l. 4. c. 23. Smalcius peremptorily asserts that those are Venial Sins which do not merit eternal death and that there are such sins But the rest only say God hath not constituted Eternal Punishment as the just recompence of all Sins Volkelius's express words are Venial Sins are those for which God hath not appointed the penalty of eternal death so that of themselves they deprive no man of eternal life But this contradicts the Apostle who speaks without any reserve and limitation The wages of sin is death Rom. 6. 23. And you may be satisfied that even Eternal Death is included in that general term for death in this former clause of the verse is directly oppos'd to eternal life in the latter one That they symbolize in the doctrine of Praying for the dead may be gather'd from what a Great Man among them saith It is no wonder that those who believe no middle state of the dead pray not for them But those that believe this do well in praying for them He adds There is a much more certain succour and aid in the prayers of the living for the dead than in the prayers of the dead for the living They affect the way of the Church of Rome in the manner of excusing their worshiping the Son of God although they hold him not to be God but a Creature for as the Romanists palliate their Idolatrous Worship in praying to Saints and Angels c. by saying that this Adoration is paid ultimately to God himself so not only the Old but the New Socinians use the same language telling us that the worshiping of the Son is not terminated in him as its utmost scope but passes by and through him to the Father Lastly I might add that the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the doctrine of the Trinity speaks favourably of Transubstantiation All these things evidence that there is no such great gulf fixed between the Papists and Socinians but that they can hold commerce with one another and in time if there be occasion come closer together I charge not these latter with any formed intentions of promoting the Roman Cause but they may be Factors for Rome though perhaps they know it not However I desire it may be consider'd how Inconsistent these men are when they make a shew sometimes of being great Enemies to the Roman Religion and yet at other times abet and befriend it Would not a Thinking Man be induced to believe that they are at the bottom Favourers of the Pontifician Interest Lastly I appeal to any considerate man whether this be not more probable than what the Socinians charge the Trinitarians with viz. that they are the Causes and Occasions of those Errors and Heresies which compose the gross body of Popery Thus I have offer'd a Brief Scheme of the Anti-Trinitarian and Socinian Doctrines These things might have been further enlarged upon but I was willing to bring all into a narrow compass for the sake of the Meanest Readers such as have not time and leisure to peruse Great Volumes or are not able to purchase them I hear that there is a Reverend and Worthy Person of my Name of the University of Oxford who hath undertaken to give a Larger Account of matters referring to this subject but for my own part I purposely design'd Brevity for the reasons aforesaid and because I have other work of Greater Importance upon my hands for though the handling of the foregoing Points be of great use otherwise I should not have employ'd my self about them yet I give Practical Theology the precedence to them That the Reader may have a Summary View together of all the preceding doctrines of the Socinians I will be yet briefer and couch the whole in a Narrower Draught which you may call if you please the Creed of a Socinian It may be drawn up in this Form and Manner I believe concerning the Scripture that there are Errors Mistakes and Contradictions in some places of it that the Authority of some of its books is questionable yea that the Whole Bible hath been tamper'd with and may be suspected to be Corrupted I believe concerning God that he is not a Spirit properly speaking i. e. Immaterial and Incorporeal but that he is such another sort of Body as Air or Ether is that he is not Immense and Infinite and every where Present but is confined to certain places that he hath no Knowledg of such future events as depend on the free will of man and that it is impossible that these things should be foreknown by him that there is a Succession in God's Eternal Duration as well as there is in Time which is the measure of that Duration which belongs to Finite beings I believe further concerning God that there is no distinction of Persons or Subsistencies in him and that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God the former of these being only a Man and the latter no other than the Power or Operation of God that there was nothing of Merit in what Christ did or suffer'd that therefore he could not make Satisfaction for the sins of the world and the contrary Assertion is deceitful erroneous and pernicious I believe concerning the First Man that he was not created in a state of Uprightness that the Image of God in which he was made consisted not in Righteousness and Holiness and consequently that he did not lose these by his Fall for he could not lose what he had not that Adam's Posterity have receiv'd no hurt have had no stain or blemish derived to them by his Apostacy and the contrary Opinion is a fable a dream a fiction of Antichrist that Mankind having receiv'd no damage by the fall of our First Parents have still an ability by nature to desire and imbrace all Spiritual Good and to avoid all that is Sinful and Vitious that therefore there is no need of the help of the Holy Spirit and that men may believe and repent and perform all religious acts without his operation and influence yea indeed the Spirit is but an Operation it self that men are counted righteous before God not for the Merit of Christ Jesus for he had no Merit but for their own good works I believe concerning the Future State that the Souls of the deceas'd have no knowledg no perception of any thing they are not sensible of any rewards or pains neither are they capable of feeling them so that in a manner they may be said not to Exist for their life activity and sensibleness are vanish'd and their very Nature is absorpt I believe that we shall not rise with the Same Bodies which we have now at the last day but that another Matter or Substance shall be substituted in their place I believe that men shall not at the day of Judgment be required to give an Account of their actions the most Flagitious Sinners shall not be Examined concerning any thing of their past life
being a Sacrifice and thereby making an Atonement unto God for us upon earth which destroys that Senseless Fiction of theirs that he was not a Priest till he came to Heaven This is undeniable that where the Oblation of the Sacrifice is there is the Priest now it was here upon Earth that he was a Sacrifice he offer'd his own blood upon the Cross and therefore he was a Priest upon Earth Therefore it is said When he had by himself purged our sins viz. here by his blood he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high Heb. 1. 3. He first offer'd himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for us and then appear'd in glory and triumph in heaven Other Texts speak of Christ's ransoming us Mat. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 2. 6. and of redeeming us Rom. 3. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 30. And this Redemption was by his Blood Eph. 1. 17. 1 Pet. 1. 18. call'd the Blood of God Acts 20. 28. This was the Price that was paid for us and so it was a Proper Redemption This Price was paid to God's Justice to free us from the Penalty which was due by the Law to rescue us from eternal wrath and misery This is the doctrine which the Holy Scripture teacheth us and this is the faith of all who rightly understand those Writings viz. that Christ suffer'd and died to satisfie the Divine Justice in our stead and thereby to expiate for our sins and to redeem us from death and hell and to purchase life and salvation for us The Socinians deny this and thereby subvert the whole Gospel turn Christianity upside down ruine the very foundations of our Religion and pluck it up by the roots According to the doctrine of these Men we are yet in our sins for there is no True Expiation for them we are in a State of Misery we are overwhelm'd with our own Guilt we are hopeless helpless creatures and our condition is deplorate for there is no Satisfaction made to God for our transgressions Nay they are not content barely to renounce the contrary doctrine but they explode it with great derision and reproach First as to Christ's Merits we are told by Smalcius that it was taught by Socinus and Ostorodus that the opinion of those is false absurd and pernicious who have invented and feigned that there is any such thing as Merit in Christ. And Smalcius himself is bold to call it the Fictitious Merit of Christ and in another place that Dream of Merit Then as to the Satisfaction it self he is not afraid to stile it a Fiction that hath its rise from the brains of curious men And in his Catechism he hath these reproachful words Though now it is vulgarly thought by Christians that Christ by his death merited Salvation for us and fully satisfied for our sins yet it is a deceitful opinion erroneous and very pernicious Yea this doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is termed Absurd and Impious by Socinus I appeal now to the Reader whether I need prove that those who use such language deserve the last of these Epithets themselves But are the English and Modern Gentlemen of the same opinion Yes as you may see in Mr. Bidle's Scripture Catechism as he calls it but very unjustly Chap. 12. where he shamefully corrupts the sense of Scripture to render his Opinion plausible If you consult one of their Later Writers you will find him in a deriding manner thus representing the doctrine of the Trinitarians viz. that God the Son being incarnate in our nature fulfill'd for us all obedience by his active righteousness and by his passive one he more than exhausted all that Punishment that is or can be due to Sin Whatever he did was for us and what he suffer'd was in our stead and one drop of his blood was sufficient to ransom a thousand worlds from the demerit of their Sins And then they labour to shew that the belief of such doctrine is of very ill consequence it 〈◊〉 the cause of the decay of Piety and it is thaâ—… which bolsters men up in their wicked courses Afterwards in way of derision they thus express the doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction Because they i. e. the Trinitarians pretend that God was incarnate and suffer'd in our stead they are forced to this conclusion that God hatâ—… freely pardon'd and yet was infinitely overpaid for all our transgressions and sins that of his mere Grace the abundance and riches of his grace forsooth he will pardon and save the penitenâ—… because he hath received for them 〈◊〉 you 'll believe it a price of Redemption c. These Tenents they scoff at aâ—… branches growing upon the Trinitarian Stock these they brand as scandalous absurd and heretical doctrines p. 11. 12 14. Iâ—… an other place they declare that the Oblation which Christ made of himself was not made to the Justice of God or by way of a full reparation to it but as all other Sacrifices of beasts formerly were an oblation or application to the mercy of God and as 't is added by way of humble suit In the same place they represent Christ's Satisfaction as a Monster and scoffingly call it the Trinitarians Fetch-back though presently after they seem to retract this Jargon In a pretended Letter to the Clergy of both Universities these New Racovians again ridicule this doctrine and so they do in some others of their late Pamphlets which makes their Character very wretched and dismal and to be abhorr'd by all Good Men and sincere Lovers of Christianity for it is too manifest that they tread under foot the Son of God and count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing and do despite unto the Spirit of grace Thus you see how the doctrine of Socinianism as it respects God in general and more particularly the Persons of the Godhead and in a more especial manner the Second Person or Lord Christ Jesus and his Undertakings you see I say how extremely vitiated it is and fitted to the conceptions and notions of Prophane and Atheistical Spirits CHAP. IV. They maintain that the First Man was not created in a State of Uprightness notwithstanding the Writings of the Old and New Testament expresly assert the contrary Original Sin though attested in the same Holy Writings is pronounced a Fable by them Their groundless notion concerning the Spirit and Divine Assistance With the Pelagians they hold that Man 's Natural Strength is sufficient in order to faith and obedience What are vain and lying words according to Slichtingius Their strange conceptions concerning the Future State It is their opinion that the Souls of the deceased are void of all Perception and Sense that they Live not yea that they Exist not Which notions are proved to be contrary to Scripture and Reason The Immortality of humane Souls is shock'd by these Men. Which shews their Irreligious and Atheistical Propension Some of them disbelieve the Resurrection of the Wicked
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
They deny that the dead shall rise with the same Bodies It is unreasonable to deny this merely because of some Difficulties that attend it Though we should suppose an Annihilation of humanâ—… bodies yet God can raise them the same Much more may we conceive the same bodies to be rais'd out of something The very notion of Resurrection implies the rising again of the same Individual Body This doctrine is founded on the evidenâ—… testimony of Scripture It is shew'd iâ—… what respects the contrary opinion is an argument of Impiety THirdly I proceed to consider the Groundless and Irreligious Sentiments of these Men concerning the First Man and the State he was in at his first Creation They all agree in this thaâ—… though Adam had a natural ability to do what God enjoyn'd him yet he was not created in a State of Uprightness He is said to be made upright Eccl. 7. 29. because he was not created depraved but if we speak properly he had no Natural Rectitude or Righteousness So Socinus And therefore he gives us his judgment very decisively thus Let us conclude that Adam even before he transgressed the commandment of God was not truly Just. Ostorodus hath the very same thoughts of him and another Warm Gentleman who is much applauded and admired by the Party tells us plainly but in no very clean language that it is an old stinking Fable that the first Man was adorn'd from his very creation with holiness and supernatural gifts But what if this Fable be in Scripture Yes most certainly that which he in such vile terms represents as such is the doctrine of the Old and New Testament God created man in his own image Gen. 1. 27. And that we may be more ascertain'd of it it is repeated in the very same place in the image of God created he him And that this Image consists in Holiness and Righteousness is clear from Eph. 4. 24. and Col. 3. 10. where the Apostle speaking of the Image of God in which man was at first created places it in Righteousness and true holiness as well as knowledg How then can it be said by these Writers that the Image of God wherein our first Parents were created did not consist in Sanctity and Righteousness how can it with truth be said by them that there was no Positive Moral Goodness and Rectitude in them This is directly contrary to what the Inspired Writers deliver concerning them Let the Reader now judg on which side the Fable is and at the same time let him judg how impiously the foresaid Writer represents the Word of God as an Old stinking Fable To proceed There being according to these New Theologists no Original Righteousness in the first Man his posterity can't be deprived of it and accordingly they deny Original Sin i. e. though they hold man's nature is corrupted and depraved yet they say it was not at all derived from our First Parents there is no defect blemish or depravity propagated to their posterity Socinus frequently vouches this and so do several of his Partizans who appear in great throngs upon this occasion and with one consent profess that by Adam's Apostacy the nature of man is not depraved men are not born with a propension and inclination to that which is Vitious by reason of that First Defection The contrary opinion is according to Socinus an arrant Cheat and Imposture for these are his own words Whatever evil effects in mankind the EVANGELICKS i. e. the Protestants and PAPISTS attribute to the first sin of our First Parent it must needs be that they are Vain Fictions and Dreams of men Whatever Divines dispute about Original Sin it is all of it clearly to be reckon'd as the mere invention and forgery of humane wit And then he pretends in another place to trace its Pedegree and to give you the Rise of it That Device of Original Sin is a Jewish Fable and brought into the Church from Antichrist If this be true then St. Paul's doctrine is fabulous By one man sin enter'd into the world Rom. 5. 12. By one man's disobedidience many were made Sinners v. 19. And this Great and Infallible Apostle himself must be reputed Judaical and Antichristian when he adds that death enter'd by sin i. e. by that One Man's Sin spoken of before and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned viz. in that first Man And again v. 17. By one man's offence death reigned by one Hence it is evident that Adam and his race became Mortal because of this First Transgression But Socinus is of another opinion for it is the first thing you meet with in his Prâ—…lections that the first man before his fâ—… was by nature mortal Smalcius will by no means grant that Adam was created in a state of Immortality but that he was naturally Mortal and though he had not sinn'd yet he should have died With whom agrees Volkelius confidently asserting that Mortality is not the effect and punishment of the Fall And the rest of them hold that Adam's Sin endamaged himself but no body else his posterity suffer'd not they derived no Infection no Stain no Depravity from him But are the English Socinians of this mind Yes for the Effects and Consequences which we ascribe to Adam's Fall are flatly denied by Bidle in his Scripture-Catechism chap. 3. And in one of their late Prints the Natural Depravity of man i. e. his propensity to evil and his aversness to good are represented as false and absurd And a little before they peremptorily deny that Adam's race have any sin derived much less imputed to them and that they are punish'd for it God cannot possibly do this they say yea they have the confidence to add these horrid words that this is the just character of an Almighty Devil Accordingly they cry down Original Sin as a mere Sham and Imposture And hence issue a great many Unsound Assertions which are in great vogue with all Socinians If there be no Corruption convey'd to Adam's race if they receiv'd no hurt by his Fall then they have as he had a natural power to do all that God requires of them They still have an ability by nature to imbrace all good and to avoid all evil which are the express terms used by their Writers And hear what their Catechism saith Qu. Is there not need of the inward gift of the Holy Spirit that we may believe the Gospel A. Not at all And the reason is assigned afterwards namely because this is a gift that is confer'd upon such as already believe the Gospel Here you see what is the Racovian Divinity It is not the Spirit of God that enlightens mens minds and enables them to receive the Truth the Spirit of God is not the original of all Grace in us This is clear from that notion which they form concerning the Holy Spirit by which is meant say they
as this if there be an utter Extinction of the wicked at the last day If their very persons perish they are uncapable of any Punishment and if that be true it can't be said it shall be more tolerable for one than another which yet is the determination of our Saviour himself Again is it reasonable to believe that the Reprobate shall perish and be extinct when the Holy Scriptures assure us that they shall be cast into everlasting fire Mat. 18. 8. which is call'd Hell-fire in the next verse and when we are ascertain'd they shall at the last day depart into everlasting fire Mat. 25. 41. which in the last verse of that chapter is call'd everlasting punishment Is it the meaning of this Direful Doom that they shall cease to be and sink into Nothing Is it the punishment of the Cursed at that day that they shall be void of all sense of pain and misery i. e. that they shall be uncapable of any Punishment yes this is the interpretation which the Socinians put upon the words Particularly Smalcius and Crellius urge this notion of Everlasting Fire and make it to be of the same signification with Eternal Perdition Destruction or Annihilation But how absurdly is this done when this Everlasting Fire to confirm us in the belief of the Endless Perpetuity of it is in other places of the Gospel term'd Unquenchable fire as in Mat. 3. 12. and in five verses which is exceeding remarkable in Mark 9. it is call'd the fire that is not quenched and that never shall be quenched I argue then thus That Fire which is unquenchable which shall never be extinguish'd is of Endless duration but Hell-fire is such therefore it is of endless duration It is impossible to withstand the force of this Argument I do not say it is impossible for a Whiffling Disputer one that delights in Cavelling to raise an Objection against it for what Truth is there though never so Great which the Wit and Sophistry of wrangling heads cannot suggest something against But this I say it is impossible that any one who is serious and in good earnest and hath a reverence for the Holy Scriptures should not acknowledg that the Eternity of the Infernal Torments is fully declared and confirmed by this foresaid expression of Unquenchable Fin. And we are to reckon all the forementioned Texts as so many different and distinct Proofs of the eternal duration of that Punishment which the wicked shall undergo And this is call'd not only fire that is not and shall not be quench'd but the Worm that dies not Mark 9. 44 46. which cannot with any shew of sense or reason be synonymous with Annihilation Shall these men then be call'd Rational tho I know none call them so but themselves and their Admirers who assert the contrary Do they not shew themselves Masters of Great Reason when they tell us that the Worm which dies not is that which utterly ceases to be when they hold that not to be at all is being in everlasting fire or punishment Those that can assent to these Propositions are Reasonable Men indeed Yes in their own esteem but not otherwise Whence perhaps it was that Volkelius who in other matters sticks close to the Racovians by reason of the gross Inconsistency of this Opinion was offended at it as appears from Socinus's Sixth Epistle to him and we do not find in his Writings as is noted by Bishop Pearson that he ever assented to it I might alledg 2 Cor. 5. 10 a place which not only shews that the same body rises for which I made mention of it before but also that the wicked shall be punish'd afterwards in their bodies for the receiving the things in their bodies the word done being not in the Original nor need it be in the Translation is their being dealt with in way of Punishment or Reward as to their bodies which cannot be unless they subsist both in body and soul to endure that Punishment or to enjoy that Reward This I conceive is very clear and it is impossible to reconcile it with their being reduced to Nothing with their perishing for ever But it is Objected that in the Scripture it is often said of the Wicked that they shall be destroyed they shall perish they shall die which is as much as to say they shall be Annihilated they shall be deprived of their Essence I Answer briefly they mistake the meaning of those expressions for it is plain and manifest from what hath been premised that these terms destruction perdition death denote not the Privation of Existence but of the former state and condition which they were in and their Changing it for one that is eternally Miserable To an unprejudiced and discerning eye and that attends to the Stile of Scripture it is evident that these expressions signifie the utter Separation of the damned from God and the undergoing of his Wrath to eternity and consequently they imply Pain and Torment yea the never-ceasing infliction of them unto endless ages This is that which is meant by the second death threatned to the Wicked Rev. 20. 14 15. 21. 8. for in those places we find that the lake of Fire and the second death are synonymous which shews that the death of the Damned is no other than their Everlasting Punishment their being tormented in the flames of the everlasting fire before mentioned But notwithstanding this the Socinians persist in their Opinion and flatly deny the Perpetuity of Hell-Torments Which is that which the Atheist would have that which he constantly professes as his belief that after death the Soul perishes or if it chances to hold out in its Subsistence some time yet at last it will vanish into a Non-entity There cannot be a more Pernicious Doctrine than this for first it diminishes the Guilt of Sin as if it did not deserve Eternal Torments as if these were above the demerits of the Greatest Sins and Enormities for so the Racovian Writers speak Again this gives Men occasion to deny the Wisdom and Justice of God which is a considerable Step to Atheism To what end and purpose do Reprobates rise again and are brought to Judgment if there shall immediately follow an utter Extinction of them Doth the Great Ruler of the world shew himself Just if they be neither punish'd in this life as often it happens nor in another Shall not the Judg of all the World do right And can he do so if they that have done all the Mischief imaginable to others shall feel none themselves here or hereafter Moreover this encourages men in the commission of Sin for they chear themselves with this that they shall presently have an end of their Misery there shall be a speedy release from their Pains their Torments if there be any shall quickly have an end for they are told by Socinus's disciples that Everlasting Fire wilâ—… soon be extinguish'd that the Worm which never dies is Mortal This
and if he doth so he is an Atheist This is a Text that is not question'd by the Socinians though the next clause in the verse hath been doubted of by them and some others These are Words of the Beloved Disciple who lay in his Master's Bosom and had extraordinary communications of the Spirit and was favour'd in a peculiar manner with Divine Discoveries and Revelations This is he that may be called the Great Eagle and that name was given him by the Ancient Christians and much more deservedly than Maimonides was called so by the Modern Jews because he soared so high and was so quick-sighted in the Mysteries of the Gospel and had so piercing and sagacious judgment Therefore on all these accounts I urge this Text upon Socinus's followers wishing them to be sensible of the force of it The denyal of the Son i. e. the denying of his Divinity which consists in his being the Eternal Son of God is a denyal of the Father also They that deny the Deity of the Second and Third Persons in whom the Divinity as truly subsists as in the First deny the Deity of the First Person Whence it irrefragably follows that a Socinian is an Atheist He is so if this Syllogism will prove him to be one He that denies the existence of the True God is an Atheist the Socinian doth the former therefore he is the latter The Major is the definition of an Atheist and therefore can't be question'd The Minor therefore must be proved which is easily done thus He that denies Christ to be the True God i. e. of the same substance with the Father denies the existence of the True God but a Socinian denies Christ to be the true God i. e of the same substance with the Father Ergò The Second Proposition will not be denied by these Gentlemen therefore I am to clear the Major and that is soon done thus If the denying of the Divinity of the Son be the denying of the Divinity of the Father then he that denies Christ to be the True God c. denies the existence of the True God but the denying of the Divinity of the Son is the denying of the Divinity of the Father Ergò The first Proposition will be yielded I conceive therefore I am to take care of the second and that is soon done from the forecited Text which is the very substance of it Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father The Socinians do the former therefore they are guilty of the latter There is such a Connection between these two the Father and the Son they being Co-essential and Co-eternal that if you deny the Divinity of the one you deny that of the other Therefore they are Atheists that deny the Divinity of our Saviour therefore in the interpretation and accounts of the Apostle St. John Socinians are such for they deny the Divinity of Christ and in denying of that deny the Divinity of the Father And this was the Sense of the Primitive Christians and Pious Professors of that Holy Religion for we find that Baptism is called the renouncing of Atheism and the acknowledgment of the Deity because in the Form of Baptism the Trinity is professed and owned or the Deity as it contains in it Three Distinct Persons Those therefore who deny these are chargable with Atheism more especially according to the tenour of St. John's Words and the acception of the Gospel those are to be taxed with it who deny the Divinity of our Saviour Perhaps it may be expected here that I should maintain the contrary Truth and formally prove and defend the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity but because there have been so many Treatises lately published on this subject and because I design a Just Discourse upon it my self among others which I intend to offer to the world upon the Articles of the Creed I will dismiss this Point at present after I have made this one request to the Reader that he would vouchsafe in the most serious manner to consult the Writings of the New Testament and studiously to compare those places together which refer to this Sublime Matter and then he will clearly discover the Truth and Reality of it Nay he will be convinced of this from what our Saviour himself saith concerning it for though for certain good reasons he was not forward to declare his Divine Nature and Dignity yet he often uttered such words as implied that he was the Eternal Son of God as when he said Before Abraham was I am John 8. 58. I and my Father are one John 10. 30. which the Jews well understood when they laid this to his charge Thou makest thy self God v. 32 33. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father because we are but One. John 14. 9. I am in the Father and the Father in me v. 10. And to the very last he owned this Mat. 26. 63 64. Mark 14. 62. whereas the Socinians as resolutely persevere in the denial of it And denying him to be God they consequently disown his Satisfaction which is another Black Crime chargable upon them and that very justly They allow Christ to be a Saviour but on this account only because he shews us the way to Salvation and will afterwards bestow it upon us As to his death they acknowledg that it was to confirm the New Covenant by shedding of his blood he ratified it as before under the Law the Old Covenant was made by effusion of blood But that there was any thing Meritorious and properly Expiatory in his Death they stiffly deny for it is the peremptory decision of Socinus himself that Christ did not merit by any thing that he did and Volkelius expresly saith the same Nay the former of these to explain himself undertakes to shew that Christ had nothing in him that was singular and that he neither did or suffered any thing that was so And elsewhere he hath these very words Whatsoever Christ suffered can have in it no greater vertue than if any mere man whosoever had suffered the same This is the opinion they have of the Passion and Death of our Blessed Lord. And to propagate this they endeavour by all means to vilifie his Priesthood They manifestly confound his Sacerdotal and Regal Office And they would perswade us that his Priestly Office did not commence here on Earth but was first exerted in heaven And such like Inventions they have to evade the Satisfaction of Christ which they resolve never to admit of Accordingly Socinus hath no less than fifteen Chapters against it in one book and the three first Parts of an other Treatise are wholly spent on the same subject and are indeed but a Repetition of what he said before And he again insists upon this in his Disputation with Francken His Friends unanimously assert the same doctrine and professedly declare that Christ did not by his death satisfie the Divine
Justice for our Sins and thereby reconcile God to us And in the same places of their Writings where they assert this they also add that God remits the sins of men without any Compensation to his offended Holiness and Justice for this they say is contradictory to the other Nay they tell us that there is not in God that Justice whereby he is moved to punish Sin But shall we believe the Racovian Catechism or St. Paul's words God set him i. e. Christ forth to be a Propitiation to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins Rom. 3. 25. and in the next verse to declare his righteousness that he might be just i. e. to make it appear that God would not pardon sin without Satisfaction made to his Justice The Holiness and Righteousness of God's nature and the opposition of them to Sin oblige him to animadvert upon it Wherefore Sin cannot go unpunish'd and consequently it cannot be forgiven without Satisfaction that is either the guilty person must suffer or the fault and punishment must be transferr'd on another And whereas these Great Masters of Reason alledg that Christ could not be punish'd because he was an Innocent Person for it is injustice to punish the Innocent they cannot deny this to be a Maxim of clear Reason that an Innocent Person may voluntarily undertake to suffer for one that is Guilty as a man may take another's Debt upoâ—… him and oblige himself to discharge iâ—… for him This is an act of Mercy anâ—… Generosity And much more such wâ—… Christ's undertaking to discharge oâ—… debts to expiate our sins by suffering foâ—… us And seeing he gave himself for 〈◊〉 Tit. 2. 14. i. e. willingly offer'd himself seeing it was an act of his Choice anâ—… Consent we may conclude that theâ—… was no Injustice done him when the guiâ—… of our sins was laid upon him and wheâ—… he bore the Punishment which was primarily due to us This is so plain a thinâ—… that any man of correct thoughts mâ—… needs discern it The Case then is thiâ—… God would not pardon the sins of meâ—… committed against him without somâ—… Recompence and Satisfaction but weâ—… could not make Satisfaction for our selves therefore an Other did it Christ underwent the Punishment which we deserved and which should have been inflicted on us and thereby he fully satisfied God's Justice which as he is Absolute and Supreme Governour of all the world requires that Sin should be punished How unreasonably then do the Socinian Writers cry out against this Just and Wise Dispensation of Heaven Yea how Irreligious and Prophane are they in exploding and scoffing at that which is the Only Way of Man's Salvation I may justly take up the words of an Ancient and Pious Father on the like occasion I doubt not but if God had taken another way to effect our Salvation they would also have found fault with that for they are fastidious and hard to please and are only skill'd to Cavil at the Mysteries of the Divine Dispensation So far as we know this Particular Method of Redeeming lost Man was Necessary because Satisfaction could not otherwise be made to the offended Majesty of Heaven nor could the Injury done to him be fully repaired But we are sure of this that this Satisfaction and Reparation were really made by Christ the Son of God This is evident from those Texts of Scripture which acquaint us that he took the Guilt of our Sins upon himself He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripeâ—… we are healed The Lord hath laid oâ—… him the iniquity of us all For the transgression of my people was he stricken Isai. 53. 5 7 8. In which words it is as evidenâ—… as any thing possibly can be that the Penalty which was due to us for our sins and transgressions was transferr'd on him and he thereby Satisfied for us And this is the meaning of Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offer'd to bear the Sins of many and of Gal. 3. 13. He was made 〈◊〉 Curse for us he underwent the Punishment for sin which we in our own persons should have undergone and particularly he suffer'd that Cursed death of the Cross. His Satisfying for us is plainly denoted by the frequent mention of Reconciliation i. e. doing some Great thing whereby he purchased the favour of God for us when we were enemies to him When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 5. 18. Or in other terms v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell and having made peace through the blood of his cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself Col. 1. 19 20 21. And accordingly you hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death v. 22. And in several other places this Reconciliation is expresly mention'd And whereas they acknowledg being convicted by these plain Texts that Christ reconciled us unto God but then object that it is not said He reconciled God to us it is a vain and childish suggestion and a mere playing upon words and therefore is not worthy of a serious man for our being reconcil'd unto God and his being reconcil'd to us amount to the same one is included in the other or one at least follows upon the other If we are reconcil'd to God it is a natural consequence that God is so to us and therefore these Objectors shew themselves here as they do upon several other occasions to be very Triflers The Satisfaction made by our Saviour is likewise manifest from those places of the New Testament which make mention of his sufferings for us dying for us laying down his life for us Mat. 20. 28. John 10. 11 15. Rom. 5. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. 1 Thess. 5. 9 10. Heb. 2. 9. 1 Pet. 2. â—…1 3. 18. and many other places which inform us that Christ freely substituted himself in the room of lost men and suffer'd in their stead And this doctrine is undeniably proved from those Texts which represent Christ as a real Propitiation and Atonement for our sins and consequently as a true and proper Expiation for them I say proper because Socinus and his brethren are not backward to acknowledg that he expiated for Sin but then they mean it not in the proper sense i. e. that he deliver'd us from the guilt of Sin by the efficacy and merit of his Blood This likewise is plainly set forth to us in those Texts 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passover i. e. our Paschal Lamb is sacrificed for us Ephes. 5. 2. He hath given himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice for a sweet-smelling savour especially those in the Epistle to the Hebrews which speak of Christ's Offering himself and