SECT. I.

THE First Part of my designed Task is this, by com­paring the Socinian and Papist with respect to the Term of their Worship; to shew, wherein the Soci­nian agrees with, and out-does the Papist, even in the point of Idolatry.

Now, 'tis evident, as well by the Light of Nature as Reve­lation, that the Secundo formale, the very Reason and Nature of Idolatry lies in this, the giving that Worship that is due to God alone, that is Divine and truly Religious Worship, to the Creature: And for this very reason, we charge the Pa­pacy, with the guilt of the horrid Sin of Idolatry. Now, if the Socinian be found to profess and practice the same thing; that is, to give Divine and Religious Worship due to God on­ly to a mere Creature in his own Judgment, as our Saviour is, it cannot be any breach of Charity or Justice, to charge him with the guilt of Idolatry in General, or in Special, with the same kind of Idolatry we charge upon the Papist.

The Papist, when he Worships the Host, would excuse him­self, because he believes it to be God; yet the Learned Men of that Communion do acknowledge upon a Supposition, that there is no Transubstantiation of the Elements, such Wor­ship of the Host, is at least Material Idolatry: But how shall the Socinian be excused even from Formal Idolatry, tho' our Saviour be indeed God as he is, while they believe him to be but a Creature, and yet give him the Worship due to the Creator.

This is some aggravation, but more is added if we allow the Papist's Distinction, of the kinds or degrees of their Wor­ship proportionably to the various Objects of it. Doulia Hy­perdoulia, & Latria: the latter of which, they deny to any Creature, and count it peculiar to God alone: And tho' they believe, that the Mother of our Lord, hath so great Power with God, and over her Son; yet they say, that she ought not to be Worshipped with Latria, of the highest kind or de­gree of Worship: And their Learned Men affirm, that to give Latria to any Creature, is to be guilty of Idolatry.

But, seeing the Papist do formally and Actually pay the same kind of Worship to Creatures, that is due to God, tho' different in Degree, as certainly they do, (call it by what name you please) their distinctions in Doctrine cannot acquit their Practice from Idolatry: For Religious Worship of the same Kind, with that which is due to God only, is Latria: and therefore, to give it to a Creature, must be Idolatry by their own Definitions.

But our Socinians are not so meal-mouth'd. They profes­sedly in their very Doctrine, as well as Practice, they allow Divine Adoration and Worship truly Religious, that is La­tria, to one; that, they say, is a mere Man. This they do, without Distinction or reserve; and consequently, their Idola­try is more absolute, bare-fac'd and inexcusable.

Aquinas teacheth, that the Image of the Cross may be Worshipped with Latria. A very wild Proposition; but he hath the slight to make the Worship of the Image to pass through it, and the Cross and our Saviour, and terminate in God: Yet we say his Doctrine is Idolatrous; do not the Socinians plead the same in effect, when some of them say, the Worship terminates in God the Father, which they equally pay to Christ as Image and Substitute: But if they give Divine Ho­nour to him, as a distinct Person and separate Object from God the Father; and affirm, that the same Honour is due to Christ, that is due to God the Father; and that the Supream God hath given his own Glory to the Creature Christ: Is not their Idolatry more gross and fulsome then the worst of Pa­pists?

In a word, our Learned Men have demonstrated suffici­ently, that Popish Idolatry justifies the Idolatry of the Heathens. And in my observation, the Idolatry of the Socinians does not on­ly justifie but exceeds them both too and that of their Fathers, the Arians. To make this evident, I crave my Readers pa­tience and pardon, while I make a little digression; which yet I hope, he will not think impertinent to my main De­sign.

SECT. II. Socinians greater Idolaters then Pagans or Arians.

THE Papist justifie Pagan Idolatry as much as they can, by giving Divine and Religious Worship, tho' they pretend 'tis in a lower degree, to Angels and dead Men; for the wiser Heathen pretended the very same: They accounted their Daemons the Ministers of God; secondary, Inferiour Gods; a middle sort of Intercessors, Dei facti: The Supream God, they said, was the Maker of them: Whom therefore they stil'd Divum Pater, [...]. Just as the Socinians term our Saviour; they say, they were Gods Deputies and Officers, to Govern under him. Conformably, as 'tis obser­ved out of Hierocles, these inferiour Gods were to be Worship­ed indeed; yet but with an Inferior and middle kind of Wor­ship, called Doulia: But the higher kind of Worship, or La­tria, was due only to the Supream God: and they were so careful to maintain that Distinction, both with respect to the Objects, and the Worship, that Caution was given to the People (this is more I fear than the Papist do) not to give their inferiour Gods more Honour then was consistent with the Dignity God had given them. Hieron. pag. 10.

Doth not this Care and Caution used by the Pagans in their Idolatry reproach, condemn, and aggravate the more rash and confused practice of Socinians? These affirm boldly enough, that, tho' our Saviour is a meer Man, a dead Man, and only a God by Office, and not so by Nature; that is, a mere Creature, tho' Gods Substitute, yet they allow him equal Honour and Worship with the great God his Maker, without the niceness of distinction or limitation.

As for their Fathers the Arians, they might have learn'd the like Caution from them too. The Ancient Arians held Christ to be the great Gods Instrument, and not God himself: And upon this principle they perform'd to the Sacred Trinity Unequal Honours, as the Orthordox charged them, and they could by no means be perswaded to Worship with equal Wor­ship the Son and the Father; because they believed Christ was but a Creature, or a made God. As Fulgent. Greg. Nyss. and Cyril. Alex. have observed. Now are not our Socinians much wiser then their Parents? For, tho' they have far viler thoughts of the Person, Birth and Nature of Christ, than the Arians had, yet by what rule of proportion I know not, they allow him as much higher and greater Honour: and like men of deeper Reason, plead that equal Honour is due to Christ the Son and the Father, from that very Text that the Arians expresly say was mistaken to that purpose, as those Fathers observe also.

If we should enquire what should be the reason, why both the Papist, and Pagans, and Arians too, are so careful to distinguish of the Objects and Degrees of their Worship, what reason can offer it self but this? namely, to secure themselves from the charge and guilt of Idolatry. They all agreed in the propo­sition; that those that give the same honour to any Creature that is due to God, is Idolatry. They all agreed in this Pro­position, that leaves our Socinian without excuse.

'Tis plain in the Holy Scriptures, God would preserve his People from Idolatry, by that first and great Command, which is but a beam of the light of Nature; Thou shalt have (that is, thou shalt Worship) no other God but me, or before me; 'tis as if he had said, this is Idolatry, and Spiritual Adultery, my jealousie will not endure it. The same great Argument wherewith our Saviour resisted, refuted, and repell'd the De­vil, when he was Tempted by him to commit Idolatry. It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

I call this great Principle, a Beam of the light of Nature, and the reason of Mankind, seeing not only Jews, Mahome­tans and Arians, but even Pagans and Papists as well as Pro­testants are united in it, and concur together to condemn and aggravate the Idolatry of Socinians.

The just Conclusion of the whole is this; that by the evi­dent Testimony of Scripture and Nature, and by the joint and unanimous consent of all the World, besides themselves, the So­cinians, by allowing the same Worship to the Creature, that is proper and peculiar to the great God, are pronounced guilty of the most scandalous and foulest Idolatry.

SECT. III. Socinians allow Religious Worship without Distinction to a Creature.

PErhaps it may be yet thought requisite, to enquire a little farther into two things. 1. Whether the Socinians do indeed allow Divine and Religious Worship, as such with­out distinction to a Creature. 2. If so? Why they do it? These things well examined the Argument may be some­what clearer.

1. To begin with the First of them, That Socinus and his Adhearents and Party do allow such Worship to a meer Crea­ture in their own Opinion, cannot be doubted by any that read their Books, and know their Opinion of our Saviour, and the Honour and Worship they allow him, and argue for.

I know there is a Party that go under the Name of Socini­ans, that deny our Saviour ought so to be Worshipped, for this very reason, because he is a Creature; and joyn with us in charging the guilt of Idolatry upon those that do so; these we may have something to say to by and by; but as for Soci­nus and his Party, I would lay this Argument before them, and desire their plain and honest answer to it. Those that give Divine Honour to a Creature are Guilty of Idolatry; but So­cinians as well as Papist, give Divine Honour to a Creature, therefore they are both guilty of Idolatry. The Papist deny­ing only the second Proposition by distinguishing their Wor­ship, allow the first; and indeed their Learned Men are ex­press, that to give Latria to any Creature is Adolatry: And tho' they generally confound and neglect their distinctions in their Practices, yet that consideration farther confirms their Concession of the first Proposition, viz. That 'tis Idolatry to [Page 6] give Divine Worship or Latria to a Creature; seeing they choose rather to deny plain and manifest matter of fact, and bear any Contradiction betwixt their Doctrine and Practice, then dare to question a Proposition, that is Self-evident to all Mankind, as the first Proposition in the Argument is.

But, which Proposition will our Socinian deny, sure not the Minor; that they may not give Religious Worship to a Crea­ture. For they say, Christ is no more, and yet allow Reli­gious Worship to be given to him.

Socinus himself speaks home (Constanter asserimus & quidem Resp. ad Bland. Tom. 2. p. 716. jure) We constantly affirm, that we may of right direct our pray­ers to Christ, and tho' he can find no command for it, yet he in­fers, a Necessity of praying to Christ, because of the Kingdom Power and Government given to him.

Let their publick Catechism witness for them, they having granted Divine honour due to Christ, they ask wherein it consists; and answer, in Worshipping and Praying to him: and say, farther, 'tis our Duty to Worship him: and then that severe and damning sentence against their Brethren that de­ny it is pronounced. Seing Christians, say they, are described as such as call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, 'tis easy to understand, that those that will not do it are no Christians, Cat. Rac. s. 6. c. 1. p. 88. 92. Thus, they freely and fairly grant the Two Propositions: but what do they say to the first, that Divine Worship paid to a Creature is Idolatry? Here they hesitate, and seem a little afraid to speak out, least they should seem either to fight with a Beam of the Sun, or pronounce themselves Idolaters.

Here Socinus himself seems to be at some loss, and returns back to the second Proposition, and forbears to consider Christ as a Creature, while he is the Object of Divine Wor­ship, and to respect him so far a God, as to be fit to be Wor­ship'd. Cum necesse sit (saith he) eum cujus nomen in voces pro deo competente sensu colere, &c. But will Socinus say, that this his God, whom he Worships with Divine Worship meaning Christ, is not a Creature still? O yes, this strikes at the Foundation, he is a Creature still. How then comes it to pass that 'tis no Idolatry to Worship him with Worship due only to God, that is no Creature. And how shall the first Proposition stand good, that 'tis Idolatry to Worship any [Page 7] Creature with Divine Worship, to say he is Gods Deputy and Commissioner, and therefore Divine Worship is due to him, will as well excuse the Pagan; and to say, he is Media­tor betwixt God and us, will equally excuse the Papist, as the Socinian Idolatry. But by the same reason that we allow the same kind of Worship that is due to the Supream God, to our Lord Jesus, must we not acknowledge him to be the Su­pream God too? Qui rogat ille facit: Therefore, by giving him the same Worship, do not we make him the same God, proportionably to the Worship we give him: The highest kind, to the Supream or Highest God.

Volkelius, having raised his Admiration of our Saviour with the Consideration of the many Excellencies and Honours God had given him, breaks out with these words; Quis, inquam, Hunc Divino Honore dignissimum non existimet, ideoque Sanctissimo Cultu non afficiat? Who would not count him worthy of Di­vine Honour, and pay him the most Holy Worships? But would Volkelius say, he was not a Creature still? That spoils his Rhetorick and Argument too.

If it be said, that tho' Christ be but a Creature, yet if God Commands us to Worship him with the same Worship that is due to himself, 'tis then no Idolatry; 'tis our duty to do so. This is said by some, but without Proof or Credit. It imposeth upon the Almighty, as if he had done that, which he hath Sworn he will not do, viz. Give his glory to another. I see no way left for them to escape the charge of Idolary, but to ac­knowledge our Saviour to be more than a Creature, as we do; or to deny him the Honour due to God, as their Brethren of the other Perswasion do: for the reason and definition of Ido­latry is Eternal and Immutable, and Inflexible, and will not bend to any of their new Notions or subtle Invasions.

Scachinglius upon the first to the Romans, speaks home; the Apostle, saith he, teacheth, That the Creator only, Exclusis omnibus Creaturis, is to be Religiously Worshipped, and that it is a Sin either to neglect to Worship the Creator, or to joyn Religious Worship to the Creature, with the Worship of the Creator. Now, who could have said any thing better? And yet who could defend his own great Opinion more absurdly and weakly against this confessed Doctrine of the great Apo­stle? All that he offers is this; That, notwithstanding [Page 8] God hath given this Worship and Honour to Christ, tho' a Creature: But where hath God alter'd the Nature of, or dispenced with Idolatry? Where doth it appear, that God hath chang'd his Vow'd purpose, and given his Glory to a Creature? Doth not the plain Doctrine both of the Old and New Testament; and many examples both of Men and An­gels, and the very Natures of God and the Creature, and the sence of all Mankind, reprove his Vanity, and forbid any Credit to be given to his empty evasion that so evidently con­tradicts the Apostles Text, and his own observation upon it.

Wolzog and Smalcius speak out indeed, The First is bold to In Matth. 4. 10. p. 189. say, That Divine Worship, which is due to the most high God, is now due to Christ; and before, was to be given to Angels, Jure Meritoque, as their just desert. And the Second as confi­dently Eras. 17. and 100. assures us, that God may Command that any one of the Angels may be Worshipped Pro Deo, for God. And he calls the Angels Dii Caelestes, to whom Divine Worship may be given, and was actually under the Law. The ground of this Confidence is only this, Quod omnis Legatus Sustinet personam Mittentis, and the same Honour is due to him that is sent, by Virtue of his very Commission.

Now, here our Divines subvert the ground of this Confi­dence; First, by denying the matters of Fact, That the An­gels were Worshipped with Divine Worship, much less by Gods own Permission or Precept, in the time of the Law, which they boldly impose without proof.

Again, we answer, if God cannot deny himself, he can­not Command a Creature to be Worshipped Pro Deo, for him­self, and give his Glory to another; and he hath sworn, if he can, he will not.

Further, this Ancient right of Angels to be so Worshipped, if it were proved, would serve indeed to extenuate the guilt of Popish Idolatry, who distinguish of their Worship, and deny in their Doctrine, what these so shamelesly assert, That the Worship due to God can be due to any Creature; but cannot reach the height of this Socinian Doctrine, that without Di­stinction, Divine Worship, or as they speak, the Worship due to the most High God, may Jure & merito, be given to a Creature.

Notwithstanding their Reason, that they bear the Person of [Page 9] God himself as his Delegates and Commissioners. For this doth not make them really Gods, i. e. proper Objects of Di­vine Honour: Or if the Argument were good, it would go a great way farther, than they themselves would have any colour to allow. For then, not only Angels, but the Pro­phets and Apostles, and every Minister being sent by God, as his Legates and Missioners, have Right to the same Worship that is due to God that sends them, as well as Angels; this sufficiently shames the Argument: Yet 'tis further observed, that tho' St. Peter was our Saviours Legate to Cornelius, yet he with some Zeal for his God, refused the Adoration; saying, Arise, for I my self am a Man also, not suffering him to comply with the Socinian Doctrine, contrary to the standing fence against Temptations to Idolatry used by our Saviour: 'tis writ­ten, Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, as we noted before; and cannot two often think upon, while we have to do with such Adversaries and Arguments.

But that we may have full proof, that these men dare ven­ture to say any thing to save their Hypothesis. They take cou­rage, and say, That 'tis no Idolatry to give Divine Worship to a Creature, for this incomprehensible reason: Non certum est, as saith Smalcius, Deum ob Naturam Divinam, praecise Colendum esse: i. e. 'Tis not certain that 'tis morally due to God, to be Worshiped with a Worship worthy of God. 'Tis not of Na­ture but by Positive Law, to give the Supream God, Supream Honour: This is such a stretch of Reason or Confidence, as 'tis pity to answer or reflect upon. If there be any thing Mo­ral in the Decaloque, certainly this is it, Thou shalt have none other God but me; namely, to give Divine Worship to. If there be any such thing as Natural Religion, these are the undoubt­ed branches of it, that there is a God, and that he ought to be Worshipped, and as a God too, Purâ mente Colindus, if there be any duty resulting from the Relation of a Creature to its Crea­tor, 'tis this, to give him the Service and Honour of its Ma­ker, when Men are driven to such a pass of invention and shift, they have abundantly exposed their Cause themselves, and 'tis time to leave them under this Conviction; that, not­withstanding all their subterfuges, seeing they allow the same Honour and Worship to the Creature (without Distinction) that is due to the chief God, as they express it, they are guilty of Idolatry in a fouler and more scandalous manner than the Papist are. q. e. d.

SECT. IV. Why Socinus Adored Christ, his Arguments against David, for it prepared for.

THus we are lead to the Second enquiry proposed, viz. Why the Socinians allow our Saviour, tho' a mere Creature in their Opinion, the same Honour and Worship which is due to the Supream God.

This is an inquiry of considerable moment; for it must be acknowledged that Socinus and his Followers herein, are Men of admirable Reason; and unless it were for some importent end or purpose, they would not at once deny a Truth which every one else agree in; namely, That Religious Worship is due only to the Supream God; and yet affirm, that it may even in the same degree or kind be given to Christ, tho' a meer Creature. To say, they do this only to avoid the Scan­dal of dishonouring our Lord, and offending other Christians, as Blandrat seems to intimate to Socinus; seems too weak an account of this weighty matter; seeing that might at least, in part have been avoided, by distinguishing of Worship, as the Papists do; but they do not.

The plain truth seems to be this; the Holy Scriptures abound with Arguments for the Worshipping of Christ as God; so glar­ing, he could not outface them, tho' herein Socinus seems evi­dently to deny his own Reason, in reverence to Revelation, which is rare in him; and to destroy his own dear Hypothesis, as well as confute his Adversary.

For while he allows truely Religious Worship to be given to our Saviour, he thereby grants him to be more than a Creature; that is the Supream God, both in the Reason of the thing, the natural Consequence of his Concession, and in the just sentence of the other Socinian Party, I mean Fr. David and his Adherents.

Here I crave leave to fix my foot, and with these other kind of Unitarians I do affirm, and am provided to maintain, if need be, that Socinus and his Followers, must either acknow­our Saviour to be more then a Creature, and become an Or­thodox Christian in this point; or that they are Idolaters in a more Scandalous manner then the Papists; seeing they make [Page 11] to themselves a God of a Creature, by ascribing the Worship due to the Supream to their Creature-God; and seeing they professedly Worship Two Gods, let them no longer glory in the Name of Unitarians, but leave it for Turks and Jews, who better deserve it.

But I must beg leave to digress a little on Socinus's part, who hath as effectually baffled Francis David by clear Scripture Proof, that our Saviour is to be Religiously Worship'd; as the said David was too hard for Socinus in the other point; that our Saviour being supposed to be a meer Creature, it is Ido­latry so to Worship him, and if he ought so to be Worshipped, he is more then a Creature, i. e. Truly a God.

I find this Argument hath put some to second thoughts; they begin to startle and are afraid of Idolatry: And therefore say, that some Unitarians are contrary minded; and believe our Saviour ought not to be Religiously Worshipped and Ado­red as God: And this is the side, to which they seem now to lean, for fear of Idolatry.

'Tis for the sake of these chiefly, that I desire to dilate a little about this great Article, and I earnestly beseech them seriously to weigh a few things before they determine them­selves in it.

First, You change sides for the worse: You leave your Ma­ster Socinus, who was certainly more like a Christian, and cleave to David and his party, that are more open and des­perate Enemies of our Lord and Saviour.

Secondly, You lean to a Party that brandeth the first and great founder of Socinianism with gross Idolatry; and to avoid Idolatry, by giving Christ more than you think is due; you come within the peril of Sacriledge, and rob him of that which is of right due to him.

Thirdly, Consider, if it do appear that Christ ought to be Re­ligious Adored and Worshipped; the Consequence is irresistible in Francis Davids Judgment, as well as in the thing it self: We cannot, saith he, Adore the Son, unless we suppose Christ to be in the Father, and the Father in Christ, Unitate Essentiae, by unity of Essence.

Fourthly and Lastly, Seriously consider the Arguments of So­cinus himself (and we need no other) before you leave him, in so great a point, wherein he is certainly in the right; that Christ ought to be Religiously Adored and Worshipped, what ever the consequence may be.

Seeing you incline to believe that David's point is well fixed; and that Religiously to Adore and Worship any Creature is Idolatry, as we have all along maintained: If Socinus make good his point too, That Christ is to be Religiously Adored and Worshipped, let the Orthodox truth find its way by these lights; and preserve or recover its place, in our Faith as good Christians, touching our Saviours Divinity.

SECT. V. Socinus and his Parties Arguments, that Christ is to be Religiously Worshipped.

LET us now take a brief Survey of Socinus and his parties Arguments to prove, that we may and ought to give Religious Adoration and Worship to our Saviour. They do it sufficiently under these Three Heads. Profit, Necessity, and Example.

1. 'Tis our Interest and consequently our Wisdom thus to 1. Profit. Worship him. The Rac. Catechis. teacheth, That We should be­lieve, that Christ is able to do all things; and that, if we seek his S. 6. C. 1. L. 88. 89. favour, he will do us good, and perform all his promises to us; and infer, thence, that We ought to trust in Christ in the same man­ner as we ought to trust in God. Again, they say, We may di­rect our Prayers to him in all our necessities, because he both can and will help us, and he understands our Prayers.

2. 'Tis our necessary Duty both with respect to his Person, and 2. Necessity. the Law of his Father: Socinus himself infers a necessity of Praying to Christ, because of the Kingdom, Power and Govern­ment given to him, as before we observed: And in the Law of Blands Tom. 2. p. 716, 721. the Gospel, to pray to Christ, is made the very Condition of Sal­vation. Socinus acknowledgeth (against Fr. David) that pas­sage in the Prophet, Joel 2. 32. Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved, is justly applied to Christ, by the Apostle in Rom. 10. 13. Yea, this is the very Character the Holy Scriptures give us of a Christian, he is one that calls on the Name of Christ, Act. 14. 9. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 2. 22. and their own Catechism asserts peremptorily, as we noted before, that they are no Christians that will not pray to Christ; who tell us plainly and expresly, that 'tis our Duty to Worship him, and prove it from, Joh. 5. 22, 23. All should honour the Son as they honour the Father.

[Page 13] 3. Their Catechism assures us, that we may pray unto Christ be­cause Examples. p. 89. we have several Instances of Holy Men, who have done so. His own Disciples prayed unto him, when he was upon the Earth for Temporal deliverance: Lord save us we perish, Matth. 8. 25. And even for Spiritual Grace: Lord increase our Faith. And after he was gone to Heaven, St. Paul the great Apostle of the Gentiles, that di­sputed so effectually against Pagan Idolatry, pray'd unto him more then once, I, saith he, besought the Lord thrice, and his Lord assured him, he did well in so doing, in this gracious answer, My grace is sufficient for thee, 2 Cor. 10. 7, 8, 9. So far Socinus himself; his fol­lowers further observe, that the same Apostle joyns Christ with God the Father, in his prayer mentioned to the Thessalonians, Now God himself and our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you; and at other times, does the same in effect, in his Salutations to the se­veral Churches when he wisheth them, Grace, Mercy and Peace equally from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: These instances, I hope are sufficient, I shall add one more, and that is a very plain one; and one would imagine beyond exception: 'Tis St. Stephen praying in these words, Lord Jesus receive my Spirit, Act. 7. 59. but behold the fineness of Fr. Davids Invention; saith he, 'tis [...]; and because [...] may be either the Genetive or the Vocative Case, according to the usual art of Socinian reasoning, it must be taken in that sence, that will best serve a Turn, tho' never so alien or con­trary to the true interpretation, and the Reason of the Context, he must have it, Lord of Jesus, or else it will prove either that 'tis Law­ful to Worship our Saviour, and to pray unto him; or this first Mar­tyr died with Idolatry in his mouth.

But this Criticism is not so fine, as 'tis forced and absurd. The Learned observe, that if [Jesus] had been the Genitive Case, the Ar­ticle would have been added; 'twould have been [...]. We find the same words Rev. 22. 20. and there they cannot bear the sence of the Genitive, and must be understood in the Vocative Case: But, besides the ilness of the Grammer, the harshness of the Sence, and the Novelty of this rare discovery; two or three things might abate the Authors confident boasting of this Invention: The Syriac is beyond the reach, of it, Domine Noster Jesu. Some Copies have it plainer yet, and Read it, [...], O Lord Christ. And their admired Grotius's gloss is utterly inconsistent with it, Invocantem nempe Jesum Christum▪ But why should I trouble my Reader any farther about this Ridiculous shift of David, which you may find was long since ex­posed and baffled by Socinus himself in a very strenuous confutation of [Page 14] it, which its Author David had never courage or skill enough, to en­counter again, that I can find.

Now my Brethren consider, 'tis eternal Reason, that Reliously to Worship any Creature is Idolatry, but we have found it the com­mon practice of the best men in Scripture, thus Religiously to Wor­ship our Saviour Christ it seems to follow clearly, that either these Holy Men so doing, were Idolaters, or our Saviour Christ is more then a meer Creature, that is, he is the True God. I know you will deny the First: I heartily wish you would confess the Second, it would be so far well betwixt us.

However, you do not undertake to defend the part of Socinus from Idolatry, more haynous then that of the Papists; which I hope I have demonstrated sufficiently before.

SECT. I. The Papists vilifies the Holy Scripture.

1. FOR the Papists, the World is sensible enough, how vilely they deal with this Rule of the Holy Scriptures, and make them indeed, as they sometimes call them, A Nose of Wax, and a Lea­den Rule: They take upon them to sence them as they please; and [Page 15] use them only as Tools to serve a turn, and little otherwise.

Sometimes, they will admit nothing but the bare Words, without any reasonable Construction of them; when they would advance their Transubstantiation. At other times, when the proper and Lit­teral Sence is against them, O then the Scripture is a Killing, a Dead Letter, and must receive its Life and Sense from their Churches Inter­pretation, how wild and absurd soever it be to serve their Hypothesis.

Thus, when they have disparaged, sleighted, and set aside the True Rule, 'tis no wonder they introduce and obtrude another Rule of their own devising, which they do not only make equal with it, but prefer before it; I mean their Oral Tradition, and the Authority of the Roman Church: Yea, when they seem to allow the Holy Scriptures any Authority, they at the same time rob them of it, by transfering that Authority to themselves, their own Sence and Sen­timents, tho' diverse from, and even contrary to the Letter, or plain and obvious meaning of the Written Word.

SECT. II. The Socinians vilifie the Scripture more then Papists.

WHile I have been speaking of the Papist, I have given you but an imperfect draught and Character of a Socinian in this point: Verily, the Papist seems to be the honester of the two: His is an open and down-right attacking and villifying those Holy Books; while the Socinian doth it in disguise, and wounds it deeper; lies in its Bosom, and stabbs it to the Heart; and with splended Colours of Honouring, and Arguments proving its Divine Original and Autho­rity, makes it utter Non-sense, bad sense, or any sence, that their cause requires.

Now seeing these men, in other things, are Masters of a great deal of Reason; it may be worth a Question, whether their Wri­ting so much for the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, be from a real Opinion of the Truth of it, or only in pretence, to serve their own purpose, and varnish their designs: For, how is it possible, if their Opinion of it were Real, they should use it so slightly, and af­ter so trifling a manner, as 'tis pitty, to see they do.

With how much gravity and solemn circumstances, do they make the Word of God Felo de se; not so much by opposing, as by Apposing one part to another; and by the idlest Phansies, or an odd kind of skill peculiar to themselves, make a weaker text, take off the life and [Page 16] sense of a Stronger, and by a likeness, or sameness, or neerness of ex­pression (when there is no other reason in the World for it) to en­ervate the strength of the best Arguments it affords, for the God-head of Christ, and the Sacred Trinity.

To make this out beyond exception, give me leave only to men­tion some Instances of it: The mention only, is shame and reproach enough, one would think, as well as confutation, in the sense of an Indifferent or modest Man.

1. When we prove Three Persons and each of them God, from the great Commission for Propagating the Christian Church, by Baptising in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: They gravely answer, and would have us take it for a full Answer; That 'tis said, the Israelites were Baptized into Moses and in the Cloud; and that they believed in God, and his Servant Moses.

2. When we urge, John 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word; they reply that it must signifie, the Beginning of the Gospel or New Crea­tion: And their proof is, because we read [from the Beginning] in that latter sence, Luk. 1. 2. and 1 John 1. 1.

3. When to prove our Saviour's Incarnation, we use the Apostles words, Joh. 1. The Word was made Flesh; they say, we must not un­derstand by Flesh there, the Humane Nature, but a State of Infir­mity; because in that sence, the word [Flesh] is somewhere else to be understood.

4. Where our Saviour tells us, John 18. 28. That he and his Father are one; They say, that is, they are one only in Will and Consent, for­sooth, because our Saviour Prays, Joh. 17. that his Disciples may be one, as he and his Father are one; i. e. Not in Nature, but in mind and heart: and this must be all the meaning of our Saviour in the place we have mentioned, notwithstanding the obvious evidence of the Text to the contrary, viz. That he and his Father are one, in Pow­er, and consequently in Nature.

This is not only the general Sence of the Fathers, that weighs little with Socinians; but also of their admired Grotius and Erasmus, whom they claim for their own. Si pereant meâ infirmitate. Patris potestas mea potestas; my Fathers Power, is my Power, Grot. in Loc. Potentior est ad servandum, Eras. in Loc.

5. So our Lord Christ must be a God by Office only, and not by Nature, Why? Because they find Kings and Magistrates are called Gods.

6. When we read Col. 1. 16. That by Christ were Created all things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth, whether visible and invisible; whether they be Thornes, &c. all things were created by him and for him: [Page 17] They restrain all this to the Second Creation or Reformation of Man­kind, and those great words signifies onely Men, and Orders of Men on Earth: Confounding Heaven and Earth, visible and invisible, denying any thing that looks against them; and not sticking to say any thing that their Hypothesis seems to need.

7. The Name Emmanuel, with so much solemnity given by an Angel from Heaven to Christ, doth not signifie the Union of the Di­vine and Humane Nature in him; because others might have been called so before, as since some have; as Eniedine gravely instanceth in Emmanuel Tremelius. These things are childish and Rediculous, and deserve a severe Reflection, not any serious confutation.

SECT. III. Socinian Chriticisms in Articles.

THus the Socinians bandy the Scriptures one against another; and 'tis hard to think that they believe themselves to be in earnest, while they are found Ludere cara sacris, and impose such childrens play, tho' never so solemnly upon the World; especially, if we consider their School-boys Criticisms; and that, with a little Point, or a small Article, they would weaken and destroy the Arguments of the greatest and strongest Texts in the Word of God against them; wherein, indeed the Arians lead them the way.

They are both of them confident, that when [...], signifies the Father, 1 Articles. or the Supream God, in Scripture, it hath its Article always before it; but when the Son is called [...], 'tis without an Article prefix'd to it. A mighty fine observation, this sufficient doubtless, to evacuate one of the clearest and strongest Arguments for our Lords Divinity, to distinguish the Natures of the Father and Son; and to put a final end to this great Controversie, tho' it hath no foundation in Reason or Grammer, much less in the Holy Scripture, as confident as they are.

Indeed, they truly observe, that by [ [...]] in Joh. 1. 15. signified God the Father, and the Article is prefixed; But doth it follow, that 'tis always so? within the compass of two or three ver­ses afterwards, they may see their Observation utterly undone, viz. in ver. 6. for there the Father is call'd God, [...], without an Article. So likewise in Rom. 7. 1. the Son is, Rom. 9. call'd [...] with an Ar­ticle: And if [...], without an Article is found to signifie God the Father, Why may it not signifie the God-head of the Son likewise, tho' it have not an Article before it?

Erasmus on Rom. 9. 5. would help them to avoid the force of that [Page 18] great Text, for the proof of our Lords Divinity, with a Point, which looks like Push-pin Divinity indeed: Punctum post [...] vel post [...], choose you whether. But Erasmus himself confesseth, that with­out these Nicities in Pointing, all the Greek Copies have it as we read it; and refers the Relative [...] to Christ, which is plainly more a­greeable, as the Learn'd observe, both to the Scope of the Apostle, and the Series of the words.

Besides, 'Tis worthy our observation, that tho' Erasmus is not for­ward to own, that Christ is here meant, but thinks God here, signi­fies, and is to be taken, vel pro totâ Triade, vel persona Patris, yet by the same Words, he confesseth the Trinity; and consequently the Deity of the Son, as he doth afterwards more expresly, on those two famous Texts, Phil. 2. 6. and Heb. 1. 6. where these are his words upon the first of them, q. d. Qui cum esset & sit, non usurpativus, sed verus Deus, non estimavit aequalitatem Dei sibi esse rapinam: and on the Second, Et etate praecedit, quia aeternus, & dignitate, quia Naturalis, The Eternal and Natural Son of God, which is enough to vindicate Eras­mus, from being either Arian or Socinian: How ever some boast to the contrary; we hereby see what credit is to be given them.

'Tis confessed, Erasmus notes, that St. Cyprian and Hillary omit the word [Deus] in Rom. 9. 6. Yet 'tis concluded by the Learned, that it was omitted, not industriously by those eminent Fathers, but in cu­ria Librariorum & res ipsa ostendit; 'tis evident it must be so, Seeing, both these Fathers cite this very Place, as a plain proof, that Christ is truly and properly God. Vid. Pol. Synop. in Loc.

SECT. IV. The Socinians Enervate the Authority of Gods Word.

THey farther try their skill to loosen and weaken the Divine Au­thority of the Holy Scriptures, by Enervating the Credit of the Gospel it self, and making the Apostles, if not the Lord Jesus too, impertinent Sophisters; while they Interpret the proofs, the inspired Writing bring out of the Old Testament, to confirm the New, into meer Allusions and accomodations of Old Phraises or Expressions, without any further force and use of them. But this lays the Ax at the Root, and is of such import and consequence, that it deserves a larger consideration and reproof, then my present design will con­veniently permit.

SECT. V. Socinians have another Rule of their own, which they prefer above the Scripture.

WE have seen how perversly and vilely, the Socinians treat the only Rule of the Christian Faith; which yet, will appear more egregiously by our Second Observation; that they lay it aside altogether, as a Rule; or measure it by a Rule of their own, which they set up in the room of it, or above, as the Papist do.

This Socinian Rule, which they measure the Holy Scriptures, viz. The Divine Rule by, is nothing else, but their own private Sense (if not their Wit and Phansie) much the same with the Quakers Light within, which they call, Reason.

I have elsewhere distinguish'd, betwixt a Rule and a Judge; and observ'd, that these are not the same, but two distinct things, with respect to Religion: I shall explain and apply them more fully in the present Argument.

We must in order hereunto distinguish, betwixt Natural and Re­vealed 1. Explain't Religion, as such.

1. I grant, with respect to meer Natural Religion, Reason seems to be both a Rule and a Judg, for we have nothing without our selves, that can well be conceived, to be either we know nothing of it, but the rational Notices, which Humane understanding suggest; or the Dictates of pure Reason called forth, or occasioned by the works of Creation and Providence.

2. But Revelation, being, from without us, is therefore a Rule im­posed on us from without; and must be distinct from Reason, which is within us and part of our selves? and consequently, tho' Reason be a Judge, it must Judge of Revealed Religion, by a Rule from with­out us; which is another thing, and not our Reason: I mean, we must Judge of Revealed Religion as such, by that Rule by which that Religion is only made known to us, that is the Holy Scriptures; and then, 'tis no wonder, if all our Religion as Christian, or Revealed, be not dictated or to be comprehended by Natural Reason. For if Reason had discovered all before, What need of Revelation? And in­deed, those that say, all our Religion, lies within the compass of Reason, are in a fair way to reject all Revelation; and to advance the Natural or Pagan Religion in the World, in the room of the Chri­stian.

But seeing Socinus (tho' erroneously) supposeth, the Being of a God, could not have been discovered without Tradition or Revelation, how absurd doth it seem (for him especially) to imagine, that things that can be known only by Revelation, can be known or may be measured by Reason, or any other Rule, but Revelation, or the Writing in and by which they are made known to Reason it self, as Sencible Objects, being to be known only so far as Sence represents them to our imagination, can have no other Rule by which our Rea­son can Judge or measure them but our Sences.

And, seeing our Revelation is from Heaven, we must not only ac­knowledge the Being of such a Rule, but the Fulness, Rectitude, and Authority of it; by which, all the rules of Reason are to be deter­mined, even in such things as reason falls short of, and could not have been any other way discovered; or being discovered, cannot be apprehended, but as they are Reveiled: if this be not granted, where is the Authority or Divinity of that Higher Rule, which is given by God, to be the only Rule and Standard of the Christian Religion as such?

It hence follows, that this Divine Rule being supposed, Reason my Judge of it, but by no means, presume to Judge it, so as to questi­on, mind, alter, correct, or lay it aside, or advance it self above it.

We must indeed, judge by Reason, what the things are that are so reveiled; we must measure all Articles imposed on us, by our Rea­son indeed; yet the Rule by which we are to do so, is only the Word of God: To exalt Reason or the inward rules or dictates of it, to be the measure of things reveil'd, is to lay aside the True Rule, or to judge God himself in the Authority of his holy word.

A Humane Judge, hath likewise his Rule without him, viz. The Publick Laws: and if he should make his private Sentiments of Ju­stice and Right, the rule of his Judgment, he falls under his Superi­ors and every Mans Censure: 'Tis not his Office, to question, or mend, or any way alter, much less abrogate the Law; but he is only Jus dicere, to declare and apply the Laws in his Jurisdiction; not to judge the Laws by the Rule of his own Reason, but to use his Reason, to know and understand, and to pass Judgment according to the Laws: much less, are we to question the reasonableness or equity of Gods Laws; or judge them unreasonable or unfit for rea­sonable Creatures to give credit to; because they seem not to square with our Natural reason: This were to believe our selves and not God, to exalt our selves above God, yea to discredit and make God a Lyar.

I am sorry we have so much reason to apply all this to Socinus and Application his Followers: how shall we forbear to arraign Arrogance, with the Apostles words, Thou art not a doer of the Law but a Judge. Who art thou, O vain Man, that repliest against God. Is it not a marve­lous thing to see poor ignorant lapsed Man to errect a Tribunal a­gainst his Maker; and with a shadow of Carnal Reason to sit in Judgment upon Gods Word? and to level the greatest Articles of the Christian Faith, to their own shallow and partial apprehensions? And yet thus the Socinian aspires with his presumptuous Reason, to dogmatize upon Revelation: To judge the Messias, and all his con­cerns: His Generation, Incarnation, Natures, Offices, Passion, Satisfaction, Mediation and Intercession: To Judge and Condemn the Holy Ghost, and the ever Blessed Trinity; and to measure the Resurrection of our Bodies by the Model of his private apprehension.

Yet this sort of Men, shew great Reverence to, and very strong­ly argue the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures: And they do not deny, but these great Articles are matters of pure Revelation in the same Scriptures: Neither can they evince any one of these great and misterious Points, are repugnant to Sence or Reason, or any other part of Gods Word.

Men should have methinks, so much modesty as to judge, that their corrupt Reason is as fallible as the Holy Pen-Men: Or, That it may be reasonable we should have a Rule without, to Discipline and bound our extravagant Phansies in matters of Faith: Or that pri­vate reason, may be mistaken in judging that a Contradiction, which the Church of God, I mean the generallity of Christians, Semper & ubique could never discover, and have hitherto verily believed, that it is none.

I think 'tis plain, from what hath been said, that the Socinian falls in with the Papist, and goes beyond him, not only in villifying and laying aside the True Rule of Faith, but in setting up another Rule of his own instead of it: They both are guilty, only with this difference: The Papist's Rule, is the Publick Reason and sence of his Church; The Soci­nians Rule is his own, and every particular Mans private Reason, and which of these is the wiser and safer, let every Mans Reason judge.

That I do not herein wrong the Socinian, almost all their Books have something in them to bear me Witness. Let Smalcius more then once be heard for the rest, First, in that famous place of his.

Credimus inquit, etiam si non semel atque iterum, sed satis crebro, & Tom. 1. Disp. 6. Sect. 63. Apartissime, Scriptum extaret, Deum esse hominem factum, multo satius esse, quia haec res sit absurda & sanae Rationi plane contraria, & in Deum [Page 22] blasphema, modum aliquem dicendi comminissi, quo ista de Deo dici, quam ista simpliciter ita ut verba sonant, intelligere. i. e. Tho' we find it declared in Scripture, not only once and again, but very often, and very plainly, That God was made Man; because this is absurd, and plainly contrary to found Reason and Blasphemous against God; We believe, saith he, that it is much better to find out some mode of speaking, according to which one may say this concerning God, then to interpret things simply and according to the Letter.

Again, let us hear him to the same purpose, if not more Smal. Hom. 8. in c. 1. Joh. p. 89. plainly in another place. Nullam Esse Religionis particulam quae cum ratione non Conveniat: Et quae cum Ratione non Convenit opinio, eam etiam in Theologiâ nullum locum habere posse: That is, that there is no small point in Religion which doth not agree with Reason: And whatsoever Opinion doth not agree with Reason, can have no place even in Religion.

What can this signifie? But that when an Article of Faith is plainly revealed in the Word of God, if it square not with Soci­nian Reason, we must reject the evidence of Gods Authority, and hearken to Reason: That is in plain English, Reason, and not the Scripture, is both the Judge and Rule of Socinian Faith.

I must conclude with an excellent passage or two, in that in­comparable Book of our Great Primate lately Printed, called his Sermons concerning the Divinity, &c. of our Saviour. ‘I do readily grant, saith he, pag. 79. that the Socinian Writers have managed the Cause of the Reformation against the Church of Rome, with great acuteness and advantage in many respects: But I am sorry to have cause to say, that they have likewise put into their hands, better and sharper Weapons then ever they had before, for the weakning and undermining of the Holy Scriptures, which Socinus indeed hath in the general strongly asserted; had he not by a dangerous liberty of imposing a Forreign and forced Sence upon particular Texts, brought the whole into uncertainty.’

‘Again (saith he) to speak freely, I must needs say, that it seems to me a much fairer way to reject the Divine Authority of p. 78. 79. a Book, then to use it so disingenuously, and to wrest the plain ex­pressions of it, with so much straining and violence from their most Natural and Obvious sence: For no Doctrine whatsoever can have any certain Foundation in any Book, if this liberty be once admitted, without regard to the plain Scope and Occasion of it, to play upon the Words and Phrases with all the Arts of Criticism, and with all the variety of Allegory which a brisk and lively ima­gination can devise.’

SECT. I. Fanaticism Described.

MOdern Fanaticism and Enthusiasm, I reckon to be nothing else, but a Religion (if it deserve the Name) that hath no Foun­dation, either in the Word of God or sound Reason, but is founded in Dreams or Phansies, or pretended Inspiration, or Divine Revelation besides, and other then the Holy Scriptures: Now, whether I err in this Idea or Character of Fanaticism or no, yet I am sure, that Re­ligion that may be thus described, is a Wild or a Mad sort of Reli­gion, Socinians themselves being Judges: Such is the Religion found­ed by Mahomet, and is Fanatical and Enthusiastical plain enough, as all Christians acknowledge: And whether the Papacy as such is much better, is doubted by all Learned Protestants; and how far Socini­anism is liable to the same Condemnation, is to be enquired pre­sently.

SECT. II. Fanaticism the Foundation of Popery.

BUT, First, for the Papacy, as such that this hath no Foundation in Scripture or Reason; That 'tis founded only in Dreams and Phansies, and pretended Inspiration or Revelation, will be easily grant­ed, if we consider how their several Orders were first founded, namely in Fanatical Enthusiasm, as is most evidently demonstrated, by the excellent paines of a most Learned Prelate of our own now living. Bishop of Worcester. Moreover, the very root of the Papacy it self, hath no better ground, I mean their Popes Supremacy, as St. Peters pretended Successor, is nothing but dream and Phansie; or which is worse, affected Arro­gance and Presumption, or precarious and violent Imposition upon the Christian World; because they found it absolutely necessary for the support of a rotten or unsound Building. And being with­out the help, either of Scripture or found Reason it rests only upon, and resolves at last, into a feined Will of St. Peter, that was never proved per testes, by lawful Witnesses.

Doubtless the Papacy is Fanatical from top to bottom; but how doth it appear, that Sooinianism is so. This is the next enquiry.

SECT. III. Fanaticism at the bottom of Socinianism.

TO be clear in this enquiry, we must consider the Fundamental point, on which the Socinian Religion as such, chiefly if not entirely rests, and from whence it ariseth: and 'tis plainly this, whether our Saviour had a being before he was born of the Virgin Mary: On this, hang all the great questions, touching our Lords Filiation, Natures, Divinity, Merit, Satisfaction and Intercession; and are decided and determined, as that stands or falls.

Now, this great point, Whether our Saviour had a being before he was born of the Virgin, hath an essential dependance on another, which of absolute necessity must be evinced before, in order to the determination of this, and therefore this other point lies deep­er in the Foundation, seeing upon it depends that Resolution, whether our Saviour had a being before he was born of the Virgin or no; and that is, whether our Saviour had a Being with his Father in Heaven before [Page 25] he was born of the Virgin, or whether he had not been in Hea­ven before, but ascended or was taken up thither only, after he was so born and had been sometime in the Flesh.

Now, the Holy Scriptures abounding with so many plain proofs that our Saviour came down from Heaven (Nine or Ten times as­serted in that one Chapter, the Sixth of St. John) Socinus and his Followers dare not, do not deny it. But 'tis so essential to their Religion, to deny that our Saviour had any Being before he was Born of the Virgin, and in consequence, to support their whole Fabrick upon this Hypothesis, they at last found out a Sal­vo, to reconcile the contradiction; tho' at first they had diffe­rent Notions and did hesitate about it, yet at last they seem to agree, and do now unanimously affirm; that after our Saviour was born of the Virgin, he was taken up into Heaven; and then coming down again, he is said to come down from Heaven so often, in the Scriptures.

Then this is the very Root, Foundation, and Corner Stone, upon which Socinianism is framed and supported, that our Sa­viour after he was born of the Virgin was taken up (in the Flesh) into Heaven, to receive instructions from his Father for the Sal­vation of Mankind.

Now (to apply to our purpose) if this great point, upon Application▪ which Socinianism so intirely depends, have no Foundation, either in the Word of God or sound Reason; and be founded only in Dream or Phansie, or presumptive Invention to save the Fabrick, their great Hypothesis from sinking; or rather in pretended Inspi­ration or Revelation; is not Socinianism, as truly Phanatical and Enthusiastical, as the Papacy; not to say Mahomatism?

If they are so daring as to affirm, 'tis to be found in the Not in Scripture. Scripture; they ought to be so kind to us, and so just to their Cause, as to shew us where: They seem to make us some re­semblance of our Lords Assention into Heaven as a Man, in Moses's being in the Mount with God; and St. Pauls Rapture into the third Heaven, but it was St. Paul and Moses; where do we find any such thing said of Christ, unless it were upon Mount Tabor, but that will not serve their purpose.

'Tis plain our Lord came down from Heaven: Our Do­ctrine is certain, that he was there: And the Text is evident, that he came down from Heaven before he is said to have As­cended: And he that came down from Heaven, and was on Earth, in his Humanity, was still equally in Heaven, in his Di­vinity: [Page 26] all this is plain Scripture, John 3. 13. No Man hath as­cended up into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven; even the Son of Man which is in Heaven.

But where are we told that our Lord in Flesh ascended up in­to Heaven and then came down again? Certainly, if this be the Truth that must support so much of Religion, 'twould have been recorded somewhere in the Scripture, and not have been re­served in Silence and Mystery.

Especially, seeing the Socinians themselves observe, (even with boasting;) the Fulness, as well as the Clearness of those Holy Writings with respect to every thing necessary to be believed; me­thinks their own great Reason should force them to confess, that so great a point, ought not to be believed by themselves, or ob­truded upon the World, seeing it is no where to be found in those Sacred Books.

That 'tis not to be found therein, appears evidently by some observations touching the difference among the Socinians them­selves; and the difficulties they encounter'd with before they re­solved to be satisfied about it.

First, They began to play with the Scripture, as they use to do in other matters; and pretended a strange discovery of a Figurative Sence; and interpreted our Saviours being in Heaven, either by his Heavenly Meditations or Divine Knowledge: But when he came down, did he leave behind him his such Medi­tation and Knowledge? This Non-sence Socinus was soon asha­med of, and came to this Resolution; that our Saviour, after he was in the Flesh, did ascend in Person into Heaven; but upon the Time when he did so, he and his Followers were not a­greed.

Secondly, This is the Second difficulty, wherein they were plunged; that upon a supposition, that Christ was taken up into Heaven, when it should be. Some of them say, it was, when he was Twelve Years Old, and when his Parents missed him, As Wo [...]zog. Schilict. Crellius. and after three days found him amongst the Doctors: Others of great name amongst them, suppose it was, during his being For­ty days in the Wilderness, and this now seems to be the general and current Opinion with them: But do these Texts say any thing else, but that our Saviour was in the Temple when his Parents sought him; and that he was in the Wilderness tempted of the Devil (an odd discription of Heaven?) these places of Scripture then will not do. Have they any other? We hear [Page 27] of no other: and therefore, we may be bold to conclude, there is no ground in Scripture for that great Point, that is the Basis of Socinian Religion.

Secondly, Neither in Reason, For if it be not Revealed in Scrip­ture, Not in Reason. 'tis beyond the Ken of the most Sagacious, without a good Invention, to make a Discovery of it, for that which can be known only by Revelation, can certainly be known no other­wise; but none can possibly imagine (not the most phansiful So­cinian) how this matter of Fact could ever fall under the ratio­nal understanding of any Man, except it were revealed from Heaven. If Reason could discover some plausible colour, Why our Lord should be taken up into Heaven before his passion, yet certainly, That he was so, is matter of pure Revelation, and not to be known otherwise.

We must conclude also, that this their great principle hath no more foundation in sound Reason, then in the Holy Scripture: That is, none at all. 'Tis unscriptural, and no reason can be given for it, but the necessity of it to support an Hypothesis, that falls with it, or without it.

Thirdly and Lastly, To shut up all, 'Tis not only not founded ei­ther Fanatick and Enthu­siastical. in Scripture or Reason, and so Fanatical enough; but 'tis pure Enthusiasm, even by their own Confession. How much Fasting, how much Study, what earnest Prayers to Almighty God, did Laelius Socinus pay for this rare great and notable Discovery? But was it any more then Dream and Phansie (if it deserve not a worse name) tho' it commenced Enthusiasm?

I shall end with that smart and pertinent Reflection of the pre­sent Learned Dean of St. Pauls in his late excellent Treatise of the Blessed Trinity, p. 143. Speaking of this Text, that Christ came down from Heaven. Did Socinus, saith he, find it so easie a matter to reconcile this Text to his darling Opinion, when he was fain to fast and pray for it; and pretend Revelation, because he wanted Reason to support it?

O Merciful GOD who hast made all Men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a Sin­ner, but rather that he should be Converted and live; have Mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heriticks, and take from them all Ignorance, hardness of Heart, and contempt [Page 28] of thy Word, and so fetch them home Blessed Lord to thy Flock, that they may be saved among the Remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one Fold under one Shepheard, JESƲS CHRIST our Lord, who liveth and Reigneth with Thee and the Holy Spirit, One God, World without End.