Salvo to secure his secret meaning So that upon these Reasons says he and not otherwise we may well and safely determine that Christ is truly God and man and that the God-head did as really dwell in his Human Nature and became Vnited to it as our Souls dwell in our Bodies and are Vnited to them This sounds very Orthedox But it is all to be understood only upon these Reasons That is which dwindle down Personality only to a Power to Command and Govern and by Christ is God and Man he means no more than that God dwelt in that Man Christ and so He was both God and Man but not that they were one Person any otherwise than as God did Command Govern or Enliven that Man as he does all Men. Christ was truly God That is as the Cloud was Jehovah which the Dr. asserts in this same page and is one of the Premises from whence he draws this Conclusion 2. The God-head dwelt in Christ and was Vnited to him as our Souls dwell in our Bodies and are Vnited to them that is as the Dr. has Explain'd it only to Command and Govern them Thus you see what true pains is taken by these two Great Doctors to Elude and totally to Enervat the whole Christian Doctrine and all the Terms wherein for suppression of Heresies it has been conceived and delivered down to us from Christ and his Apostles through all Ages of the Catholick Church If it be not so Why are not they content to set down their Faith in the plain Terms used by the Church Why all these New and Laborious Expositions Why do they thus Intangle and Perplex Why can they not say three Persons in the Trinity as well as three differences three somewhats Why do they confound us as this Dr. p. 96. with the difference betwixt distinct and distinction viz. That by Person in the Trinity we must not mean a compleat Intelligent Being distinct from every other Being But only that every one of that Blessed Three has a peculiar distinction in Himself by which he is truly different from the other Two Different but not distinct Not distinct but that has a Distinction What is the meaning of this What is the Quarrel at the word Person O that these Dr's would speak out That they would go fair over to the Socinian side Or do they stay that they may more Effectually undermine the Christian Doctrine by distinguishing and Accommodating all to the Socinian Hypothesis And by this means draw Men Insensibly into it Therefore we must deal plainly with them and tell because they will not what they would be at Which is to make the 3 Persons of God onely 3 Manifestations of God Or the same Person of God considered under 3 different Qualifications and Respects as our Creator Redeemer Sanctifier But we must Ask if it was only a Manifestation that was made Flesh If we are Baptized into the Faith and worship of a Manifestation why but 2. or 3 Manifestations of God are there not Hundreds is God or the first Person one of his own Manifestations Why then is He reckoned as one of the Three Are these three all one and the same Person Is this then the meaning of Mat. 12.32 That whosoever speaketh against one of these One shall be forgiven but whosoever speaketh against Another of the same One shall not be forgiven That we are Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son who is the Same person with the Father and of the Holy Ghost who is the same Person with them both or in the Name of the Father and of Himself and of Himself This is the plain Easie and Intelligible Socinian System of Divinity This is the Rational account of their Faith And this Doctors Both you must stick to or give us leave to use the word Person in the already known and Received Notion of that Term and as the Holy Catholick Church hath always understood it in Expressing the Glorious Trinity of God Dr. B. Concludes this point with referring to the four bove-said Sermons of Dr. T. and clawing him for the Grace of this Imprimatur by giving his Judgment of that work as perform'd with great Strength and clearness of Reason p. 128. Thus these two Pillars stand bound jointly and severally for one Anothers Ingenuity and Performances And that they may keep even pace Dr. B. now passes on to the other great point of Socinianism the Sacrifice and Death of Christ p. 134. Wherein he Copys after and comes up to the full of that Diabolical Heresie so bare-fac'd set up by Dr. T. against the Satisfaction of Christ which is the only Foundation for the Remission of sin He first p. 134. Endeavours to Remove the Great Ground-Work of any Satisfaction being due to Gods Justice for sin by Advancing that Notion of Justice which Dr. T. does in his Sermon of Hell He calls it onely a Right of punishing which is vested in Himself and therefore which he may either use or not use at his pleasure Upon this is grounded the precariousness of Hell that God not being Oblidg'd in his Justice to inflict Hell notwithstanding of his threatening it It is not certain whether he will do it or not Dr. B. Says that this Justice is a Right vested in God Himself and which therefore He argues God may dispense with at his pleasure So far he argues truely That God is not nor can be accountable to any other And therefore in this sense he may do in every thing as he pleases That is as to any Outward Compulsion or giving an Account of his Actions to any whatsoever But on the other hand God is as I may so say Ty'd up to his own Inherent Rectitude and all the Perfections of his Nature It is not being Ty'd up or any way Limited It is the Highest and most absolute Liberty that he can never be otherwise If he could lose his Liberty He would not be so free Thus God cannot Die cannot cease to be God Cannot make Himself not to be Eternal Infinite c. And that he cannot depart from any of his Attributes not withstanding the sound of the word Cannot is no Stinting of his Prerogative but the Height of it Now Justice is as much an Attribute of God as his Mercy He is not onely just that is has Justice or a Great deal of Justice in him but he is Justice it self Justice in the Abstract Justice is of the Nature of God And therefore He can no more depart from it than from Himself The Highest Notion of Justice as of Love or Goodness that is God it is the very Nature of God God is Love 1 John 4.8 God is likewise Justice And as all the Love or Goodness in us is but a participation of the Infinite and Eternal Goodness so all the justice all the Notion we have of Right or Wrong is but a Ray Sent down to us from the Eternal and Essential Restitude and
be made a Priest And how it that most Sacred Office become amongst us Contemptible It is in Veneration to that High Character that I expose these Cursed Priests Latitudinarians and Socinians Enemies to the Cross of Christ the Ministers of Satan transform'd into His Ministers as Satan himself into an Angel of Light and then he is most a Devil It is a true saying That the Corruption of the best thing proves the worst A Corrupt Angel is a Devil and a Corrupt Priest the next in wickedness to him False-Christs and False-Prophets are much the greater Enemies â—o Christ that they come in His Name As False-Friends can do much more Mischief than Open-Enemies Vice is most dangerous when it is recommended under the Notion of Virtue Barefac'd Wickedness Atheism and Infidelity create a Horror in any Mind not thorowly debunch'd and hardened Therefore we are Caution'd against the Mystery of Iniquity And that is it which now worketh in these Men who Dispute against any Mystery in Religion where it is necessary and cannot be otherwise unless we were able clearly and fully to comprehend the whole Nature of God in which there is something which is and ever will be Mysterious that is Dark and Hidden not fully Vnderstood by all the Angels of Heaven to Eternity And yet where there is no necessity in the World so much as can be pretended except that of Knavery they write all Mystery and work under ground that they may not be discover'd They dwell all in Generals in which as the Proverb says Doluâ—â—later there is always Deceit at the bottom They will not tell plainly what they would beat But wound side-ways and by stealth as these Authors whom we have Examin'd And their admired Teacher Dr. Tillotson in his ad Sermon concerning Family Religion p. 61. gives special Caution not to have Children bred up in the JARGON of any Party But will not tell what Party or what JARGON he means You may apply it to all to Christianity it self as it was intended but so that you shall not fix it upon him he dwells in the Clouds and Mysterious Politicks more Subtile than any of which Aristotle was ever Master Whose Phylosophy the History of Religion takes pains from p. 74. to 80. to prove was brought into such esteemation by Priest-Craft on purpose to advance Mystery Great Wits make strange Discoverys It is the Bishop's Foot in the Pot which singes the Milk Among these Mysterious Arts of Priest-Craft there is none moves this Author's Spleen so much as Creeds and Rules of Faith Against which he vents his Indignation Hist Rel. p. 64. In very deed says he Creeds were the Spiritual Revenges of Dissenting Parties upon one another These Creeds are strange sort of things That a Man whatever he believes may not have Liberty openly to Profess and Preach what likes him best But must go about the Bush and take pains to Blaspheme And that Atheists Socinians and Latitudinarians cannot get in to the Preforments of the Church without Swearing Subscribing or Declaring I know not how many Lyes And all to no purpose For that will never keep them out He calls these Creeds p. 115. The Insolent value of Opinions Yet he values his own Opinion highly and would have others to value it above that of the Generality of the whole World in all Ages who have ever retain'd a great value for Religion and what he Blasphemes under the opprobrious New-made JARGON of Priest-Craft He calls Their valuing an Insolent Value This was to shew his Modesty and Good Breeding Insolent for any to be Pessitive but himself He has Prescription and would have the Monopoly he may have the Reward of it He shews great Respect to the Socinians because they retain nothing of Christianity but the Name Therefore in the same page he falls foul upon St. Athanasius his Creed knowing that most offensive to the Socinians And p. 85. He abuses the Homo-ousians that is the Christians and the whole Council of Nice which he says Shew'd a Spirit of Contention rather than of Peace and Charity This was for their Insolent Value of their Faith so as to Express it in a Creed And p. 116. He thinks to make great advantage to the Socinian Cause by the difference 'twixt Dr. Sherlock and Dr. South concerning the Trinity But this was only a difference in their Exposition of what both acknowledg'd The Holy and ever Blessed Trinity Whereas I can tell you Sir Possitive and ask your Priest-Craft at Lambeth if it be not true that the Socinians do differ not only in their Exposition of the Object of their Worship but in the thing it self and that not only two Doctors or so but whole Parties and Nations of them The Brief History of the Vnitarians upon Act. 9.14.21 tells us that the Polonian Vnitarians were so Zealous for Divine Worship to be paid to Christ that they Excommunicated and Depos'd from their Ministry such of their own Party as deny'd it Which I think they generally do in England Where likewise they are of most different Faiths tho' they call themselves Vnitarians and own one another in odium Tertij as Christian Brethren John Biddle's Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity Printed in the Devil's Reformation of 43. and now Reprinted with other Works of his among Volumes of Socinian Treatises which are with great Industry distributed Gratis since this Revolution owns Three Persons in the Holy Trinity But make the Second and Third Persons to be Creatures The rest of our Socinians as those that wrote The Brief History of the Vnitarians which is Printed in the same Volume with Biddle's Confession of Faith abovesaid do acknowledge a Trinity that is Three in Heaven but the Second and the Third i. e. The Word and the Spirit they would have to be the very same with the First that is the Father So that theirs is the only Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity who would have Three to be Three and yet all the Three to be really but One. It is they who are out in Counting or Reckoning which the Hist of the Vnitarians calls Brutal in us The Christians and Biddelite-Socinians do confess Three in Heaven whom they acknowledge to be Three distinct Persons this is fair and plain Reckoning But then the Biddelites are guilty of very gross Idolatry in joyning two Creatures into the same Holy Trinity with God On the other Hand how is it that these Biddelites and the other Socinians do own one another to be of the same Faith and Print their Books together as setting forth the same Doctrine The Trinity of the one is Three who are One Person a most palpable Contradiction which no Distinction can solve the Trinity of the other is God and two Creatures which is rank Idolatry One Party of them say That the Word and Spirit are Persons the other say nâ—t One that they are God the other that they are not God one that they are Adorable
opened not his Mouth But it is never too late to mend And if he be not now Pray God he may be a good Christian before he dies For I must confess I do not think it sufficiently Evinc'd in these Sermons In the Reading of which the Character which the History of the Vnitarians gives tho' falsly of Grotius came into my Mind wherein he endeavours to make Grotius a tho'ro'-pac'd Socinian but yet to have cover'd his Meaning so craftily particularly in his Comments upon this First Chapter of St. John's Gospel whence this Author has taken his Text as not to be known to be a Socinian unless to a very discerning Reader And I must observe that this Author in the foresaid 4 Sermons tho' he seems to speak home sometimes yet has taken special Care to avoid the only Shibboleth which the Christian Church could find out to discover the several Sorts of Arian and other Hereticks who deny'd the Divinity of Christ which was Consubstantiality That God the Son was of the same Substance with his Father Several of them for there were several Subdivisions of them and of different Opinions would allow Christ to be of the like Substance with the Father That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same Substance And except the single Iota which is betwixt these two Words they could swallow the whole Nicene Creed by vertue of Distinctions in which they were great Masters And it is very strange that this Author should forget this only Matterial Word which is the heart of the whole Cause and expresly asserted in the Nicene Creed especially considering that Sermon 3. p. 140 141. he quotes the words in that Creed immediately following these Being of one Substance with the Father which words he does not mention and which being own'd by him would have been a more clear and full Vindication of his Orthodoxy in this point than all these 4 Sermons And since it was impossible he should forget it he repeating the same Sentence in the Creed wherein it is contain'd we must conclude that be left it out on purpose and consequently That he does not really believe it tho' he endeavours with all his Art to cast a Mist before the Reader 's Eyes in other Expressions which to some might seem Tantamount as Arius and his Followers did Even our Modern Biddle in his Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity Printed in the Year 1648. and now reprinted in the Year 1691. Artic. 3. Confesses Christ to be Our Lord yea Our God and yet in the same Article asserts That he hath no other than a Human Nature But he was a Senseless Socinian tho' now much Admir'd amongst them in London and his Books carefully reprinted He Refin'd from the Socinians and added to it the Old Anthropomorphite Heresie That God was a Body of the Shape of a Man Fingers Eyes Toes c. As the Socinians refin'd from the Arians and gave the Son of God no Existence before his Birth of the Virgin and have exceedingly Entangled their Cause by it The Arians were more Subtle and Learned than any of their Folloâ—ers who have grafted upon their Stock It was hard to discover the depth of Arianism They defended themselves with Nice distinctions They would call the Son God yea Truly and Really God As this Author confesses 2 Serm. p. 123. And what plainer or fuller words could readily be desired wherein to confess the true and real Divinity of Christ in opposition to Angels and to Men who are called Gods but it is only in a Figurative and Borrowed Sense They are not truly and really God as the Arians said of Christ F. The Author in the same Sentence explains himself and those whom he calls his Adversaries whether Arians or Socinians who say that Christ is truly and really God by adding these words by Office and by Divine Appointment and Constitution C. That is a very vain Distinction For a God by Office or any other way so he be truly and really God is as great as a God by Nature because nothing can be greater than God Besides a God by Office if he be truly and really God must likewise be a God by Nature for he could not otherwise be Truly and Really God as he could not be truly and really Man who were not a Man by Nature or who did not truly and really partake of the Nature of Man And as a Consequence of all this the Author tells ibid. That our Adversaries did allow the very same Honour and Worship to be given to the Truly and Really God tho' by Office which we give to him who is God by Nature And as these Adversaries could not be found out by the word GOD which they freely allow'd to Christ no not by the words Truly and Really God So neither could the word Eternity fully discover them viz. To assert Christ to have been from Eternity We know several Adversaries to Christianity who have asserted the World to have been from Eternity and yet would not allow it to be God It is part of the Muggletonian Creed at this day that Earth and Water were from Eternity and yet not God A Book call'd The Oracles of Reason by that Execrable Char. Blount Mr. Gildon and others of Hâ—bb's wretched Disciples does argue expresly for the Eternity of the World and of Mankind too in the same State they are in now This is printed for our Instruction in the Year 1693. as one Branch of our Glorious Reformation and Christian Toleration And if these Wits allow Eternity to meer Men much less would these Socinians stick to call Christ Eternal who own him to be truly and really God For whatever is so must be Eternal Therefore as I said before there was no Shibboleth which all these our Adversaries did refuse but that of Consubstantiality and which this Author does refuse and while he does so he must still be reckoned among these Adversaries to the Christian Cathelick Faith Tho' Tho among what particular Species or Denomination of them I will not determine or whether he may not have refin'd to a degree and Peculiarity by himself for he delights in Bold Stroaks Mr. Biddle above told is own'd by the Socinians as a good and laudable Brother tho he set up the Old and Exploded Heresie of the Athropomorphites And the Arians are admitted into their Communion and as such quoted and pleaded by them against the Orthodox tho they held the Prae-Existence of Christ before his Incarnation which the Socinians have rejected Among whom some even at this day hold the Personality of the Word and Holy Ghost which others of them do absolutely deny Some of them make these to be Creatures others to be Really and Truly God and not any thing different from God Nay the Old Nazarens Ebionites c. are in the Brief Hist of the Vnitar Quoted as the Primitive Fathers of the Socinian Opinion some of whom rejected the
Reflections upon their Adversaries They generally argue matters with that Temper and Gravity with that Freedom from Passion and Transport which becomes a serious and weighty Argument And for the most part they Reason closely and clearly with extraordinary Guard and Caution with great Dexterity and Decency and yet with Smartness and Subtilty enough with a very gentle Heat and few hard words A Man could hardly describe his Mistress in a softer Air. The Socinians must be very ill natur'd if they take any thing amiss which this Gentleman has said against them It was meer necessity they see how unwillingly and artificially he has done it and when rightly understood no doubt they understand him what he has said is with a design to give a better account of them than has been done to take off that frightful Character with which some have painted them not allowing them the very name of Christians Whereas alas The Dr. has told us that there is nothing betwixt them and us but a meer Controversie about words which all mean the same thing And then that they are the best Temper'd the Goodest sort of People in all the World So that we need not be afraid of them nor stand upon our guard against them And then they are the most Ingenious and the Sweetest Men that we should love to Converse with them and Read their Writings all the Christian writers are but Scolds and Bunglers to them This is our Author's Method of opposing Socinanism nor are they behind him in their Civility and due Respect in the Answer they have Publish'd this year 1694. to his abovesaid four Sermons with other Discourses against them He say they that is Dr. Tid whom they call Arch Bishop of Cant. is the Common Father of the Nation Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity Occasion'd by four Sermons Preached by his Crace the Lord Arch Bishop of Cant c. p. 43. and has Instructed the Socinians themselves with the Air and Language of a Father not of an Adversary or a Judge He is Respected and Lov'd by All but those that are also known to Hate their Country He hath no other Maligners but the Enemies of the Nation it self c. CLAW ME AND I 'LL CLAW YOU Here is Love and good Correspondence in abnudance These Gentlemen know their Friends And the Cause of Christianity is like to be well Defended when it is maintain'd by some of a Party on purpose that it may be soundly an-swer'd by others of them who play Booty to one anothers Hands And commend and recommend one another to all Mens Esteem and Veneration But that this may not be discover'd they Argree sometimes like Counsels at the Bar to fall foul upon one another even to Scold and call Names which to the wise Observers serves only to expose either their Contradictory Banter or otherwise their Hypocritical Malice and Deceit Thus notwithstanding of Dr. T 's Honey Words above told and all his Love-fits to the Socinians he sends them a Bit and a Blow Amantium Ira He plays with his Clog First I will give you his Character of Secinus himself the Head and Founder of that Order and then of the Socinians his followers 1st Serm. p. 17. 18. He tells the method of Socinus in Interpreting Scriptures which was meerly by Criticising upon words and searching into all the Senses they are possibly capable of till he can find one tho' never so forc'd and forreign that will save harmless the Opinion which he was before hand resâ—lved to maintain even against the most Natural and Obvious Sense of the Text which he undertakes to Interpret p. 44. That he puts quite another Sense upon the Scripture than the Dr. believes was thought of by any Christian Writer whatsoever before Socinus p 45. He accuses the Novelty great Violence and Vnreasonableness and utter Inconsistency of Socinus's Interpretations of Scripture And that it may not be forgot he repeats all this again 2 Serm. p. 57. and in p. 58. he calls Socinus's Interpretations Strain'd and Violent Pitiful and wretched shifts Precarious and Arbitrary without either Reason or Modesty p. 68. And as to the Novelty of it Socinus himself makes no difficulty to own it nay he seems rather to rejoyce and Applaud himself in it Vnhappy Man That was so wedded to his own Opinion that no Objection no Difficulty could divorce him from it p. 77. Socinus Imposing a new and very odd and violent Sense Contrary to the Sense of the Christian Church in all Ages down to this time And all this only to serve and support an Opinion which he had entertain'd before and therefore was resolv'd one way or other to bring the Scripture to comply with it And if he cou'd not have done it it is greatly to be fear'd that he wou'd at last have call'd in question the Divine Authority of S. John's Gospel rather than have quitted his Opinion And to speak freely I must needs say that it seems to me a much fairer way to reject the Divine Authority of a Book than to use it so Disingeniously and to wrest the plain Expressions of it with so wuch straining and violence from their most Natural and Obvious Sense for no Doctrine whatsoever can have any certain foundation in any Book if this Liberty be once admitted without regard to the plain Scope and Occasion of it to play upon the Words and Phrases p. 80. Socinus by a dangerous Liberty of imposing a forreign and forc'd Sense upon particular Texts has brought the whole H. Scriptures into uncertainty p. 82. Any one that reads him may see he was sufficiently conscious to himself of the Novelty and Boldness of his Interpretation p. 83. Socinus was the first Author of this Interpretation because it was impossible he could ever have been so fond of so ill favour'd a Child if it had not been his own p. 114 Of which Antiquity as Socinus had but little Knowledge so he seems to have made but little account This is our Author's Character of Socinus a Man of no Learning despising Antiquity because Ignorant of it Arrogant and Conceited past all Modesty Boasting that none in the World understood the true meaning of Scripture before himself Of which the Dr. gives several Quotations out of his own words 2 Serm. p. 69. Yet that his Shifts were Pitiful and Wretched Strain'd and Violent Precarious and Arbitrary without either Reason or Modesty That he was so positive an Opiniator that he wou'd rather have deny'd the Hâ—ly Scripture than been convinc'd of his Error that he dealt so Disingeniously with the Holy Scripture wresting the plain Expressions of it in such a manner that the Dr thought it preferrable to reject their Divine Authority rather than to abuse them as he has done Nay that no Writing whatsoever can have any certain meaning if Socinus's Liberty be allow'd of playing with the VVords and Phrases Thus much for Socinus himself Let us now
see whether this Author gives a more favourable Character of his Disciples to make good the High Eulogiums above told Serm. 2. p. 69. speaking of Schlictingius one of the first Form in his School our Author says he carry'd himself with more Confidence but much less Decency than his Master That he spoke so Extravagantly and with so much Contempt of these Great and Venerable Names who were the chief Propagators of Christianity in the World and to whom all Ages do so justly pay a Reverence That he said those Ancient Interpreters went so far from the Apostles meaning as if they had Rav'd and been out of their Wits And the Dr. says in general of the Socinians Serm. 1st p. 39. That their Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures were strange and extravagant p. 44. did contradict not only the Ancient Fathers but the General Consent of all Christians for 1500 years together p. 61. That they avoid the plain and necessary Consequence of Holy Scriptures by strain'd and forc'd Arts of Interpretrtion p. 62. Than which nothing can be more unnatural and violent p. 65. Which I dare say no Indifferent Reader of St. John that had not been preposess'd and byas'd by some violent prejudice would ever have thought of p. 75. The plainest Text for any Article of Faith how Fundamental and Necessary sâ—ever may by the same Arts and ways of Interpretation be cluded and rendered utterly ineffectual for the establishing of it p. 92. 93. This is so Arbitrary and Precarious a supposition that I must confess my self a little out of Countenance for them that Men of so much Wit and Reason should ever be put to so sorry and pitiful a Shift p. 96. This is so Inartificial not to say Absurd a way of avoiding a Difficulty that no Man of common Ingenuity would make use of it p. 99. A Sense so very flat that I can hardly abstain from calling it Ridiculous p. 113. We may plainly see by this That they can Interpret a Text right when necessity forceth them to it and they cannot without great Inconveniency to their Cause avoid it But when Men have once resolv'd to hold fast an Opinion they have taken up it then becomes not only Convenient but Necessary to understand nothing that makes against it And this is truly the present Case But in the mean time where is Ingenuity and love of Truth p. 115. They Triumph without Modesty and without Measure p. 125. Do they see no Absurdity in all this Nothing that is contrary to Reason and Good Sense Nothing that feels like Inconsistency and Contradiction p. 129. Which way the Socinians way of dealing with them the Holy Scriptures seems to be really more Contumelious to those Holy Oracles than the down-right rejecting of their Authority And single Serm. p. 18. He that can deny this the Doctor 's Argument against the Socinians is perverse to the highest degree and I fear beyond the possibility of being Convicted p. 20. Men may generally wrangle about any thing but what a frivolous Contention what a Trifling in serious matter what Barretry in Divinity is this p. 30. So little do Men in the heat of Dispute and Opposition who are resolv'd to hold fast an Opinion in despight of Reason and Good Sense consider that they do many times in effect and by necessary Consequence grant the very thing in express terms they do so stifly and pertinaciously deny p. 32. And this for no other reason that I can imagine but because they have deny'd it so often and so long F. These so different Characters which the Dr. gives of Socinus and the Socinians may be Reconciled by saying as I suppose the Dr. means that this later Evil Character belongs to them only in this present Controversy of the Trinity the Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ But that the former High and most Extraordinarly Excellent Character is due to them in other matters of Religion as against the Church of Rome which the Dr. seems to intend 2. Serm. p. 79. where he says That the Socinian Writers have managed the Cause of the Reformation against the Innovations and Corruptions of the Church of Rome both in Doctrine and Practise with great acuteness and advantage C. And yet in the very next words he says That the Socinians have put into their the Papists hands better and sharper Weapons than ever they had before for the weakening and undermining of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures And p. 129. That nothing hath given a greater force to the Exceptions of the Church of Rome against the Holy Scriptures being a sufficient and certain Rule of Faith than the uncertainty into which they the Socinians have brought the plainest Texts imaginable for the Establishing of Doctrines of the greatest Moment in the Christian Religion by their Remote and Wrested Interpretations of them And p. 124. That to avoid the shaddow and appearance of a Plurality of Deities they ran readily into it And into downright Idolatry Now how invalidating the Holy Scriptures and introducing Idolatry is managing the Cause of the Reformation with Accuteness and Advantage against the Church of Rome I leave to the Worthy Dr. to Explain And likewise how Men can deserve such extravagant Commendations for Wit and Modesty and all Discretion and Temper in one point of Controversy and in another to be quite void of all these to fall into all Ridiculous Absurdities and Contradictions and to manage either without Reason or Modesty to be so Wedded to their own Opinion as rather to Renounce the Holy Scriptures than endure to be convinced by them in their most foolish and groundless Errors taken up against the whole Christian World since the days of Christ. Modesty and Sweetness in a-Mans Temper will shew it self in all his Actions And a strong Reason cannot overlook a Contradiction in one case more than another at least not to be obstinately so Wedded to it as to be deaf to all Conviction But we have spent too much time upon this Author's Character of these Socinians which is not material otherwise than to shew his own Unconstancy and Inconsistency with himself How unwillingly he is brought to appear against them And what Salvoes and Shifts he makes use of to make them understand him That he might not lose their Favour God grant Him and Them true Conviction and Save Unstable Souls from their Snares POSTSCRIPT SInce this was wrote the Author before spoke of Dr. T. has Printed A Sermon concerning the Vnity of the Divine Nature and the B. Trinity And here if ever we might expect full Satisfaction in this point But it is so far from it that of all the others we have consider'd this Sermon does most palpably bewray his wretched Socinianism if not something worse for he not only speaks the very Socinian Language of the Trinity but he really undermines the Vnity of God by his setting it up upon a Foundation which he himself in this same Sermon quite overthrows