there are above fourty Clear places of Scripture that express the Plurality of Persons in the Deity and yet they refuse to attend to them Which shews that their eyes are blinded and that they wilfully give themseves up to Mistakes The Ancient Fathers and Writers of the Church who may well be supposed to have some knowledg and insight into this Catholick Doctrine unanimously assert the Distinction of Persons or Subsistencies in the Godhead Which is freely acknowledg'd by their Great Master who expresly tells us that the Fathers both before and after the Nicene Council asserted the same doctrine that we do And this hath been the constant profession of the Orthodox Churches of Christ in all ages But notwithstanding this there have been some since unmindful of what their Master had acknowledg'd that have endeavour'd to make the Writings of those Ancients speak for them therein both contradicting Socinus and the Truth it self Nay even among the late Tracts published by the Socinians there is a formal Collection of the Testimonies of Greek and Latin Fathers against the Doctrine of the Trinity So contradictory are these men to one another There is no need of quoting any Particular Authors under this Head for they all appear in a full body against the doctrine of the Trinity Here the whole Posse of the Racovians shew themselves unanimously and without exception declaring that there is but One Person viz. the Father in the Deity and that the Son and Holy Ghost are not God As for the Blessed Son of God who is the Word of the Father begotten from everlasting by him they affirm him to be no other than a Man dignified with the title of God And as for the Holy Ghost who is co-essential with the Father some of them who adhere to Bidle hold he is an Angel or Messenger of God and consequently a Person but the rest of them deny his Personality and averre him to be only the Power or Influence of God and so is only a Quality or Operation as if the Apostles were commanded to baptize all Nations in the name of an Operation and at the same time were enjoyn'd to baptize in the name of Two Persons This is very harsh yea it is very inconsistent and absurd However these Gentlemen are resolv'd to adhere to it and they bid open defiance to the Contrary Doctrine One of the New Racovians tells us that the doctrine of the Trinity hath been partly the direct and necessary Cause and partly the unhappy occasion of diverse Scandalous and Hurtful Errors and Heresies And in an other place he declares that this doctrine is as little consistent with Piety towards God as it is with Reason But this is very mild and gentle in respect of what some other Unitarians belch forth Servetus when he speaks of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God ridicules it in such blasphemous terms as are not to be mention'd and he often calls the Trinity the Three-headed Cerberus Others of them stile it a Monstrous Idol a Fiction of Antichrist an Infernal Imposture Nay our very Modern Socinians our English Unitarians discover a very Prophane Spirit when they speak of this Sublime Point The language of the Church say they concerning the Trinity is BARBAROUS the faith of it is Monstrous And how elegantly do they express themselves when they tell us that the doctrine of the Trinity is a dry and empty notion a bone without marrow or meat What can be more prophane than their stiling the Three Divine Persons a Trinity of Cyphers a Club or Cabal of Gods a Council or Committee of Gods where sometimes one is President and sometimes another is in the Chair and in another place a Castle in the air Let any one peruse their late Prints and observe the freedom of their Stile and he will find it light and frothy as one of their late Converts expresses it he will find them irreverently deriding this Profound Mystery in such terms as I forbear to rehearse because they are most unworthy of Christian and Pious Ears he will find that there was reason to tax them with Irreligion and Prophaneness and that I did not reproach them when I laid these to their Charge But more especially as to the imputation of Atheism which is yet a more Heinous Crime I request the Reader to consider and weigh 1 John 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father Take it thus with the preceding verse which will lead us to the true sense of it Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ He is Antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son As much as to say if there ever was a Person that might be truly call'd a Liar if ever any one deserved that name then certainly he that gainsays so plain a Truth as this that Jesus is the Messias is an egregious Liar and Falsifier and merits to be call'd so Yea to such a one belongs not only the Title of a Liar but of Antichrist because he is a direct Opposer of Christ as he is the Son of God the Father and therein he denies both the Father and the Son For it follows Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father i. e. he denieth the Father as well as the Son for not having the Father is the same with denying him as is most evident from the preceding clause where it is call'd the denying of the Father Now I suppose the Socinians will grant that the denying of the Father is Atheism wherefore they must also acknowledg that the denying of the Son is Atheism because in this is included according to these words of St. John the denying of the Father This is a Text which it may be they never thought of i. e. of the force and influence of it therefore I intreat them to ponder it now and therein to see a Character of themselves There were in St. John's days some of their Perswasion some that opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and especially the Deity of the Second Person they labour'd to perswade the People as their Successors do in our days that the Father only was God and that the Son was excluded wholly from the Divinity Against these this Apostle writes and lets them know that the Son as well as the Father is God and that he who hath the confidence to deny the Deity of the former doth also deny the Deity of the latter For such is the nature of the Godhead that one of these cannot be Alone The Father is not without the Son neither can be as this latter cannot be without the other They are so mutually joyn'd together that they cannot be separated This Coherence is inviolable and therefore he that denies the Eternal Son of God denies the Father he that holds Christ is not the Son of God by Eternal Generation in effect disowns the Godhead of the Father
Scriptures is a considerable Branch not to say Root But this is but mean and inconsiderable in respect of what they further hold and maintain For they not only find fault with some passages here and there but they question the Authority of whole Books and even vilifie the Old Testament it self What think you of those words of the Ring-leader of the Party The Precepts of the Old Testament are for the most part such that it is hard to believe that they proceed from God they are either so Light or Vain or Superstitious or even Foolish and Ridiculous and in sum they seem not to be worthy of God Is this the Language of one that hath a due respect and reverence for the Scriptures And in an other place you will find him particularly disparaging the Book of the Proverbs of Solomon And one of his Friends declares that when Solomon in his Proverbs speaks any thing concerning Manners if it be not expresly spoken that is either commanded or forbid by Moses in the Law is no more obligatory than the wise advice and doctrine of any other man What is this but bringing down this Inspit'd Author to the same level with Plato and Seneca or any other honest Moralist But would you know what is the true reason of their slighting and undervaluing this Royal Penman who dictated all by an Infallible Spirit It is this without doubt because there is in that Book so Remarkable a Confirmation of the doctrine of Christ's Divinity chap. 8. v. 22. to 32. where any unprejudic'd man cannot but see that by Wisdom is meant the Son of God Christ Jesus whose Eternal Being and Godhead are there in plain terms express'd I might observe how an other Celebrated Racovian disparages those Writings of Solomon which bear the Title of Ecclesiastes but I shall have occasion to mention this more particularly afterwards Then for the New Testament we are rightly told by an Excellent Pen that our Unitarians undermine the Authority of these Books and so introduce Deism amongst us There are some of these Writings either slily carp'd at or more positively call'd in question by them The Subtilty of Enjedinus an Overseer of the Socinian Churches in Transilvania is to be taken notice of in his Explication of the Epistle to the Hebrews who though he saith he hath an esteem for this Book and will not detract from the Authority of it yet thus speaks It is to be known that this Epistle is very much suspected among the most nor hath it obtain'd the same repute and dignity with the other Writings of the New Testament And then he assigns his Reasons why he questions the Authority of this Epistle one whereof is this The things which this Author writes concerning the Tabernacle chap. 9. v. 1. may be confuted out of the Old Testament An other is that he seems to use foolish Arguings and to assert some things which are manifestly false And lastly this Epistle seems to favour certain Heretical and Erroneous Opinions All this and much more he rehearses in contempt of the Divine Authority of this Epistle and saith not one syllable to shew his dislike of it or to let the World see how these Cavils may be confuted The true reason is because this part of St. Pauls Writings is such an Eminent and Illustrious Attestation of the Divinity of our Saviour and of his making Satisfaction unto God the Father by the offering of himself a Sacrifice upon the Cross for us Again the Writings of St. John the Evangelist and Apostle have been struck out of the Canon of Scripture by these men It is the frank acknowledgment of our New English Unitarians as may be seen in one of their late Prints that the Antient Unitarians generally disregarded the Gospel and Epistles which are ascribed to this Author and held that they were writ by Cerinthus an Heretick in those days But this must be said they pitch'd upon a very unlikely man to be the Author of those Writings for this Cerinthus as Irenaeus Eusebius and others of the most Credible Writers of the Church inform us was the Chief Man in those days that opposed the Divinity of Christ and held him to be a Mere Man whereupon St. John drew his Pen against him Can we think then that the Gospel of St. John was writ against Cerinthus and yet that Cerinthus writ it Besides it is easily proved that both the Gospel and the First Epistle which bear this Apostle's name were universally held to be Canonical Scripture and written by him as Eusebius testifies nay a professed Unitarian Writer firmly vouches this Wherefore it is probable that the only reason why any of the Old Unitarians disallow'd of St. John's Writings was because there are such passages as these in them In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father I and my Father are one He that hath seen me hath seen the Father I am in the Father and the Father in me Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father There are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one In brief because these Writings assert the Holy Trinity and more especially the Divinity of Christ thence they are resolved to defame the authority of them thence our very Modern Unitarians publickly declare that St. John makes use of certain terms and phrases as life light fullness only begotten c. by chance and by other crafty insinuations they would diminish the esteem of those Writings Nay they endeavour to blast the Credit of All the Canonical Books by telling us that some have been modelling the Common Bibles far above twelve hundred years So saith the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity and he speaks in the name of all the rest Thus they would make the World believe that the Whole Sacred Volume is corrupted and thereby our Religion and Faith are rendred Uncertain and Dubious which is the thing aimed at Moreover their vilifying and abusing of the Holy Scripture are seen in their Wild Interpretations of it merely to evade plain Texts which are against them and to establish their own fond Principles I deny not that some of them have very laudable descants on several passages of the Bible Faustus Socinus hath excellent Discourses and Commentaries on sundry Texts he treats excellently of the Authority of the Scriptures and very admirably and judiciously of the Truth of Christianity But at other times he generally dodges and higgles and uses quirks and subterfuges to support his Cause So true is that of our Learned Stilling
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
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
it is Reasonable that we should imitate God in whatever he commands us He resting from the works of the Creation on the seventh day thereupon instituted a Cessation of all worldly labour and business among all mankind on that day and so dedicated it to his honour and worship Gen. 2. 2 3. whereby the observance of it becomes on that account and in that respect Moral It is not strictly Moral but because the devoting some Certain and Peculiar Time to God's Service is Moral therefore so far the observing of a Seventh Day is Moral And as for that particular seventh day or that one day in Seven which we now keep it was separated and hallowed by the Apostles who had Authority from Christ to do it and so it became an Evangelical Institution and consequently is more than Moral Wherefore the Socinians who with the Quakers and some other High-flown Sects hold that there is no obligation to keep the first day of the week more than any other despise the Gospel Institution prophane the Time which was particularly destined to the Service of God and more especially of the Eternal Son of God our Blessed Saviour and Redeemer who by his Miraculous Resurrection consecrated this day and set it apart for holy and religious duties He therefore that accounts it not a Holy Day and keeps it not as such plainly manifests a spirit of Impiety and Prophaneness It is not to be question'd that the Evangelical Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper appertain to Religious Worship Therefore in the next place we are to examine how piously the Racovians express themselves with regard to these Divine Institutions It hath been and is the general belief of the Orthodox Professors of Christianity that the Sacraments ordained of Christ as Our Church well expresses it are not only badges or tokens of Christian mens profession but that they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will toward us by which he doth work invisibly in us and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him And particularly as to Baptism they agree with our Church that it is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian Men are discerned from others but whereby as by an Instrument they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church The promises of the forgiveness of Sin and of our adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost are visibly sign'd and seal'd faith is confirmed and grace increased by vertue of Prayer unto God And indeed this hath been the constant perswasion of all Understanding and Religious Men this hath been their firm and grounded belief concerning the Sacraments that these Ordinances were appointed for Great and Excellent Purposes viz. that they should be when rightly and effectually administred Chanels of Grace and of the Holy Spirit Pledges of God's good will in the Gospel and Signs of the Remission of our sins and more particularly that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be a help to our Faith and all our other Graces and a solemn Seal and Assurance of the Divine Favour to us as well as a Memorial of the Death of our Saviour But the Gentlemen whom we are now giving an account of are of another mind for they with one consent declare that there is no collation of any Grace no Confirmation of our Faith no bestowing of any Spiritual Blessing in the use of the Sacraments And generally they hold with Volkelius that there is no other end of instituting the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper but Thankfulness The Racovian Catechism teaches that this Sacrament is of no use to ratifie and seal the Benefits purchas'd for us by our Saviour yea that it is not useful to put us in mind of his Death notwithstanding his own words Do this in remembrance of me An other Writer peremptorily determines that there is no other use of the Lord's Supper but to stir up our Thankfulness for Christ's Death It is falsly said saith he that it is a Seal of Grace and Divine Favour a Confirmation of the Promises and of our faith in them It is erroneously said that it was instituted to be a Memorial of Christ's Death though he had in express terms said a little before There is no other end of this Sacrament than that the remembrance of Christ together with giving of thanks and setting forth his cruel death should perpetually remain in the Church Whereby it appears he had forgot what he had said but he was not forgetful to disparage this Sacrament But can we be so uncharitable as to think that the Unitarians of our times are guilty of this Verily it is no breach of Charity to think so of them since they have expresly declar'd as much First they tell us * they like not the word Sacraments because it is no scripture-Scripture-word for which profound reason some of them have profess'd that they dislike the word Trinity then they declare that neither of the Sacraments work ought in us and particularly as for the effects and consequences ascrib'd to the right partaking of the Lord's Supper they can find them no where but in the Books and Sermons of the Superstitious admirers or idolaters of External things i. e. the Books and Sermons of all Protestants And here it will not be amiss to take notice how both the Sacraments are most Abusively treated by these English Socinians which will further evince that they have a right to the Character which I have given them Their language is as follows p. 24. Let a man in black sprinkle you with some of the Church's Water or give you a bit of Bread or a sup of Wine over which he hath pronounced the Wonder-working words prescribed in Mother Church's Ritual though by nature you are as bad as the Devil you shall presently be inclin'd to as much good as will save you from Hell and qualifie you for Heaven And this no less certainly if you are one of the Elect for else the Churches Incantation produces only a momentary effect and a false appearance of good no less certainly I say than by tying the Norman Knot you may gain the love of the person you desire or by other Devices recorded in the learned books of Magick you may cause Hatred raise Winds and do a thousand other Feats which have no more natural and real agreement with those Causes that are said to produce them than Faith and Obedience have with a bit of Bread or with a sprinkling of water It can't be said he speaks this of the way of administring Baptism and the Eucharist in the Church of Rome for in this place he is designedly speaking of the Protestants and especially of the Church of England in her Prayers and Offices of the Service-book and in her Articles and Homilies so that it is plain he means the celebration of both Sacraments according to
Modern Christianity which professes the doctrines of Christ's Incarnation and the Trinity no better or other than a sort of Paganism and Heathenism These are their very terms P. 19. and they are answerable to what was said by them before viz. that the Trinitarian doctrines are of Heathen descent and original P. 15. and afterwards to vary the phrase of Paganick Extraction P. 16. I appeal now to the Reader whether this be not right Sclavonian whether it be not the very language and dialect of the Polonian Divines which shews that these are identified with the English Unitarians as to this matter and at the same time it yields us a true Pourtraiture of the persons I have been representing to the Reader Fourthly we should be very careful that we entertain none of their foresaid Opinions I question not but the Reader would have made this Inference though I had not But this I request of him that he would out of Choice and Judgment do this as being throughly apprehensive of that Evil and Danger which attend those Principles For this purpose I have display'd them and I hope that Special Hand of Providence for I cannot but acknowledg it as such which directed me to it will back it with a Blessing Fifthly and lastly see the tendency of the Unitarians and of the whole mass of the Socinian Points to Atheism They vilifie the Scipture they adulterate the true Meaning of it they introduce unbecoming sentiments concerning God and Religion they decry the great and necessary Truths of the Gospel they baffle the apprehensions which we ought to have of a Future State and what doth all this drive at but the undermining of Religion yea and Divinity it self So fitly was this Question inserted by a Learned Man above sixty years ago among his other Enquiries at the end of his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History Whether Socinianism be not an Introduction to Atheism So truly was it said lately by an Observing Pen In several respects our Socinians seem to be serving the designs of the Atheists I wish the Christian world would open their eyes and see this betimes and thereby prevent the unexpressible Danger which otherwise will unavoidably follow I offer it to be taken notice of that the Socinian and Atheistical party joyn hand in hand at this time and agree together in a very friendly manner to laugh at and defie the Fundamental Principles of Religion Such a Reflection methinks should be dismal to those of the Modern Penmen of the Socinian Perswasion who are sober and considerate They write whether they know it or no to please and humour the Wild Gallants those in city and countrey that are of Lewd Principles or of none at all Nothing is more evident at this day than that the Socinian Writings are highly acceptable to those that espouse the Cause of Atheism to the profesâ—…edly Prophane and Irreligious These are the men that applaud them and cry them up and think they are fraught with great Wit Argument and Reason I appeal to Impartial Judges whether this doth not shew the near Affinity if not Identity between these persons and those I am mentioning He that doth not see this sees nothing To conclude if what I have said sound harsh in these Gentlemens ears I request them to call to mind how severe they have been in censuring the Trinitarians and particularly in charging them with Idolatry Though Slichtingius and one or two more are unwilling to say in express terms that we are Idolaters yet both he and all the party assert that which is equivalent for they say we worship a mere Figment a Fancy of our own for so they blasphemously stile the Holy Trinity we set up an Idol of our own brain for an object of Divine Worship But our Home-bred Unitarians are yet bolder and speak it out without any mincing that the Trinitarians are Idolaters and Pagans and much worse and this they often inculcate But certainly to tax us with Idolatry when they themselves professedly worship a Creature as hath been observ'd before is the wildest Conceit that ever enter'd into any man's head the Boldness Inconsistency and Non-sense of it are so great that we can't sufficiently stand amazed at it Nay not only Idolatry but Atheism is laid to our charge I find that Servetus calls the Trinitarians Atheists very frequently And even the Modern Unitarians in their late writings expresly fix this Crime upon them for their words are these concerning the doctrine of the Trinity By its natural absurdity and impossibility it did not only at first give a check and stop to the progress of the Gospel but ever since it hath served to propagate Deism and Atheism The doctrine it self cannot do this without its being urged and managed by those that assert it therefore it is as much as if they had said Those who defend the Trinity propagate Atheism Now it will not be denied I think that those who propagate Atheism are Atheists Wherefore according to these men a Trinitarian is an Atheist In an other place they say he may be justly suspected of Atheism and they mention on what account Others of them tell us that Whatever Zeal the Trinitarians may pretend to have for Religion they take the right way to make men Scepticks and Atheists And the last man that wrote in defence of the Socinian Cause complains of us that we make that a Fundamental of Religion which contradicts the best reasonings of mankind whereby they prove the existence of God Thence loose men deny there is any God at all Thus you see what the Socinian Charge is against us Whence you may perceive that Mine is but a Counter-Charge and therefore they have no reason to find fault with the foregoing Retaliation especially when with the utmost Sincerity I declare that my Charge against them was not founded upon theirs or occasion'd by it for it was since the time that I drew up mine against them that I found this Accusation in some of their Papers Which may convince any unprejudiced person that what I have said with reference to the Anti-Trinitarians is not in way of Recrimination for I did not know that their Writings had any thing of that nature against those that defend the Trinity But it was and is from a sense and perswasion of the truth of the thing it self and that alone that I have and do at present thus tax them and turn their Obloquy upon themselves And truly I have done it with a sensible compassion all the while for I cannot rejoyce as some seem to do at finding an occasion of Censuring and Blaming others I submit what I have said to the Consciences of all Sober Faithful and Judicious Men all Sincere Lovers of God and Religion Let these judg between us and our Adversaries And now to shut up all if any one with calmness and sobriety laying aside all levity and scurrility all artifice and
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