p. 25 26. * Socin 2 Epist. ad Radec. †Volkel l. 6. c. 10 14 19. Smalc Disp. de baptismo ‖ Lib. 3. cap. 9. * De Baptismo aquae cap. 2. †Volkel l. 6. c. 14. Smalc disp de Baptismo ‖ Socin de Baptismo aquae Volkel l. 6. c. 14. Ostorod Instit. cap. 39. †Socin de Bapt. aquae Smalc cont Frantz Cat. Racov. de Prophet Christi munere cap. 4. Moscorov de Baptismo Slichting cont Meisner * De Proph. Mun. Christi cap. 4 qu. 2. †Slichting Comment in 1 Pet. 3. 21. * Wolzogen Compend Relig. Christianae †Of Wor shiping the Holy Ghost p. 5. ‖ Trinitarian Scheme of Religion * De Baptismo aquae * Lib. Ministrorum Transylvan de unius Dei cognitione * Epist. 2. ad Radec. ‖ De Ecclesia cap. 2. qu. 15. * Cont. Frantz Disp. de Ministr Eccles. Item Disp. de Ord. Eccles. †Lib. 4. cap. 22. ‖ Ostorod Instit. cap. 42. ** De Coen Dom. qu. 2. ††Socin Epist. 2. ad Radec. * Tractat. de Eccâ—…esia †De Eccles. cap. 11. ‖ Episcop Disp. 28. par 3. * Art the 23. †See Socin Epist. 3. ad Radec. * P. â—…8 †Of worshipping the Holy Ghost p. 4 5. * Lib. de Officio hominis Christiani * V. R. l. 5. c. 4. †Inst. cap. 42. * De V. R. cap. 19. * Ostorod Instit. cap. 4. Smalc contra Frantz †Ostorod Instit. cap. 30. ‖ Explicat cap. 6. Matth. * Smalc cont Frantz disp 7. * Dâ—… Volkel l. 4. c. 17. * Instructiâ—… ad utilem lection N. T. cap. 7. †Commenâ—… in Mat. 5. ‖ Comment in Mat. 20. * Epist. ad Arcisseâ—…ium †Smalc cont Frantz Disp. 〈◊〉 de robus civilibus ‖ Ostorod Instit. cap. 28. ** Wolzogen Instruct. ad util lection N. T. cap. 4. ††Smalâ—… disp 6. de rebus civilibus * Smalc cont Frantz disp de rebus civisib * The 37th * Socin Epist. 7. ad Lublin †Quod regni Polon c. cap. 3. Them 24. de Offic. Christi * Disp. 6. de reb civilib * Cont. Frantz disp 9. de Hypocr †Lib. 4. cap. 23. * Slichting Comment in 2 Tim. 1. 16. * Of worshiping the Holy Ghâ—…st c. p. 8. * A Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity p. 1â—… * Dr. Wallis 4th Letter concerning the Trinity p. 5. * Cogitata Sacra Varii Tractatus * J. Bidle in the Pref. to his Scripture-Catechism * A Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity p. 17 18. * The same Letter p. 18. * In his Introduction for the reading of History †Bishop of Sarum's Letter to Dr. Williams * A Letter to the Clergy of both Universities †De Trinit Erroribus ‖ A Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity p. 17. * Trinitarian Scheme of Religion †A Letter to the Clergy of both Universities cap. 6. ‖ The Exceptions of Mr. E. c. examin'd p. 43. * The Causes of Atheism Socinianism unmask'd * In Socinianism Unmask'd * P. 145 158 162 164. * Socinianism Unmask'd