Sacred Scripture hath recorded It is to be wondred at that notwithstanding this these men should be so blind it is strange and unaccountable that they take no notice of their being baffled by the Fulfilling of those Predictions Likewise who sees not that the Providence of God extends it self to this sort of future actions and occurrences for he manages these for great and excellent ends in the world But how can he do this if he hath no knwledg of them Can his Care and Providence be exercised about them and yet he be wholly Ignorant of them Thus it is evident that at the same time that these men deny the Divine Prescience they do also take away Providence for it is impossible that God should dispose order and take care of those actions and events which he knows nothing of Which shews how absurd and ridiculous that passage in Socinus is viz. that this Prescience which we assert to be in God doth in some part take away and obscure that continual Care which he takes of humane affairs and renders him in a manner Idle One would not imagine that such an Inconsistent Thought should come into a mans head and much less that it should be propagated as we see in Vorstius and others If they had not a strong propension to diminish and disparage the Divine Nature and to foster Atheism certainly they could not thus discourse certainly they could not maintain that God is ignorant of what any Man will say think or do the next moment and that he hath no notice at all of such Future Occurrences as depend on the free will of man till they actually come to pass i. e. when every intelligent creature hath a knowledg of them There is yet another Attribute of God concerning which they have a very unbecoming notion and such as is inconsistent with the Perfection of the Divine Nature God's Eternity is represented by them to have in it a Succession of Duration as there is in Time They are the very words of * Socinus and Crellius And the English Socinians shew themselves to be of this mind placing the nature of Eternity in a Continual Succession And as for the contrary notion it is laught at by some of them as a Whimsical Paradox But certainly this is no other than confounding of Finite and Infinite and making Time and Eternity the same Where there is a Succession there was a Beginning or First Moment which plainly demonstrates that there is no Succession in God's duration because all things are Together and at Once those things which are past present and to come are always coexistent and present with him One day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day Psal. 90. 4. Which denotes that there are not in God those three differences of Time before mention'd which are in the duration of other things and consequently there are no Parts and no Succession in the Eternal Duration of God This I think no man will deny to be rational that the Permanency of the Existence of God should be differenced from that of Creatures and accordingly that he should not be measured by Time as they are I go upon this ground that we ought to attribute the most Excellent things to God and on the contrary that we must not ascribe any thing to him that hath the least Shew of Imperfection and will diminish his Divine Nature This is a safe and sound bottom and on this I build my Assertion viz. that a Temporal and Successive duration ought not to be attributed to God If the persons I am now dealing with had attended to this Rule had built on this basis they would not have pronounced such strange things as they do concerning the Deity they would have had more reverent conceptions of him they would not have vented such undue Opinions and Surmises concerning the Divine Nature But they having taken up these Perswasions endeavour to defend them and it hath happen'd that some persons of good Parts have undertaken the Cause and have rendred it very plausible to such as have not an eye to the Infinite and Superlative Excellency of God the Supreme Being I grant that there are some Learned Meâ—… that are no Socinians who seem to allow 〈◊〉 a Successive Duration in him but if we duly weigh what they say we shall find thaâ—… they chiefly set themselves against the nice speculations of the Schoolmen concerning Succession but they apply noâ—… this way of Duration in a proper and strict manner unto God They owâ—… some kind of resemblance of it in Eternity but there is no such thing formally and really The reason is because Succession implies in it Parts Divisibility Motion and Change but an Eternal Undivideâ—… Being is not capable of these and by consequence not of such a Duration Wherefore it follows that the Eternity of God is in a manner denied by the Socinians 〈◊〉 leave it to the Reader to apply the Censure CHAP. III. The Socinians renounce the doctrine of the Trinity though it be attested by the Scriptures and Fathers They prophanely ridicule it They are demonstrated to be Atheists from St. John's Words Epist. 1. ch 2. v. 23. The Argument thence is reduced into an unanswerable Syllogism The doctrine of the Trinity intended to be particularly treated of hereafter by the Author Christ's own words evince his Divinity The Socinians denying him to be God consequently deny his Satisfaction That Text Rom. 3. 25. is urged against them Whence are inferr'd the Unreasonableness and Impiousness of their Cavils Christ's Satisfaction proved from Isai. 53. 5. c. From those Texts which speak of Reconciliation made by him From other places which mention his Suffering and Dying for us his being a Propitiation an Atonement a Sacrifice his Redeeming us Both the former and present Socinians agree in reviling deriding and blaspheming the Merits and Satisfaction of our Saviour THUS far we have seen how defective they are in their Notions concerning God as he is considerd in respect of his Attributes We will in the next place observe how faulty they are in their Conceptions concerning Him as he is to be considered in regard of the Persons contain'd in his Godhead The Holy Scriptures especially of the New Testament bear witness that though there is but One Living and True God yet in Unity of this Godhead there is a Trinity of Persons of one substance majesty power and glory viz. the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and that these are the very Eternal God There is abundant proof of this from a vast number of Plain and Obvious Texts and yet the Disciples of Socinus stubbornly disown this Clear Truth They have but a Text or two on which they pretend to build their belief of Christ's Ascending into heaven before he preach'd the Gospel and yet these though distorted and misapplied they think a sufficient basis for that Conceit of theirs but behold
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
done but to give an Impartial Account of them in such Particulars wherein it is plain and evident that they swerve from the Truth and profess such doctrines as have a direct tendency to Irreligion and Impiety Nor do I comprehend all Socinianized persons in this Character I entertain some hope that there are some Innocent and Well-meaning people among them who being inveigled by the plausible pretences of their Leaders have taken up some of their Notions but are ready upon a discovery of the Falshood and Perniciousness of them to lay them down and wholly to abandon them Those that are of this sober disposition will I question not find this Present Undertaking beneficial to them and will be so far from censuring them that they will thankfully acknowledg my setting them Right in Perswasions of so great moment and importance such as are either of the Foundation of Religion or have a near alliance to it or have a necessary influence on our Christian Practice In short when Principles and Truths of the Highest Nature are struck at by bold Assailants when the Main Doctrines of Religion are depraved and perverted and when Christianity it self is endanger'd shall we sit still and not be concern'd * If these foundations be destroy'd if these Forts these Bulwarks these Strong-holds as some render the word be demolish'd what can the righteous do if these Fundamental Principles be overthrown what a wretched state will Religion and the Professors of it be reduced to Which is the very thing which we may justly fear at this time when we behold such a great and signal Defection from the Truths of Christianity from the Faith of the Gospel even in the Christian World How few are there at this day that can endure sound doctrine how many are there that call themselves Protestants and yet grow weary of those Main Articles of Religion which have been owned ever since the Reformation and have been defended and vindicated by the Pens of the Religious and Learned And shall we silently and tamely permit this No certainly That Charity which beareth all things endureth all things cannot suffer this Yea it is the highest Charity in such a dangerous juncture to acquaint persons with the true State of affairs to discover the Methods and Artifices of Seducers to lay open before the world their Cheats and Delusions and to shew what Errors they substitute in the place of Truth And this is that which is design'd in my present Performance wherein I have all along discover'd the Poyson of our Adversaries Doctrines in the first place and then I have been careful to administer an Antidote ERRATA PAge 6. line 1. before is insert it p. 29. l. penult for to the first of r. first to p. 35. l. 10. place ‖ before Episcopius p. 95. l. 13. f. of r. or p. 103. l. 7. r. needs p. 108. l. 13. r. deletion p. 123. l. 14. r. strange p. 125. l. 3. before it insert in p. 126. l. 6. before And begin the parenthesis p. 183. l. 5. f. professed r. pretended p. 184. l. 24. f. this r. that p. 197. l. 16. after as insert to p. 214. l. 13. r. Looks p. 243. l. 5. after it make THE TENDENCY OF THE Socinian Doctrines TO Irreligion Atheism CHAP. I. There is an obligation on the Author to give the World an account of the Irreligious Sentiments of the Socinians Their Abusing of the Holy Scriptures is a proof of their Prophane genius They hold there are Mistakes and Errors in the Bible as to lesser matters They disparage the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Writings of St. John They are wild and extravagant though very crafty and subtile in their interpreting and expounding of Scripture A particular instance of it in their interpretation of I John 1 2. Other instances of their false and perverse dealing Their notion of a Double Ascension of Christ confuted and the Texts which they alledge for it explain'd Their vilisying wresting and perverting of Scripture are tokens of their Irreligion I Am obliged to let the World see that I did not reproach and injure the Socinians when I laid to their charge the favouring and promoting of Atheism and consequently that what I said of them was not as they have suggested hastily and rashly spoken or written without due premeditation And thence it will appear that I am not to be represented as a Censorious or Uncharitable person which are imputations which I always abhorr'd and have carefully laboured to avoid Thus then I make good what I said Some of this sort of men cannot well be thought to have any true and right Sense of God and Religion especially the Christian because they have in their Publick Writings renounced some of the most Considerable things relating to Doctrine Worship Discipline and Practise in the Church of Christ. These are the four General Heads of my following Discourse I begin with the First As to the Doctrinal part of Religion these men are very faulty and upon examination will be found to be favourers of very Irreligious and Prophane Opinions And here I will reduce what I have to say unto these five Particulars viz. Their Notions concerning the Scriptures concerning God concerning the First Man concerning the Future State and concerning Christianity it self First It is no mean proof of their Prophane genius that they delight to vilifie and abuse the Holy Scriptures As to some lesser matters and such as are of small moment the Bible hath Repugnancies and Mistakes saith the Great Founder of Socinianism i. e. He from whom it takes its denomination And herein he is follow'd by Volkelius another Great and Admired Writer among those of the Racovian perswasion Smalcius grants some depravation in Scripture as to things of no great moment Episcopius who is owned to be a Socinian by the Party themselves tells us that the Penmen of the Scriptures were left to their own humane frailty in delivering those things which appertain to circumstances of Fact as time and place and the like And in the same place he attributes these Mistakes and Errors in the Bible to the want of Knowledge or weakness of Memory in the Writers Where then is their Infallibility which hath been owned by all Christian Churches Or can they be Infallible and yet Err What is the difference between these Writers and others but this that they were Immediately Inspired by the Holy Ghost and consequently are not liable in the least to Mistakes and Misapprehensions Those then that deny this must needs deny the Writers of the Holy Scripture to have been Inspired and to have been Infallible yea they must say that they were like other men faulty and erroneous in their Writings This you will say and that justly is an Ill Beginning here is a Bad specimen of their Sentiments concerning the Doctrinal part of Religion of which our Right Conceptions concerning the Holy
fleet F. Socinus seeing the bent of the Scripture so much against him sets himself to the finding out ways to avoid the force of them It is granted likewise that some of Socinus's followers are very useful in their Expositions of the New Testament They settle the sense and scope of the words and furnish the Reader with several Criticisms of good use He that denies this is to be suspected of causeless Prejudice and ill-will against them But then it must be said that they too often pervert the native sense of the words and force the Texts to speak what they please and generally the Arguments they offer are weak and unmanly groundless and precarious but they have a way of shoving them on with some craft and subtilty They are all very dexterous at this but Enjedinus Crellius and Slichtingius's Comments on Texts are of this sort especially It would create wonder sometimes to see their Elaborate Sophistry in finding out Trajections and Transpositions in several places in altering the genuine and obvious sense of Texts in their subtile ways of perverting and wresting of some clear passages of the Bible It must be said they have exercised the height of their Wit and Parts in this performance But as it was said of old of the Dice-player the better he was at the Game the worse he was so here it is most true the more these men excel in this way of Cheating and Imposing upon mankind the more is their Badness discover'd and the greater is their Crime And our Domestick Socinians agree with the Foreigners in this for they use the same little Arts and Tricks to deprave the sense of Holy Writ and to render it serviceable for their turn If I should instance only in their strange and unaccountable interpreting of the first verses of the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel that would be sufficient to let us see what a marvelous talent they have of misinterpreting and wresting the Holy Book In the beginning say they is as much as in the beginning of the Gospel or the Gospel-state though there is not the least colour for any such Gloss from the whole Context and though all Expositors both Antient and Modern have understood it otherwise The Word was with God i. e. when Christ ascended into Heaven viz. some time before his Publick Ministry though there is no foundation for any such surmise as I shall immediately shew And the Word was God or a God for so these nice Criticks will have us read it though it is well known to the Learned that the omission of the Article is not argumentative i. e. he was appointed to be a kind of God or God's Representative as Magistrates are call'd Gods All things were made by him i. e. all things were not made by him but only reform'd and renew'd The world was made by him i. e. it was new modell'd or the Spiritual World the World of the Messias was made by him From these and such like Conceits which their Writings abound with you may discern the Air and Genius of these Men you cannot but take notice that they love to play upon words and phrases they delight in coining sophistical Evasions they study artifice and shifts By which they shew themselves to be no Spurious offspring but the true Sons of Arius who as the Ecclesiastical Historian acquaints us was not unskill'd in Logical Querks And an other of the Antients observes that the Arian Cause was managed by Old Subtile Disputants such as had been bred up to Controversies and knew how to make the best of their Ill Arguments and to Dissemble when they thought there was occasion for it Our late Revivers of the Cause are furnish'd with the same Skill and use it as advantageously They will pretend to own Christ's Divinity they will say Christ is God and True God and yet if you come to the trial they wholly renounce it and tell you Christ is only God's Minister his Messenger his Embassador This is all you can get from an other of their Writers Only the Father saith he is true God and the Lord Christ is his Prophet his Embassador his Messenger so that Christ is no more than what the Turks confess Mahomet to be Though our Blessed Saviour be so often stiled God and Lord in the New Testament yet the Antitrinitarians would needs persuade us that the meaning of it is no other than this that he was a Great and Eminent Man whence it follows that they hold Christ to be Lord and God in the same sense that the Papists talk of their Lord God the Pope So they will tell you that the Death of Christ is an Expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of mankind and yet whatever they pretend they really own no such thing as the Reverend Bishop Stillingfleet rightly remarks and irrefragably proves beyond all Exceptions in his Admirable Treatise against Crellius And in several other Instances it might be shew'd that they intolerably abuse and deceive the world In brief never was Prejudice more rampant never were Fallacies so often placed in the room of Arguments never was Reason so grosly abused never was Logick so ill employ'd never were Grammer and Criticism so scandalously thrown away as in the Writings of these men and all is done to distort the Word of God to elude the meaning of the Holy Ghost to plead against the Lord of Life and Glory and against the only way and means of their Salvation Here under this First Head viz. their Abusing of Scripture I will take notice of One Particular Instance of it which to the Common Reader perhaps may be a Rarity They thinking it necessary that Christ being but a mere Man for they hold him to be no other should be extraordinarily instructed by God as to his Office of the Messias and therefore it would be requisite that he should like St. Paul be taken up into the third Heaven and there be taught particularly how to discharge his Office and how to teach men upon Earth Accordingly they were to find out some Texts of Scripture which might be strained to support this Fiction viz. That Christ went up into Heaven in the time of the forty days Fast or some time before he began to Preach that he might receive Instructions from God concerning the Gospel-dispensation and concerning the things that he was to deliver upon earth To this purpose they pitch upon John 3. 13. No man hath ascended up into Heaven but he that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man who is in Heaven and they would persuade us that these words are spoken concerning that Ascension which they fancy But this meaning cannot be fastned upon them because we are here plainly inform'd that Christ came down from Heaven first and then afterwards ascended thither whereas it is their assertion that he first ascended and then came down thence It is impossible therefore to stretch these words so as to