A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST SOCINIANISM. showing The Direct and Plain opposition between It, and the Religion Revealed by God in the Holy SCRIPTURES. By JONATH. EDWARDS D. D. and Principal of Jesus Coll. OXON. The First Part. OXON. Printed at the theatre for Henry Clements. MDCXCIII. THE PREFACE. THO custom hath in some sort made it necessary to entertain the Reader with a Preface, before he enters upon the perusal of a Book; showing the design, and the occasion of Writing of it; yet in this case I hope there will be no need, either to Court his Favour, or mollify his Displeasure, for undertaking the Defence of Christianity against the Great and dangerous opposers of it. For this being the common Cause in which every man who is called by the name of Christ, hath an Interest, he may I hope without begging pardon, or if he please without showing any Reason, engage in maintenance of our Holy Religion, Embraced by the whole Church of God, as well as by that of which he is a Member; Against all such, who shall either openly oppose, or secretly endeavour to undermine it. Here every man is a soldier, and by his Baptismal Vow, having been listed under Christs Banner, is obliged to fight under it, against all the Enemies of his Saviour; and such are the pernicious Opinions here represented, which carry in their forehead an open, and declared Hostility; and direct opposition to the Divinity, and the cross of Christ. The adversaries of our Holy Religion have taken the Confidence to publish their Impious Opinions, not only without Leave, but in Opposition to the just Authority, and the known and standing Laws of this Nation: they have revived the Opinions, reprinted the Books of some former Socinian Writers, which had almost been forgotten, but they have taken care to refresh our memories; and all this hath been done in defiance to the Govermennt, as well as in the Face of it. It hath been as the occasion of trouble to all Good men, so likewise matter of Wonder and Enquiry to all Considering men, to find the Nation pestered with such numbers of Socinian Books, which have swarmed all upon a sudden, and have been industriously dispersed thro' all parts of the Kingdom, whereby many weak and unstable Souls have been beguiled, and their minds corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ. Who they are, who have been the secret abettors and promoters of these Antichristian Doctrines as it is variously discoursed, so I shall not Curiously inquire; least by almsgiving and uncertain Conjectures, the Innocent may be mistaken for the Criminals. Only this I think is so evident, that it may be taken for granted; That since there have been no considerable numbers of men formerly, that we know of, who have openly and avowedly professed the Impious tenants of Socin. They must have lain lurking under some other outward name and profession, watching the first and most convenient opportunity to divulge their Opinions, which for some just and weighty reasons no doubt, they thought fit for some time to stifle and conceal. I think there are scarce any among us so foolish as to imagine, that like Cadmus his Off-Spring( tho' without doubt the Old Serpent hath had no small hand in this Affair) these men should spring out of the Ground; or as some have fancied of Woodcocks, that they have dropped out of the Clouds among us: it is therefore beyond all doubt, that they have lain hide and disguised under the denomination of some other Sect or Party, and Profession. But among other persons or parties concerned in this Affair, it would be a Miracle, greater then any of late years pretended to be wrought in France for the Conversion of the poor Hugonots there, if the Papists should not be engaged in it: who never as yet have stood by as unconcerned Spectators, when any mischief was in contrivance against our Church: But have always watched, and laid hold on the fittest Opportunity, of Sowing and Increasing Divisions among us; and who have by a late Experiment sufficiently convinced the World, that they have a much better Knack, at unsettling and Disturbing our Religion, then in Establishing and Defending their own. No question it must afford matter of no small Sport and Entertainment to them; to find a Generation of Men, or Vipers rather shall I call them, risen up in their stead, who may tho' by different methods, at length perfect that design which they have been long since projecting, viz. the ruin of this poor Church, and the destruction of that Holy and Excellent Religion, which by Gods Right Hand hath been Established, and hitherto wonderfully preserved among us. But whatever the Causes have been of this sudden Appearance of socinianism, or whoever were the Authors that have secretly and in masquerade, abetted and encouraged it; much of which lies as yet in the dark; the pernicious effects of it have been, and are, at this day too Visible. The minds of men as we said before, throughout the Nation being strangely corrupted; Infidelity and Scepticism universally prevailing. Some deriding all Religion, which they either laugh at as the effect of Folly and Superstition, or detest as a mere Cheat and Contrivance of some Cunning and designing men. Others profess themselves Enemies to all Revealed Religion, speak opprobriously of the Holy Scriptures, deride the Sacred Pen-men of them, and make but a jest of any thing that is said in vindication of their Authority and Inspiration. A Third sort seem to own, and profess to believe the Bible, yet oppose, nay not only so but Ridicule all the Great Mysteries of our Religion; such as are the doctrines concerning the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the whereupon of the World by the Merit of his Death and sufferings; the belief of which have been hitherto looked upon to be the Badge and Mark whereby Christians have been distinguished from Jews and Mahometans. Lastly, a Fourth sort there are( for you must know there are several Ranks and Orders of these Enemies of our Religion) who receive the Holy Scriptures as we do, and Believe, at least they tell us they do so, all the Great Mysteries of our Faith contained there; but yet at the same time they take care to let us know, that the belief of these is not necessary. So that whether you are a Believer or an Infidel in these matters, it makes no great difference; forasmuch as the Honour of God, the Welfare of Religion, and the Salvation of your own Soul, is not concerned either one way or other. And if so I am sure no wise man ought to trouble himself, much less to give others any Trouble about such Trifling and Inconsiderable Opinions. And these I look upon to be the greatest and most dangerous of all the forementioned Enemies, forasmuch as by the Observation of all Ages, it hath been found a much surer and speedier way, to ruin any cause by betraying then opposing it; and that you may much easier guard yourself from the Open Hostility of a professed Enemy, then from the Treachery and falsehood of a pretended Friend. To prevent therefore if it be possible( and I hope it is not too late to Attempt it) the Growth and Progress of that Infidelity which is to be found in many; That Coldness and Indifference about the Great and Sacred Mysteries of our Religion, which is to be observed in others; All which are the blessed effects of socinianism; and which seem to have diffused themselves among all Orders and Ranks of men among us, beyond the Example of former times; It hath been Judged an advizable course, to show the plain and direct opposition, that is between the doctrines of Socinus and those which are revealed by the Spirit of God in the Holy Scriptures, and especially in the Writings of the New Testament. And this, among such especially who have not extinguished all Regard for Religion, may, as it is hoped, be of some good use, to fortify them against the Infection of these pernicious Errors, which have already spread like a Gangrene. Our Writers generally have been Employed, and that very commmendably, and for the most part with great success; in vindicating our Holy Religion, from the Bold and Impudent Cavils of these heretics; and so have stood upon the Defensive part. Now it may be thought, for many good Reasons, advisable, to make an Offensive War upon these Infidels; and to bring it into their own Territories. That is, that the charge of Unreasonableness and Impiety, which they with Equal falsehood and Impudence, have laid at the Door of the Christian Religion; should be retorted upon their New, and Dangerous Opinions; which upon Examination will be found to be Opposite to Piety, Repugnant to plain Reason, and in the conclusion such as will conduce to the Overthrow of all true Religion. And to discover this,( which I hope in some measure is done in them) is the design of these following Papers; viz. That the Religion of Socinus as opposed to Christianity is both Impious and Absurd. So that fairly to represent socinianism will be the best method that we can take to Confute it; and rightly to state the Controversy, will be the speediest way to put an end to it. I confess as to the point of Reason, the Socinians have laid such a claim to it, as if they did intend to Engross and monopolise that to themselves, which yet, tho' in several degrees, is the Right and Inheritance of all mankind. And for their attainments in this, they have so magnified themselves, and have been so undecently as well as unjustly magnified by others; that many innocent and well meaning men have been afraid to enter the Lists with these Sons of Anak, these Champions of Infidelity. But I dare venture to assure the Reader, he needs not fear to encounter these giants upon the plain square of Reason, notwithstanding all their Boasts and Brags of it. And I think it may be easily made out, that in Opposition to some Important Articles of our Faith, upon pretence of their Repugnance to Reason, they have advanced some other positions, so contrary to Reason; that when they come to be compared, I believe it will be found, that there is scarce any thing in Popery, not excepting that Gross, Fulsome doctrine of Transubstantiation; which contains greater Absurdities, more opposite to, and incomprehensible by natural Reason. Particularly what they say concerning the Factitious Divinity of Christ, is by far more unconceivable then what the Papists aver of the change of the Elements in the Eucharist. And any man that hath abilities to judge of these matters, will upon enquiry find; that it is less Absurd and Impossible, if there are Degrees of Absurdity in Contradictions, and of difficulty in things that are Impossible; that a piece of Bread should be Transubstantiated into Flesh, then that a man should be Transformed into a God. In short tho Reason be the Idol of these men yet I must desire to be excused if I do not stand in any great awe and admiration of it: and truly for my own part, I should much rather fear the Malice then the Reason of a Socinian, at any time. And I am afraid, that if ever these men( Quod avertat Deus) should gain strength and numbers among us; they would prove one of the most Cruel and Sanguinary Sects, that ever yet disturbed the peace of the Church. It is not to be denied, but that they have in their Writings advanced some parts of Christian Morality to a great height, and have spoken many and deservedly great things, concerning forgiveness of injuries and patience under them, in compliance with the Commands, and in Imitation of the Example of our Blessed Saviour: But I should be loathe to trust a Socinian for all that; and if we were forced to make the trial( tho I hope we are in no danger of the experiment) I doubt not but we should find, the forgiveness of these Men more Implacable then the Revenge of others: and that their meekness and moderation would have more terrible effects, then the rage and fury of the Arians and Donatists, in ancient times. And that the Reader may not think I utter this without ground, tho I have a great many, I will at present offer but one reason for my conjecture, and that is taken from their boisterous, Impudent, Scurrilous way of treating the great and adorable mysteries of our Religion; which shows what usage the professors of them would in all likelihood meet, if they ever had them in their power. The Blessed Trinity is by some of them styled Triceps Cerberus, and the doctrine concerning it they have ascribed to the Invention of the Devil, and tell us that it was fetched from Hell. Sometimes they will speak very honourably of our Saviour, but at other times, and upon other occasions so reproachfully of his divine nature, that they treat him worse then either the Jews or Romans who condemned and Crucified him. And tho they pay divine Honour and Adoration to him, yet that doth not take of the guilt and impiety of their Sacrilegious denial, and as far as in them lies Despoiling him of his Divinity; but herein they transcribe the Copy which the Roman Souldiers before mentioend, set them after his Condemnation by Pilate; who put a Crown upon his head, and a sceptre into his hand? and yet at the same time they Spit in his Face and Buffeted him. One would think that the great and venerable mysteries of our Religion, entertained by all the Wisest, and Learnedst, and best Men and Churches, in all ages ever since Christianity was first planted in the World; tho they had been Errors, yet had deserved to be treated with a little more Civility and Respect, then these men have shewed in their Writings: who have wanted something else besides a good Cause to defend: for they have wanted Modesty and Civility in the Defence of a very bad one; have wanted the candour and Ingenuity of a fair adversary; and have treated the mysteries of our Faith with such a Prostitute, and Impudent Scurrility; that we cannot well tell what reply to make to them; except in Imitation of the blessed and meek Arch-Angel Michael, we should desire God to Interpose in his own quarrel, and to rebuk the Blasphemies of these men, But to have mercy upon the Blasphemers. To Conclude all, as there is no danger at present, God be thanked, that we should be frighted out of our Religion, so I hope we shall not be wheedled out of it, by any of the Artifices of these seducers who lie in wait to deceive; nor by any other specious pretences that they may make; no not by the pretence of Peace, which I know hath sometimes been offered in their behalf. I confess peace is a most desirable thing, the blessings that attend it are so great that we cannot tell how sufficiently to value, and so many, that we can scarce number them. So that all humble and truly pious Christians should be content to part with any thing to obtain it. But I must recall that last word, for upon second thoughts I find it may be too dearly purchased; as it certainly will be, when bought at the expense either of Truth or Justice; without which, Peace tho otherwise the most useful and excellent, would prove one the most pernicious and mischievous things in the World. And when I speak of Truth I chiefly and principally mean those fundamental Truths which are treated of in these following Papers, the Belief of which have hitherto been looked upon by most Christians, to be necessary to our Salvation: and if there be any Truths of that Importance I hope every man will consider, that tho Peace be much to be desired, yet that it is not advisable for him to hazard his Salvation to secure it. When all is done the reputation of being esteemed a Peaceable and moderate man will stand a man but in little stead when he comes to appear before the Tribunal of Christ, and there to be charged with the guilt of betraying his Religion, and at the same time, the Souls of them committed to his charge, to endless perdition and ruin. In one word, tho Peace be so great a blessing that a man might be content to lay down his Life, yet no man should lay down his Soul for the sake of it. And tho a Pious man might in some cases commmendably submit to Death, yet no wise man, nay indeed no man not out of his wits, would venture upon damnation to Obtain it. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST Socinianism. IN all ages ever since the first planting of a Christian Church in the world, God for many wise reasons hath thought fit to exercise it with various and different sorts of trials. The Apostles who were immediately commissioned by Christ, and sent to teach all Nations, and thereby to bring them over to the belief and obedience of the Gospel, according to the prediction of their blessed Master in the 10th. of Matth. who had forewarned them of it, met with great and violent opposition, and that both from Jew and gentle, who with an extraordinary zeal or rather fury, set themselves to oppress and stifle this new doctrine, if it were possible at its first appearance, and before it had gained much ground and footing in the world. But besides the open force with which the enemies of it endeavoured to destroy the Christian doctrine, the Apostles and other Ministers of it, met with another and more dangerous opposition from some false brethren, who did not aim so much at the destruction of the Christian faith, as by some undue mixtures to corrupt the purity of it. Such were the Judaizing Christians, who tho they embraced the doctrine of the Gospel, yet still they retained a weighty affection for their old Religion and the law of Moses, to the observance of which they thought themselves under an indispensible obligation, and not only so, but would oblige all other Converts to the like observance; and their zeal in this matter occasioned no small trouble to the Apostles, and disturbance to the Churches, where they first planted the Christian faith, see Acts 15. and 5. Gal. And tho this was a matter of no small concern, and might in the conclusion have proved of dangerous consequence, yet it was not considerable in a manner, if compared with many other execrable opinions and practices, which began very early to be introduced into the Church, by Ebion and Cerinthus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides and Carpocrates. Succeeded afterwards by Valentinus and Marcus, martion, and Hermogenes, and a long train of heretics shall I call them? or Hobgoblins; for so I think they might well be styled, if we consider either the darkness and ignorance of all religious matters with which they were encompassed, or the wild pranks which they played, to the great disturbance of all good men; who were all descended from that son of perdition Simon Magus, who was their Patriarch and Ring-leader. It were a difficult task to muster up the names, but almost an endless attempt to reckon the senseless and extravagant opinions of these heretics; by reason of whose pernicious ways, the way of truth was evil spoken of. For many of the objections of the Heathens against Christianity, tho all of them were false, yet many of them were taken from the execrable opinions and practices of these lewd miscreants, who thereby brought no small disgrace upon the Christian Religion, and put no small stop to the growth and propagation of it. But not to prosecute this matter any farther, if we descend a little lower, we shall find that God had no sooner dissipated the storm that hung over the Christian Church for some Centuries; and put a stop to the effusion of any more of that blood, which without any distinction of Age or Sex, was spilled like water under the ten famous persecutions by the advancement of Constantine to the Empire; but the devil betakes himself to new shifts: who finding his former methods of cruelty so signally baffled by the patience and constancy of the Martyrs, he begins to play a new, or rather to revive his old game, and since he cannot destroy the professors of Christianity, he will endeavour to undermine their Religion: he had indeed made a vigorous effort, to extinguinsh both the name and memory of the Christian Religion, and to have tore up both the faith and the believers quiter by the very roots; but herein he was disappointed, and therefore he endeavours to compass that by stratagem, which he cannot effect by storm; and in this method he finds greater success then in the former; for being baffled as we said before, in his attempts upon the disciples of Christ, he attacks the doctrine which they embraced: and here Inimicus homo, the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat; hoping thereby to choke the word, which now he dispair'd to extirpate. And herein he found fit instruments for the execution of his design, for taking advantage of the ambition and curiosity, the discontent and revenge, and other disorderly passions of Arius, Photinus, Nestorius, Eutyches and others, he soon prevailed with them to assist him in the project which he had laid, for corrupting the doctrine and thereby disturbing the peace of the Church. For they presently broached many dangerous opinions, whereby they did either plainly deny, or some other way pervert the doctrines then generally entertained by the whole Church, concerning the natures and the person of the son of God. But these errors having long since been butted in the western Church, and lay forgotten in a manner with their Authors, were again unhappily revived at the beginning of the Reformation, by the endeavours chiefly of some Polanders and Italians in the last age, and among them principally of Faustus Socinus; who having gathered up the dangerous errors of Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus chiefly, against the divinity of Christ, he put them together in one body, together with those of Pelagius in the point of original sin, and those other doctrines which are supposed to have a necessary dependence upon it. And herein Socinus seems chiefly to have chosen Pelagius for his pattern. For the other heretics, I mean Arius, Photinus, and Macedonius being content with the denial of those fundamental doctrines, concerning the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, or with their particular Errors about the natures and person of Christ, as Nestorius and Eutyches; they did not attend to, or at least did not draw out those doctrines into all their pernicious consequences, which might when clearly understood, overthrow all the other parts of the Christian doctrine. But Pelagius gave us a system of his Divinity, and drew out his Errors into a greater length, in opposition to several important parts and branches of our Religion; chiefly that which concerned the doctrine of Original Sin, which naturally led him into those other dangerous mistakes, which did by consequence overthrow the necessity of the satisfaction made by Christ, and the redemption of the world by the merit of his death and sufferings, as the Fathers, and particularly St. Austin directly charge him. For he was master of reason enough to consider where it was that his first Error would naturally led him, and he was content to follow it, and thereby fell into that Labyrinth of errors, from which with all his skill and sophistry he could not disentangle himself; for when pressed with the arguments of his adversaries, and the authority and tradition of the catholic Church; tho he could and did find as many shifts and tricks as any other, to escape the force and conviction of truth; yet his former and fundamental error in denying the imputation of Adams sin, and the original guilt and stayn of our natures contracted thereby, hung like a dead weight about him, and sunk him down into those impious opinions which he broached concerning the grace of God, and the liberty and freedom of mans will in religious matters in opposition to that Grace. Concerning the nature and efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, the merit of good works and the justification of a sinner, the nature of Gods law and the possibility of arising to a state of perfection in this life, by yielding a perfect obedience to it, &c. all which having been picked up by Socinus, together with what was delivered by the other heretics, against the divinity of the son of God, and the Holy Ghost, he hath at length given us the most perfect system of Heresies, in opposition to the doctrine of the Gospel, in almost all the parts and branches of it, that ever was ushered into the world. And indeed to give him his due, tho in point of time and standing he was inferior, yet in point of skill and management, that is, in the art of Heresy, he was superior to all that went before him, most of whom were but fools and bunglers in comparison. For many of the ancient heretics, had several extravagant and incohaerent notions, which had no more connexion between one another, then the parts of a rope of sand: so that like a company of mad and hair-brained people, they attacked the Christian Religion with great fury, but it was at random and without skill; flinging about their mad opinions like wild-fire, with which indeed they did a great deal of mischief, but it was at all adventures, without order, and as one would imagine, without any certain aim. But Socinus comes more gravely and leisurely to work, and what M. Cato said in another case of Julius Caesar,* may be applied to him, Sobrius accessit ad perdendam religionem. Like a man that had his wits, tho, as many think, not the fear of God about him, he comes more soberly and with greater deliberation to destroy the Christian Religion: be puts his opinions into better order, his errors are better united, and have as far as the nature of error would allow, for the most part a good correspondence between one another: like a wary and well disciplined Captain, he puts his arguments into good array, levels his batteries against the great mysteries of our Religion, and chiefly against the eternal Divinity of the son of God: as well knowing that if he can succeed in his attempt upon that, he may promise himself an easy and cheap victory over all the rest of our Religion; and therefore having, as he thinks, effectually overthrown that main and fundamental article of it concerning the ever blessed Trinity; he is resolved to follow his blow, and to pursue his imaginary conquest in that point, to the overthrow of all the other parts of the Christian doctrine: he saw where Arius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c. were wanting, who having, as was said before, contented themselves with their particular errors concerning the natures and person of Christ, as persons who thought they had done mischief enough, they seemed content with what they had done, and went no farther. But Socinus in imitation of his beloved ● Ad evertendam Rempublicam sobrium accessisse. Suet. in Jul. Caes Pelagius, enlarged our prospect into his Religion, and from the principles which he laid down, he drew out his conclusions to a greater length: for having denied the Trinity, and particularly the eternal divinity of our saviour, with it he could not avoid denying his satisfaction, and the redemption of the world by the merit of his death and sufferings; having disowned the personality of the Holy Ghost, the necessity of his grace, and the efficacy of his operations upon the minds of men, must at the same time fall to the ground. Together with these he hath published many dangerous errors concerning the nature and attributes of God, concerning his prescience and providence in the government of the world, concerning the creation of man and the fall of Adam, and that corruption of our natures which is the consequence of it, concerning justification and faith which is the means of obtaining it. Concerning the Church, its nature and the notes whereby it may be distinguished from all other societies, concerning the ministry and the persons to whom Christ hath committed the care and government of his Church; their distinction and authority, to preach the Gospel, and to exercise discipline in it. Concerning the Sacraments and the end of their institution, and particularly concerning the nature and efficacy of Baptism and the Lords Supper. Lastly concerning a future state and the condition of men after this Life. To which may be added some other doctrines, which do not seem to have any connexion with the former, but yet are of dangerous consequence to the peace and welfare of all civil societies: those I mean which he hath advanced about the power and authority of the Civil Magistrate, the slothfulness of war and oaths in a Christian Commonwealth, which have as mischievous an influence upon the order and peace of States and kingdoms, as his other opinions have upon Religion. So that Socinus having observed what was wanting in the former heretics to make their attempts entirely successful against the Christian Religion; being engaged in the same design, but in order to make it more effectual, he wisely resolved to correct what he thought was amiss in them: wherefore laying aside what was more gross and absurd in the wilder and more extravagant opinions of the ancient heretics, and supplying the defects of the more subtle and refined who came afterwards; he and his followers have at length given us a body of their divinity, more complete in its kind then ever the world was blessed with before their time. Not but that in spite of all their art and skill, such being the fate and folly of error, they cannot avoid, especially in the defence and maintenance of their opinions, falling into many and those very plain contradictions. Upon the whole matter I think it may be reasonably doubted whether Socinus, any more then that grand Impostor Mahomet, may be properly called a heretic, as being the Founder of a new Religion, rather then the Author of a new name and sect among Christians. For as the Alcoran of the former, is, as we are told, a farthel of errors and absurdities arising from the impure mixture of Christianity, judaisme and Paganism, together with some idle and extravagant notions of his own; so the doctrine of Socinus, seems to be a composition of the errors of Arius, Photinus, and Pelagius, &c. together with some additions of his own, not indeed so seemingly absurd, as those of Mahomet, but I am afraid no less dangerous to the Christian religion; of which he hath retained only the name together with the empty sound of the words; but with such false glosses, such forced and malicious interpretations, as have quiter destroyed the true notion, as the whole design of the Gospel: in opposition to which he hath given us a kind of natural and new religion, not such as the spirit of God hath revealed in his word, but such as his own carnal reason suggested to him, in opposition to that revelation. And that this may not be looked upon to be an uncharitable because a groundless charge; I shall lay before the reader a scheme of the religion revealed by God in Holy Scripture, and particularly that published by Christ and his Apostles in the writings of the New Testament, and which hath been embraced by all sound Christians in all ages of the Church, from the first planting of one in the world, to this day: Together with another of the new, or newly revived opinions of the Socinians: that by comparing of both, he may be able to make a judgement of what is here suggested, which upon examination I hope he will find to be agreeable to truth, and not contrary to charity. And first as it is fit, we shall begin with the great object of our religion, almighty God: in the knowledge and worship of whom, together with an obedience to his commands, consists the entire nature of religion. And here upon enquiry I believe we shall find, that what the Scriptures have revealed concerning the nature of God, is widely different from the account which Socinus and his disciples give us of him. As to what concerns the nature of God, the Scriptures propose him to be considered two ways by us., 1. Absolutely in his glorious and essential attributes, or 2ly, Relatively in the great and adorable mystery of the ever blessed Trinity. First, if we consider God in his Attributes, we shall find that the first great, and if I may so call it, fundamental attribute which the Scriptures reveal, and indeed natural reason dictates concerning him, is the unity of the Godhead, Deut. 6. 4. Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord. Deut. 32. 39. See now that I, even I am be, and there is no God with me. 1 Cor. 8. 5. 6. For tho there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, &c. But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things. 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is but one God, and one Mediator between God and man, &c. Here undoubtedly it will be said that the Socinians are beyond all suspicion orthodox, all their studies and labours being employed in asserting and vindicating the unity of the Godhead in opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, which according to their apprehensions must infer a plurality of Gods. But for all their boasts concerning this matter, and assuming to themselves upon that score the name of Unitarians, we must not be too hasty in acquitting them from the imputation of Polytheism; for tho they deny the eternal generation and divinity of Christ, and say that he had no existence before his being formed in the womb of the Virgin, and appearance in the world; and that the being which he then had was purely human: yet after his resurrection from the grave, and his ascension into heaven, they say that God the father as the reward of his obedience and sufferings, exalted him to the honour and dignity of a God; not indeed to be the supreme and eternal God, but however deus verus, a true God, distinct and separate from his Father; and Socinus takes it ill of his adversaries, that they should charge him with denying Christ to be God Quasi nos Christum verum deum esse negamus, quod tamen à nobis non sit, Socin. oper. Tom. 2. p. 645. , and complains against them that will not be brought to confess and worship him Ut pro Deo ac Domino suo venerentur, p. 631. , for their Lord and God, who was once a weak and infirm man: and herein he saith the power and goodness of God was discovered, and his admirable wisdom displayed, in extoling and deifying this man, beyond what we can imagine In eo homine supra quam dici potest extollendo& deificando, Ibid. . And to the objection that might be made against this opinion, as that which did unavoidably infer a plurality of Gods, Wolzogenius will tell you, that if by two Gods you mean one of whom are all things and we in him, and one by whom are all things and we by him, we are so far saith he, from being ashamed of worshipping two such Gods, that we rather glory in it Ut potius id gloriae nobis& laudi ducamus, Wolzogen. Prolegom. in Evangel. Johannis cap. 8. de vera divinitate Christi. . But if it shall be farther said, that to do them right, they aclowledge but one supreme God by nature, and that Christ is only a God by Appointment and Office, not, natus but factus, not born but made, and deified after his ascension, by a communication of the divine power, wisdom and goodness to him. I Ans. that this is so far from abating, that it rather increases the difficulty, and makes the Socinian notion both absurd and impious, as may be shown more at large hereafter, when we come to lay the charge of Idolatry at their door. Indeed one would think it should be a debasing of the name and honour that is due to God, to give either of them to any but him that is so from all eternity; the same Wolzogen. will tell you, you may if you please, reproach them for so doing, but he valves it not a rush, nos non erubescimus, we are not ashamed to own that we worship deum factum vel factitium, a made God; not made indeed by a Goldsmith or Ingraver, ab aliquo sculptore vel aurifabro, but they aclowledge with St. Peter Acts 2. 36. that God hath made Jesus who was crucified Lord and Christ, that is, saith he, deum eximium fecerit, hath made him a great and eminent God. Ibid. If this be not enough, if you please to consult Smalcius, he will give you all the satisfaction that you can possibly desire further in this matter. For first, he will tell you, that whereas the Scriptures assure us that there is but one only true God, yet that must be taken sano sensu; not as if there were no other true God besides God the Father, but that there is none that is God; eodem prorsus modo, just in the same manner as he is Quod vero Deus ille unus qui pater est, solus verus dicitur, id non ideo fieri dicimus quod nemo alius praeter Patrem deus verus sit, said quia nemo alius praeter Patrem, isto prorsus modo deus verus sit, quo ille est. small. Exam. Cent. Err. p 4. . For otherwise the thing is certain and past all doubt, that there are more true Gods then one; and let the Inspired writers be never so positive, yet he and his friends can and will with equal confidence advance this contrary position, that the true God is not only God Certissimum est quod non unus tantum verus Deus sit. Ibid. . Nay it is not an indifferent matter, but a truth which they firmly believe and earnestly contend for Contendimus& firmissime docemus esse plures Deos praeter unum. Eosque veros. Refut. Smigl. de Novis Monst. Nov. Ar. p. 14. . And therefore pronounce it without any hesitation, that there are more true Gods then one. And indeed they have reason to contend earnestly for this opinion, if it be true what he saith in the same place, that to aclowledge and confess, and adore one only chief and supreme God, is purely judaical, and a renunciation of the Christian Religion Tantum unum summum deum agnoscere, unum tantum naturà Deum Colere, unum tantum Independentem Deum confiteri, esse Judaicum quiddam,& ab negationem Christianae Religionis. Ibid. p. 16. . Here he speaks as home to the point as you can possibly desire, and it is enough in all conscience. Thus whereas the Scriptures tell us there is but one God, the Socinians say there are two; one God by nature, another by grace, one Supreme, another Inferior, one Greater, another Lesser, one Elder and eternal, the other a junior and modern God: and this by Socinus is made the great mystery of the Christian Religion, greater indeed if true, and more incomprehensible then any other, or then all the other stupendous and adorable mysteries of our Faith put together. Now as the Socinians say there are two Gods; so if you believe Curcellaeus, he will confidently tell you there are three; who tho he be no Socinian, yet he agrees perfectly with them in almost all their other Errors, except that which concerns the doctrine of the Trinity, where he hath a peculiar notion of his own, distinct as he tells you both from Arius and Socinus: for he makes the Son and Holy Ghost to have a divine nature communicated to them from all eternity, but yet such that is different in each of them, so that they are three distinct divine beings. And to the objection made by Maresius, that this notion must inevitably imply that there are three Gods; he Answers, that if by three Gods, be meant three specifically distinguished from each other, he disowns any such distinction between the persons of the Trinity; but if by three, be meant three persons agreeing in the same common nature, yet numerically distinguished in each of them, it is that which he owns and earnestly contends for; that the Father, Son and Holy-Ghost, are as much three Gods as Peter Paul, and John, agreeing in the same common nature are three distinct men. And if you believe him, he will tell you the ancients were not afraid of the imputation of Poytheisme, in this sense; and to think of the same individual nature being communicated to three persons, was a notion that never entered into the heads of any of the Fathers, in their disputes against the Arians, as being against both Reason and Religion. Curcell. Dissert. prima de vocibus Trinit. &c. cap. 105.& deinceps. And Limburg, who publishes and recommends him to the world, I suppose is of the same opinion. The 2d Attribute which the Scriptures ascribe to God, is his immensity and omnipresence, assuring us that his nature is infinite, and consequently that it cannot be confined to any place, or circumscribed within any limits. Tho he is peculiarly and eminently resident in Heaven, yet Solomon will tell us that Heaven, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him, 1 King. 8. 27. and the Psalmist puts the question, Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there also. Ps. 139. 7, 8. So St. Stephen, Act. 7. 48. the most High dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, that is, is not confined within those limits, as many of the Heathens thought their Gods were, for, as saith the Prophet, heaven is my Throne, and the earth is my footstool. And indeed not only the infinite nature of God, but the belief of his providence necessary supposes it. Upon which account we are said in him to live, and move, and have our being, Act. 17. 28. forasmuch as he is above all, and through all, and in all. Eph. 4. 6. Now in opposition to this important Truth, which is not only revealed in Scripture, but dictated by the light of nature, and acknowledged upon that score to be such, by all sober Heathens, as well as by sound Christians; the Socinians will tell you, that God is not infinite in his Essence, or Nature, but that he is so confined to the Heavens, as not to be substantially present elsewhere, or not to fill any places out of those limits. And therefore when urged with those places of Scripture, which say that God fills Heaven and Earth, and that he is every where present, Jer. 23. 24. Ps. 139. They answer, that they must be interpnted, only with respect to the virtue, power, and operations of God, which extend to the remotest places where he is not essentially present. Ea verba, speaking of those words Jer. 23. 23 Am I a God at hand, and not a God afar off. Suadere videntur, ipsius Dei substantiam non ubique pariter praesentem esse,& sic eam non esse immensam sieve infinitam, quamvis ubique tamen sua virtute& providentia sit ipse Deus praesens. Socin. de Dei essentiae Cognitione p. 68. vid. Crellium, cap. 27. de Dei Immensitate& Omnipraesentia. As the Sun, which is the Instance some of them give us to illustrate this matter, is confined to the Heavens, and indeed takes up but a small room there in comparison, yet may be said to be, ubique terrarum, because he diffuses his Light, Heat, and other Influences, to the remotest parts of the Earth. But of this Attribute more hereafter. 3d Attribute ascribed to God in Scripture, is his omniscience, whereby he knows all things past, present, and to come, which knowledge of his extends itself not only to all things and persons, but likewise to all their actions and the effects of them, and together with them views the secret springs and principles of those actions, discerning the designs and contrivances of men, and all the thoughts and intents of the heart, There being no creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have to do, Heb. 4. 13. What our Translation renders open, is more Emphatically expressed in the Greek, {αβγδ}, all things are as it were dissected and anatomised, the very inside of all things are laid open to his view. What is lodged in the darkest corners and deepest recesses of the Soul, cannot be hide from his sight, whose eyes are in every place like a flamme of fire beholding the evil and the good. Nay this knowledge is of so vast an extent, as to comprehend within its mighty compass, not only things past and present, but likewise all things to come; for his duration being commensurate to all the parts of time, he doth not measure things as we do, by first and last, but all things present and to come, are open to him at one view, with whom a thousand years are but as one day, and one day as a thousand years 2 Act. 3. 8. Nay not only those things which are properly future with respect to any necessary causes of their production, but even those which are most contingent, as depending upon the spontaneous motion of mens free will; all such actions, together with the most casual events, as well as remote consequences of them, are the objects of Gods knowledge, who doth not only discern our Intentions and designs whilst they are in fieri, in the time of their hatching and framing in the Soul, but antecedently, long before the mind comes to any determination, he understands our thoughts afar of, Ps. 139. 2. And of this besides the plain declarations of Scripture, the predictions that have been made by God of the most contingent and fortuitous events are an Argument that one would think should place this truth beyond all contradiction: It being that which God almighty made choice of, to vindicate the honour of his divine nature and perfections, in opposition to the vain claim that was laid to them by the dull Idols of the heathens, and their more stupid worshippers Esay. 41. 22. Let them bring forth and show us what shall happen, let them show the former things what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them, and declare us things for to come. show the things that are to come hereafter that we may know that you are God. It is true this knowledge of God as it extends to things to come, is too wonderful for us, we cannot attain to it: and therefore if we think to measure his knowledge by our own shallow conception of things, we engage in a task more absurd and ridiculous, then if we should attempt to take up the waters of the Ocean and enclose them in the hollow of our hand. And of this absurdity are the Socinians guilty, who will by no means be brought to aclowledge this great truth; for tho when you come to discourse with them upon this subject, they will tell you, they allow God to be omniscient, and that he knows all things; yet you must not be too hasty in taking an advantage of that concession. You must give them leave to explain themselves; God knows all things, That's true, but with this limitation, quatenus sunt scibilia, as far as they are capable of being known. But future contingencies must be excluded out of that number, having no being either in themselves, or in any certain or necessary causes of their production; and therefore are no more the object of any, even divine knowledge, then darkness is the object of sight: your eyes may as soon be dazzled with one, as your understandings be affencted or receive any Impression from the other. For Gods knowledge say they, is agreeable to the nature of the things known; which may in some sense be true, but is a truth ill applied by them, when they tell us, that God knows things that are certain, as such that shall come to pass; things that are likely, he considers as such that may probably come to pass; things that are barely possible, as depending upon the arbitrary, and therefore uncertain determinations of mens free will, he knows as possible, that is, they may or may not come to pass, but whether of these two shall happen, that is still a secret even to God himself; whose divine knowledge cannot arrive to the knowledge of such future contingencies, of which according to the known maxim, there can be no certain or determinate truth or falsehood. Perhaps you will say this maxim is true, with respect to second causes, and any created knowledge, but not with respect to the knowledge of God, to whom the most casual events are present, and therefore certain; for as much as he foresees which way men will freely determine their own choice, either in acting, or forbearing to act, in doing this, or doing the contrary. And without this prescience we cannot well imagine how God should be able to govern the world, and particularly Angels and Men, in whose actions and the event of them, his own glory is so eminently concerned. The Socinians will tell you all this is a great mistake, and that such a notion of Gods knowledge is so far from being necessary to his providence, that it is derogatory to the freedom of mens will, and thereby leads to the dishonour of God, and the overthrow of all Religion, which Crellius endeavours at large to prove Lib. de Natura Dei cap. 24. de Sapientia Dei. And after he hath taken some pains to show that this omniscience is opposite to reason, he comes to show its repugnance as he thinks to the plain declarations of Scripture, and what he and his Master say upon this head, and upon that which follows, it will be worth our while a little to enlarge upon, forasmuch as it will help to give us a true idea of Socinianism, which tends plainly to the dishonour of God, and in the conclusion to the overthrow of all natural as well as revealed Religion. Now the places of Scripture which he quotes to this purpose▪ are those which speak of Gods waiting for the amendment and repentance of sinners, as he doth in that remarkable manner Esay. 5. 4. What could I have done more for my vineyard, that I have not already done to it, and yet when I expected it should bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes? and v. 7. When he looked for judgement, behold oppression; for righteousness behold a cry Quo enim pacto potest quispiam dici id expectare, quod non eventurum planissime intelligit, imo jam reipsa videt, Ibid. : How saith he could it be said either with propriety or truth, that if God had foreseen their obstinacy, he could have waited and hoped for their amendment. He farther refers us to two other places, to Gen. 18. 21. Concerning Sodom, and to that concerning Abram Gen. 22. 12. this is certain saith he Deum novum quoddam& ensign experimentum, illic quidem impietatis Sodomicae videre voluisse, hic vero pietatis Abrahamicae vidisse, quod antequam fieret, plane certum& exploratum non erat. , That God here by a new and an extraordinary experiment, made a discovery of the faith and piety of Abraham, which he was not certain of before he made this trial of it: And of the execrable Impieties of the Sodomites, which he would scarce believe they could be guilty of, till he came down from Heaven on purpose, and made as it were his own eyes the witnesses of the truth and certainty of those matters. For a further confirmation of his opinion, he cites those places of Scripture where God is said to tempt Abraham, that is, to make a trial of his obedience, Gen. 22. 1. and so those other Deut. 8. 2. Judges 2. 21. where God is said to have led the Children of Israel in the wilderness forty years, to prove them, and to know what was in their hearts, and whether they would keep his commandments or no: and to have left of the Canaanites in the land, declaring his resolution not to drive them out thence, that he might prove Israel, whether they would keep the ways of the Lord as their Fathers did or no. From all which he concludes that he must be pertinacissimus, extremely obstinate that should oppose his opinion, which if you believe him Non modo Evidentissima& plane cogente ratione nititur, said& sacrarum literarum autoritate stabilitur. , is supported not only by the evidence and strength of reason, but by the Authority of Holy Scripture Crell. Ibid. . What Crellius here saith against Gods prescience, he learned from his Master Socin: Praelect. Theol. Cap. 8. p. 585. Where the Master goes farther then the scholar in aggravating the inconveniences that must attend the notion of prescience; for from hence saith he it must follow, that many things are ascribed to God in Scripture either falsely, or else must suppose him guilty of such imprudence Quae ne in hominem cadere potest, nisi plane dementem. Ibid. , which we cannot imagine any man could be liable to, except he were stark mad. And then quotes the places before cited by Crellius, and to them adds Num. 14. 12. &c. where God swore that the Israelites should not enter into the Land of Canaan, which yet he swore to their forefathers he would give them, and he did once really intend to put them in possession of it, but their murmurings and rebellions caused him to alter his resolution. Now if God had foreseen the disobedience and impieties of the Children of Israel which moved him to change his purpose concerning them, in promising to bring them into the Land of Canaan, and confirming that promise with an oath; he must have acted, saith this Bold man, so, as we cannot suppose any man to have acted, that was not quiter out of his wits Quis ex hominibus ita amens est, ut juret se aliquid facturum, quod se facturum minime esse, jam probe noverit. Ibid. . But now against all this, the foretelling of future events, even such as are most contingent, as depending upon the entire freedom of mens will; and the numerous as well as plain predictions of these matters which stand upon record in the book of God, one would think should be an unanswerable objection. And it seems it was so with Episcopius, who though he agrees too well with Socinus in many of his other loose and dangerous notions concerning the nature and attributes of God, yet here he leaves him, and declares himself of a contrary Opinion, being chiefly induced thereunto from this Argument of predictions. But yet to mollify the matter, and to give as little offence as might be, to a party whose favour he courted, he tells them and us Lib. 4. Inst. Th. cap. 18. , that it was but a small matter about which they differed, which should break no squares between friends; for tho he affirmed, and they denied, yet the Inter Eruditissimos Theologos Lis adhuc sub judice est. Ibid. matter of the dispute was purely problematical, which had divided the opinions of the most learned Divines, but never to that day had received any determination; Vix credo millesimum Christianum dari qui scientiam hujus rei habeat. That there was not one Christian in a thousand had any knowledge of it; in short, Absque hujus scientia, religio cultusque divini numinis, apud innumeros hominum Miriadas santus tectus constet▪ Idem ibid▪ that it was so trifling and inconsiderable a matter, that neither Religion nor the worship of God was at all concerned in it. But what Episcopius could not do, Socin. hath done, or at least hath attempted the doing of it; viz. the reconciling the truth of Gods predictions with the denial of his prescience, and it is worth our while to hear what he saith upon this occasion. 1. Then, sometimes Gods predictions are no more then his warnings, Potius monet quem praedicit, Socin. prael. Th. cap. 10. God dealing with men, as men sometimes deal with Children, telling them that they will do such and such ill actions, to deter and shane them from so doing, Solemus nos cum puerum ab aliquo error committendo deterrere volumus, &c. Ibid. 2. God foretells some actions, and particularly some wicked actions, not as if he knew they would certainly be committed by evil men, Quia ea certissime futura nosset, said quia sic plane verisimile erat, Ibid. but because it was very likely they should be so: that is, what we call a prediction, and what the Scriptures without any limitation delivers as such, Socinus accounts but a conjecture, it is a probable guess, of what may likely come to pass; But what may come to pass, may likewise not come to pass, and so for all their confidence, the inspired writers, and what we cannot think of without horror, the Holy Spirit that directed them might be mistaken. But forasmuch as these two former Answers may serve for some predictions, but cannot give a reasonable Enquirer just satisfaction as to others, which are so plain that the force of them cannot be thus eluded. Therefore once for all to put an end to this objection, and you may well imagine he was hard pressed, before he would betake himself to this last, and in him a desperate shift; he is forced to take sanctuary at those very decrees of God, which at other times he opposes with all his might: like a Malefactor when closely pursued, and finding no other way of escape, he flies for protection to those very Altars, which at other times he hath so often profaned by his crimes. For saith Socinus, the things which God foresees, are either good or evil; if good, he may absolutely decree what is so Si testimonium loquitur de bonis operibus certo praevisis, sine dubio Deus ipse decrevit. Socin. Prael. Th. cap. 10. p. 549. , and make that necessary which otherwise would be but indifferent: nay he may impose a necessity upon the Wills of men, and make them to do and choose what is good Crell. cap. 24. de sap. Dei. . Now this is downright Calvinism, and if you had a mind to believe it to be true, yet the Socinians themselves, and the Remonstrants their friends, will furnish you with such Objections against the belief of it, that to them at least they must be unanswerable. For it is a known and an avowed Principle among them both, First that where there is necessity, there is no religion; and consequently neither good nor evil Hoc est pessundare religionem, quae nulla proprie est ubi est necessitas. Smalc. contra Swigl. cap. ●2. . If our actions proceed not from freedom, they lose their nature, and may be any thing else, but cannot be virtue and 'vice, forasmuch as necessity takes away the distinction of actions good and bad Crell. cap. 24. de sapientia Dei p. 204. Ubi talis necessitas est, nec ullum verum peccatum est, nec meritum poenae. Ubicunque necessitas dominatur ibi religioni non est locus. Examen. censurae cap. 7. p. 82. So say the Remonstrants. . 2. That Freedom and Necessity are so opposite one to another, that Omnipotence itself cannot reconcile them, forasmuch as they are plain contradictions, and terms that destroy each other Quod necesse est, hoins libertatem à se poenibus excludit. Socin. Prael. Th. cap. 8. Arbitrium libertatem in se continet quam si demas, arbitrium esse desinet. Crell. de volunt. Dei cap. 21. p. 139. Qui necessario vult& agit, is libero arbitrio praeditus non est id. cap. 24. de sap. Dei. p. 206. . That necessity robs you not only of your freedom but of your will itself, to which freedom is so necessary, that without it is no will, it being an essential property of it, proprium quarto modo; and to say that the Will can subsist without its property, that is it's essential liberty, is absurditate ipsa absurdius Exam. Censurae Conf. Remonst. cap. 6. p. 76. . Now let us put both these things together: there is no Religion, consequently neither Good nor Evil, virtue nor 'vice, where there is necessity; and yet nihil prohibet, saith Crell. nothing, consequently neither religion, nor the nature of good and evil hinders, but that God may absolutely decree things good to be done Nihil prohibet quin Deus simpliciter bona fieri decernat. Crell. de sap. Dei p. 210. , and decree them so as to become necessary by virtue of that decree. Again, the Will cannot be necessitated in any of its actions, forasmuch as this would destroy its freedom, which is a fundamental radical property of it, and cannot be separated from it without destroying the Will itself: And yet God can impose a necessity upon the wills of men of choosing this thing or another Potest necessitatem homini imponere hoc vel illud volendi. Ibid. : and Socinus will tell you, that God usually leaves the wills of men to their freedom, except it be when his judgments require him to lay them under a necessity Deus voluntatem liberam esse sinit, nisi quando ut ei necessitatem afferat, ejus judicia requirant. Socin. Praelect. Th. cap. 7. p 544. . Now how shall we reconcile these sayings, which to us poor Christians seem to be plain contradictions, and therefore impossible to be true. But Socinus is not only a great admirer of reason, but a great master of it too; and therefore by the help of a distinction, he doubts not but to bring himself fairly off; for in the forementioned place, having in order to give an account of some of the predictions of Scripture, been forced to bring in the Decrees of God into his assistance, which could not one would think, but entrench upon the freedom of mans will, by making all actions subject to these Decrees necessary; he gravely tells us, and we are beholding to him for the discovery; That notwithstanding his Decrees, God hath left man entirely to his liberty; for besides the direction and government of his external actions which indeed God hath reserved to himself, he hath left every thing else in the power of mans will Voluntas hoins ad Extremum usque est plane libera, adeo ut praeter ipsum factum Externum, omnia in ejus sunt potestate. ibid. . That is, when you say a man is a free Agent, you must distinguish between the inward and outward Act, between choosing and doing; in the former sense a man is entirely at liberty, for what can be freer then thought, who can lay a restraint upon mans will, or shakle his desires? the decrees of God, can put no force upon these, and here Sapiens dominabitur astris; they only govern mens outward actions, which may indeed become thereby necessary, but that's no great matter; animus cujusque est quisque, the mind is the nobler part, let a man but assert the honour and dignity of that; and he need not be much concerned what becomes of his outward actions. But against this it may be objected, that a great part of Religion consists in the practise of many External actions of Piety towards God, Justice and Charity towards men; and if these are not free, they are no longer Acts of Religion, any thing else but not virtue and 'vice as was said before. To this he will tell you, that God measures mens Obedience or Disobedience respectively, not by the External Fact, but by the Internal Actions and consent of the Will 2. Which tho' in some sense, and with a just limitation may be true; yet as it is here brought in by him, to serve his present purpose, is a very loose and a dangerous determination; in short this whole matter as it is stated by Socinus, is liable to very many and those unanswerable exceptions. For 1. whereas he saith the will even to the last is entirely at liberty, tho the external actions are subject to the decrees of God, and thereby become necessary; this is a plain contradiction to what both he and Crellius before told us, that God might necessitatem afferre voluntati& necessitatem imponere hominibus hoc vel illud volendi: force even the will, as well as make the outward actions necessary. 2ly, He asserts a freedom in men to little or no purpose; for one would think if God gave a man a principle of freedom, he did it chiefly for the government of his actions; and if these are not in his power he had even as good be without his liberty; and that his will and his actions should run the same fate, and be both equally subject to it. For my part I should think I had as good be shackled and manacled, as to have a 1 Deus Obedientiam& Inobedientiam hominum, ex ipsa perfecta& consummata voluntate, non autem ex ipso Externo facto metitur. ibid. full power of moving, and yet not be able to stir either hand or foot. 3ly, If Socinus should be asked, how it can be imagined that the actions can be necessary when the principle from whence they proceed is absolutely free, for it is of human and voluntary actions that Socinus in that place is speaking of, I believe it would puzzle him to give a satisfactory answer. 4thly, Tho Socinus takes care of the freedom of mans will, which he in this place is concerned to vindicate, yet as far as I can perceive he hath little care of Religion; for if, where there is necessity there can be no Religion, as the Socin. and Remonstrants said before, and that a great part of Religion consists in external as well as internal actions; I cannot see but that thereby Religion is left in great danger if not entirely overthrown, and that virtue and Morality, are for any assistance that Socinus in this place affords them, fairly left to shift for themselves. Well, but however tho Socinus by making good actions subject to Gods decrees, and thereby necessary, may be guilty of Contradicting himself; yet there is no great harm in all that, his opinion may be absurd, but he doth not design to encourage impiety thereby; for tho he make God the cause of good actions yet he doth not as his adversaries do, make him the Author of Sin. In reference to what is Evil, here man is left entirely to his own freedom, the guilt of which cannot be transferred upon the decrees of God, which are not in any wise concerned in them; but the shane and blame of all must be laid at mans own door, and imputed only to his own freedom. But soft and fair, there is no general rule but may have some exceptions, for there are plain predictions in Scripture, not only of some good, but of many evil and wicked actions, such for instance, as were the Treachery of Judas, and the denial of Peter, &c. Now these according to the Socinians, God could not foresee except they were necessary, and they could not well be necessary without his decree, and therefore to reconcile the prediction and the event, God first resolves to have an ill thing done, and then wisely foretells the doing of it. red what follows and then you will be further satisfied in this matter, and that Socinus and his followers are not wronged in laying this to their charge. For first saith Crellius, if God finds men fit and disposed for any mischief, Eorum malitia uti potest ad consilia sua exequenda Crell. cap. 24. De Sapientia Dei. p. 210. , he may make use of their wickedness to compass his own designs. Nay not only so, he may likewise decree something to be done by them, Quod sine peccato ab iis fieri nequit, Ibid. which cannot be done without sin. What Crellius saith in general, Socinus gives as an example of in the Egyptians, whose sin in oppressing the Children of Israel, God long before foresaw and foretold, 15. Gen. as having decreed it to be done. But to excuse this matter he saith, God did not put that wicked disposition into the minds of the Egyptians, but found it there, Malam eam mentem in ipsis invenerat, qua ad judicium suum exequendum, quodammodo abusus est. Praelect. Th. cap. 10. p. 547. and what he found there, he made use of for the execution of his judgments. This is something but it is not full enough, this is but beating about the bush, therefore he will keep you noe longer in suspense. Not only an action that could not be done without sin, but the sin itself may be decreed and effected by God, Si quid ab hominibus contra Dei legem committitur id non quidem decernente ac autore Deo fieri asseveramus, nisi raro ac quibusdam de causis, Socin. Prael. Th. p. 544. that is, if God be the Author of sin it is but rarely, and that for very weighty reasons. Here again Socinus to our great amazement, is a downright predestinarian, and if we may judge of the opinions of Calvin even by the representation of his adversaries, he is Calvino ipso Calvinior. What Socinus here affirms, that God sometimes is the Author of mens sins, is confirmed by Smalcius, but with this difference, that whereas by Socinus God is made the immediate Author of sin, Smalcius will bring in the Devil to bear part of the blame, deum quandoque per diabolum homines compellere ad scelera perpetranda small. Contra Frantz. p. 416. . God indeed saith he, compels men to do evil, but he makes use of the ministry of the Devil, who is the instrument in the Compulsion. What they thus say in general, they do further illustrate, if you think what hath been said may not be so clear, but that it may want a Comment, by particular instances, and specially that of Peters denial of his Master, which was a Contingent Event one would think, as depending upon the freedom of his will; and yet this was foretold by Christ. But how could this be? why Socinus will tell you this denial of Peter, was not a matter so Contingent as you may imagine; for God for the punishment of his confidence, decreed to withdraw his Grace from him, upon which substraction of his Grace, that denial could not but follow Negatio ista necessario consecutura erat Socin. ibid. p. 548. . Nay he goes farther; not only withdrawing his Grace from Peter in the Hour of Temptation, but taking effectual course that he should be tempted. For saith he, Peter being disposed to commit this sin, and wanting only an opportunity of putting it into practise, to make good the truth of his prediction, God took care to offer him that occasion. And this he thinks may safely be said, without any absurdity Non alia re opus erat, nisi ut occasio Christum negandi Petro daretur. id quod deum ipsum curasse i.e. Effecisse, nihil absurdi continet. Vid. small. Contra Frantz. p. 431. Ubi asserit voluntatem Petri quoddammodo esse coactam& ad breve temporis spacium libertate sua privatam, idque Deum interdum& facere posse& solere. . Here he speaks home and full to the point. Indeed at another time he himself can scarce digest, what he here would have his Readers swallow without straining; for saith he, to say that God foresees evil, because he decrees it, cannot be affirmed without impiety Peccata ita à deo nota fuisse affirmare, quia futura omnino ita decrevisset, impium prorsus videri debet. Ibid. p. 547. . How shall we reconcile this with all we before quoted out of him? I confess I was in some pain for him, to know how he would come off, but he soon relieved me, by the help of a distinction he can perform wonders, among which, one of the greatest is to reconcile contradictions. For saith he, Si certa mali operis praedictio erit, ipsum quidem opus à deo decretum fuerit, non autem cordis malitia, p. 549. That is, you must distinguish between the Act and the Obliquity of it, and then you may reconcile the honour of Gods justice and the truth of his predictions: a very nice and Methaphysical distinction, and which I should almost despaired to have found any where, but in the writings of a Schoolman or a Calvinist. Upon the whole, I think we have reason to admire the judgement of God, upon these men; in giving them up, as a just punishment of their Contempt of his Revelations, to the Conduct of their own Carnal and Corrupt Reason, which when it is not assisted by a Divine Revelation, is but a blind guide in matters of religion; and therefore it is no wonder if we find them roving and wandring in a Laberynth and Maze of Errors, like men bewildered, going backward and forward, saying and unsaying, and at length growing giddy, and falling back into those very opinions which they have made so much hast to fly from, and upon the account of which, they and the Remonstrants have raised so many, and such Tragical exclamations against their adversaries. 4ly. The next Attribute that the Scriptures ascribe to God, is his Immutability, whereby he is uncapable of Alteration, and therefore not Liable to change. 1 Sam. 15. 29. The strength of Israel will not lye nor repent: for he is not a man that he should repent. This would argue God to be like ourselves, of like weakness, and like passions with men. For whatever Alterations may happen in the world, yet he remains unalterable, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1. 17. Indeed men upon many accounts, and for many very warrantable reasons, may be obliged to shift and change their Counsels and Resolutions, who for want of wisdom and foresight in laying their projects, or for want of strength to execute them, and by a great many other unexpected accidents, which the greatest prudence could not foresee, nor consequently avoid, oftentimes meet with many and fatal disappointments. But when Infinite wisdom is joined with Infinite Power. Nothing can hinder such an Agent from bringing his purposes to the desired Event. My counsel saith the Lord, that shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure, Esay. 46. 10. Who can withstand the power of God? who can baffle his Contrivances? or resist his will? For the Counsels and Decrees of God are as Immutable as his Nature; for be they Absolute, or be they Conditional, as long as he foresees the performance of the Condition, it makes no difference in this case: many devices may be in mans heart, but the counsel of the Lord that shall stand Prov. 19. 21. however men may alter; and the dealings and dispensations of Gods providence in several acts of mercy and justice upon that score, may be different towards them: yet this is without alteration or change in his purposes towards them, who remains still the same, yesterday and to day and for ever. The Socinians utter many bold and dangerous expressions in opposition to this plain truth, which is the unavoidable consequence of their denial of his Omniscience. Forasmuch as there are many events which depend upon the actions of men, which arising from the freedom of their Will, are therefore purely contingent, and consequently out of the reach of Gods knowledge; this must according to them unavoidably cause God to alter his councils, to take new measures, to change his affections towards men, and alter his purposes concerning them: that is, he who is a Reprobate to day, may be an Elect person to morrow, and he who at present is elect, may afterwards be reprobated, and those may finally perish, quos Deus saluti destinavit, whom God once designed for eternal happiness. Socin, de Off. hoins Christiani, cap. 11. Now this one would think should be an Argument of inconstancy, and consequently not fit to be ascribed to God. Crellius will tell you, there is no such matter; this is only an instance of his freedom, it shows you only that there is a variety in the acts of Gods will, but no inconstancy. For a man is then said to be constant to his purpose, who persists in it till some good reason obliges him to alte it Constantis est persistere in animi proposito, nisi quid intervenerit, cujus ratio non immerito haberi posset,& quod in aliam sententiam voluntatem jure flectere queat. Crell. cap. 25. de Sanct. Dei, p. 265. , and therefore what you would call wavering, he will say is the result of wisdom Quae rebus mutatis ita consilia mutat, ut ea illarum rationi attemperat, Cap. 32. de Decretis Dei. p. 350. , God accommodating his decrees to the nature of things, and the actions of men; so that in short, God is subject to change, but not without good reason, he may alter his purposes as wise men usually do, according to the different circumstances of things, and as the exigence of his affairs shall require. But with the leave of this bold man, another would be apt to think, that tho men may without the imputation of Levity alter their counsels, yet this arises from the imperfection of their natures, and particularly of their knowledge of future events, which tho it be no fault, yet it must be acknowledged a weakness, tho such a one as they are no more accountable for, then they are, because they cannot restore sight to a man born blind, or raise the dead. But it cannot be ascribed to God without a derogation to his infinite knowledge, and unerring judgement, and is therefore an argument of weakness, notwithstanding all that Crellius urges very weakly to the contrary, Ibid. Therefore that we may return where we first began, to the Decrees of God concerning the future, and final state of men; this is certain, that they with relation to their several and respective objects, are fixed and unmovable; for be they antecedent or subsequent to his foresight of mens faith or infidelity, it matters not in this case: the Scriptures however assure us, and right reason would confirm the same, that they are immutable, more stable then the Foundations of the Earth, or the Poles of the World, which may and shall be shaken, and stagger out of their places like drunken men, but the Counsel of the Lord that shall stand, For let holiness and perseverance be the cause or the effect of Gods election, yet all sober persons agree in this, that whoever lives a holy life, and perseveres in it, is undoubtedly chosen by God to eternal life, and whosoever lives and dies in his sins and impenitence, is certainly designed and shall be doomed to everlasting punishment: here the foundation of the Lord standeth sure, the Lord knoweth them that are his, and them that are not so. But Socinus who denys the certainty of Gods knowledge of many future events, viz. those which are contingent, such as are the actions of men, as depending upon the uncertain because free motions of their will; must in pursuance of this principle, deny the certainty of Gods Election; because he cannot foresee who will obey his commands and continue to do so, against all the temptations which they will meet with in the world to the contrary: and consequently he must say, what another would account Impiety to think, that God almighty for want of knowing the determination of mens choice, must likewise be ignorant of the final event of their actions: and therefore he who at present is the object of his Love, and designed by him for the joys of heaven, may in the conclusion for ought he knows, merit his displeasure, and be tumbled down to hell. Now that men may make such uncertain conjectures concerning their final state, and thereupon meet with a fatal and terrible disappointment, may be a certain tho a sad truth, and therefore no great wonder: But to think that it should thus happen to the Allwise creator of men, is to have too mean and dishonourable conceptions of him; and such the Socinians have, doubting not to aver, that God finds reason to alter not only his dispensations towards men according to their behaviour, but his own intentions of kindness and displeasure, choosing what at first he refused, and refusing afterwards what once he thought worthy of his Approbation and choice, Socin. prael. Th. cap. 7. A fifth Attribute in God, and which indeed cannot be separated from him, without overthrowing all Religion, is his Justice: and that not only as it signifies, his holiness and righteousness, but as it betokens his anger, indignation, his severity and displeasure against Sin and Sinners. And this the Scripture speaks very often of, Ps. 5. the Psalmist describes God as one not only that hath no pleasure in wickedness, v. 4. which arises from the holiness and righteousness of his nature, but as one likewise that hates all the workers of iniquity, v. 5. and particularly, who abhors the deceitful, and will destroy the Lying man. The wicked and him that loveth violence his Soul abhors, Ps. 11. 5. Hence he stiles himself a jealous God, jealous of his authority and honour, and will revenge the contempt of it: he is slow to anger, but yet will not acquit the wicked, forasmuch as he is jealous, and furious, who will take vengeance on his adversaries, and reserves wrath for his enemies, Nahum, 2, 3. and when God proclaims his name, the name by which he desires to be known, it is the God merciful and gracious, &c. but yet one that will by no means clear the guilty, Exod. 34. 6. Numb. 14. 18. he is Deus ultionum, the God to whom vengeance belongeth, Ps. 94. 1. the God of recompenses, Jer. 51. 56. and in short, a consuming fire, Heb. 12. 29. All which expressions seem plainly to denote, that Justice in God is a necessary and an essential attribute, and which you can no more separate from him then you can his nature: I mean that Justice which betokens his severity and indignation against sinners, and moves and inclines him to punish them, tho the punishment itself may in some sense be said to be arbitrary, and subject to the freedom of Gods will; as are also the Emanations of his goodness, and the effects of his power: but yet all this doth not hinder but that power and goodness may be essential Attributes of God, and are acknowledged so to be by the Socinians themselves: and the like we affirm of Justice, to the terrible effects of which, the Sins of men render them necessary obnoxious: all Guilt which is the inevitable consequence of Sin, being in its own nature an obligation to punishment. But Socinus, will furnish you with new notions concerning God in this matter, and quiter different then what either Jews or Christians have conceived of him. For he will tell you, that Justice and Mercy in God, not only as to their external effects as they are discovered in rewards and punishments, but likewise in themselves are not attributes essentially belonging to God, but are things purely arbitrary and indifferent: and particularly that justice as it bespeaks a hatred of sin and indignation against the workers of iniquity, is not a permanent property, or as he loves to speak a quality residing in God, which belongs to him per se, but ex accident, that is, it is a matter purely contingent, and the effect only of his free and mutable will Justitia ea, quae severitas vel vindicta, vel ira, vel indignatio, vel simili alio nomine unucupatur, non est qualitas seu mavis proprietas, nec avec residet in Deo, said tantummodo effectus est voluntatis ejus. Socin. disp. de Christo Servatore, p. 123. Nullam ejusmodi in Deo proprietatem, h. e. qualitatem in ipso perpetuo residentem, esse censemus, quae Deum ad peccata punienda simpliciter moveat. said id quod in ipso existens eum ad peccata punienda simpliciter movet, iram& severitatem, misericordiae oppositam, esse statuimus; quae non proprietas est in Deo perpetuo residens, said quoddle affectus quidam ipsius,& liberae voluntatis effectus. Crell. Resp. ad Grot. de Satisf. Christi. Cap. 1. . Now this as it is laid down by the Socinians I take to be not only a false but a dangerous position; forasmuch as it furnishes us with such a notion of God as is dishonourable of him, and will naturally led us to a contempt of him. But before I come to prove this,( forasmuch as I take it to be a matter of great importance in itself, and especially is so in our disputes with the Socinians, who have introduced this notion of God without Justice, in order to destroy the true reason of Christs death and sufferings, which was to give satisfaction to the Justice of God for the sins of mankind,) I must crave leave to lay down certain positions, which tho I might take for granted, and call postulata, as being commonly known and received Truths: yet I shall as I go along endeavour to prove them so. The first thing therefore which I shall lay down, is, that if there be a Providence, it must be chiefly and principally employed in the care and government of human affairs: for there can be no imaginable reason assigned, nay it would be contrary to all reason to suppose, that God should take care of Beasts and Inanimate Creatures, and neglect one of the noblest parts of the Creation, I mean man, for whose sake chiefly, next to his own Glory, he created the visible world, and to whom as to his vicegerant he hath given the Dominion over the works of his hand, having put all things under his feet. 2ly, There can be no providence nor care of human affairs without giving men Laws for the government of their actions: for as his providence towards other creatures is seen, in giving them certain laws of motion and rest suitable to their respective natures, and in guiding and governing them so, as may most tend to his own glory, and the welfare and beauty of the universe: so his government and care of men consists in giving them certain laws as Rules of their actions and manners; it being much more requisite upon many accounts that they should act by a certain direction; forasmuch as the confusion and mischief that must be the consequence of their disorderly living must be far greater, and more repugnant to the nature and righteousness of God, then if other creatures should swerve from the Laws of their creation; which yet they inviolably observe, except when God thinks fit to interpose, for the ends of his own Glory, and the good of men. 3dly, That Laws are so a Lex est regula actuum moralium, obligans ad id quod rectum est, Gr. de Jur. B.& P. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 9. Rule of Moral actions, as to put us under an obligation of yielding obedience to them, and in this they differ from Obligationem requirimus, nam consilia& si qua alia sunt praescripta honesta quidem said non obligantia, Legis aut Juris nomine non veniunt, Ibid. Ubi consilium datur, offerentis arbitrium est; ubi praeceptum, necessitas servitutis, Hieron. Lib. 2. contra Jovin. Decretum necessitatem facit, exhortatio liberam voluntatem excitat. Gratian. Dist. 4. ad sinem. good counsel and advice, which tho it tend to our advantage, and the promoting of our truest and best interest, yet it puts us under no necessary obligation of complying with it; every man being left to his liberty to take or refuse it at his pleasure. 4thly, That the violation of a Law naturally and necessary upon that very score makes a man liable to punishusent: which is but the same thing tho in other words with the foregoing proposition: for therefore are we obliged to yield obedience to Laws, because if we refuse to do so, we are thereby obnoxious to punishment. This is that which in the civil Law is called, Jus seu obligatio delicti, quo quis ab maleficium and poenam tenetur. The prescribing of a Law is the act of a Superior, whereby he obliges his Subject to regulate his actions according to that prescription; which if he refuses to do he may be called to an account as one that deserves to be punished for his disobedience Praeceptum ibi est, ubi est poena peccati, Ambr. Lib. de Viduis. Praecepto quisque non obtemperat, reus est& debtor poenae, August. Lib. de Sancta Virgin. . This is one of the prime dictates of nature Inter ea quae natura ipsa dictat licita esse, est& hoc, ut qui male fecit malum serat: quod Antiquissimum& Rhadamantheum Jus vocant Philosophi. Grot. de Jure B.& P. Lib. 2. Cap. 20. Sect. 1. , as well as the Language of Scripture, that he who doth wrong, not only as that signifies injury, but any evil in general, should receive for that evil that he hath done Coll. 3. 25. Lastly, That there is a necessary relation between punishment and justice, whose office among other things is to distribute rewards and punishments. I do not say that Justice is always obliged to exact the punishment, which the Delinquent is always and necessary obliged to suffer, I mean is necessary obnoxious to; but wherever there is punishment if just, it must flow from that Habit or Attribute which we call Justice; and that not only as it bespeaks Righteousness and Equity; but likewise as it signifies that severity and indignation which every lawgiver is supposed to conceive against him that transgresseth his Laws, who thereby violates his Authority and offends against the public good. It hath been doubted indeed whether in human punishments, the Civil Magistrate may aim at the vindicating of his own Authority, considered abstractedly from the public good. And here that famous passage of Seneca Nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est, said ne peccetur: revocari enim praeterita non possunt, futura prohibentur, Lib. 1. de Clem. Cap. 6. is often cited upon this occasion, which he translated out of Plato de Leg. no wise man punishes a fault because it hath been committed, but least the like should be committed again: for what is past cannot be recalled, but wise and good men in punishment aim at preventing mischief for the future. But tho this may be true with respect to men, yet it is not so with regard to almighty God, to whom as Grotius in the forementioned Book and Chapter Sect. 4. hath very truly and judiciously observed, those sayings of Plato and Seneca would be very ill applied; forasmuch as God in punishing the sins of men, may very righteously, and oftentimes doth aim at nothing but the asserting of his own honour, and vindicating the authority of his Laws, and in short, the revenging the contempt and violation of them: as is evident in certain invisible punishments inflicted upon some sinners in this life, such as are obduration and giving them up to a Reprobate sense; and will be much more evident in those everlasting punishments( for so we will make bold to call them whatever the Socin. may say to the contrary) in the life to come, where God can aim at nothing but the satisfaction of his Justice, and thereby the manifestation of his own Glory Certé poenas quorundam valdé perditorum à Deo non ob aliud( scil. extra se) exigi, sacra verba testantur, cum dicunt eum voluptatem capere ex ipsorum malo, subsannari atque irrideri impios à Deo. Tum vero& extremum judicium post quod nulla expectatur emendatio, immo& in hac vita poenae quaedam in conspicuae ut Obduratio, verum esse quod contra Platonem dicimus evincunt. Ibid. . But whatever the reasons may be of inflicting punishment either by God or man, yet Justice is the hand that inflicts it: which is called distributive or vindictive, and is therefore defined by an Apud Grot. Ibid. ancient writer from one of its noblest offices to be {αβγδ}, an exacting of punishment: And by Plutarch to the same purpose, to be {αβγδ}, ultrix in eos qui adversus legem divinam delinquunt. Now these things being thus premised, I proceed to make good my charge against the Socin. in calling that not only a false but a dangerous Opinion of theirs, which makes Justice to be no necessary or essential Attribute in God, but a matter purely Arbitrary and Contingent, as being the effect only of his free will. 1st. Then this Opinion I say is false and impious, because it furnishes us with such an idea of God as is dishonourable of him and will naturally led us to a contempt of him; because it teaches us so to conceive of God, as of one that is not necessary concerned in the Actions of men and the affairs of the World: that is, it gives us a notion of a God without a providence; for if there be a providence, it must chiefly and principally be employed( as was said in our first Prop) in the care and government of Human Affairs; there can be no government without Laws, no Laws without the sanctions of Punishment, either expressed or necessary implyed in all such Laws; no punishment without Justice to inflict it; and consequently( that we may bring both ends of our Sorites together) where there is no justice, there is no providence; and where the one is not necessary, the other is not so too. Therefore tho the Socin. do aclowledge Gods providence and that he doth actually govern the World, yet this doth not take off the charge of falsehood and impiety from this position of theirs; because thereby they make his providence to be a contingent and perfectly an arbitrary matter; you may notwithstanding all this have a true notion of God and do him no wrong, if you conceive of him as one that may be unconcerned in the actions of men, who after he hath sent them into the world, may suffer them to live as they please, every man doing that which is right in his own eyes: which yet is great Impiety so much as to imagine; forasmuch as it is repugnant to the infinite perfections of almighty God, helps to debase him in our thoughts, to weaken that reverence and esteem which arises in our minds when we conceive of him; and thereby leads us naturally and inevitably from a disesteem to a denial of him. So that what at first I called a dangerous I am now afraid ●n the conclusion will prove to be an Atheistical assertion: upon which account Epicurus among the Ancients was generally accounted an Atheist; Cicer. de Natura Deo. Lib. 1. Cap. 123. Posidonius the stoic thought him so, and that it was only the Envy and Infamy which attended ●uch persons, which obliged him not profess himself one: But what in words he affirmed, he did in deed effectually overthrow: For by denying Gods providence, Ibid. Re sustulit, Oratione reliquat deos. In which charge against Epicurus, Cotta the Academik hath had the consent of all wise men among the Heathens, as well as the suffrage of Christians: whose way of arguing would be of no force, had they not been of Opinion, that if there be a God who made the World, there must necessary be a Providence; and if a Providence, I am sure there must be that Attribute in God which we call Justice, without which that other can never be exercised. But you will say that God may give men Laws for the government of their Actions, and that will be a sufficient vindication of his providence, tho he assigns no punishment to the breach of them. That is, tho we cannot conceive a God without a providence, yet we may conceive a providence without Justice. Indeed Socinus hath told us so, for speaking of the command of God to Adam in Paradise, Requiring him not to eat of the forbidden fruit, and the threatening annexed, In the day thou eatest thou shalt die the death, Gen. 3. which threatening Covet, his adversary told him, did flow from that Justice in God which we have hitherto been speaking of; he Answers, that this Justice was not any thing in God inbaering in him, and therefore nothing could flow from it, as being only an accidental effect of his free will: Socin. Disp. de Christo serve. pars prima p. 123. Cum à me ostensum fuerat, ejusmodi justitiam in Deo non veré residere, nec proprié Dei qualitatem dici posse, said tantummodo effectum voluntatis ejus; nihil ex ea fluere potuit: as much as if he had said, non entis nullae sunt operationes, what is not, can have no influence to produce any thing. And for a confirmation of this he adds, Quod verum esse deprehendetur, si consideremus, potuisse Deum praeceptum illud homini tradere, neque tamen poenam Mortis, si illud non servasset addere: Immo ne poenam quidem ullam. Ibid. that God might have given Adam( and what God might have done to Adam, he might undoubtedly have done to all the Sons and posterity of Adam) this law, and not have annexed Death as the punishment of the breach of it, nay if he had so pleased he might have assigned no punishment at all. But this is delivered by Socinus with the same Confidence as are many of his other absurd Errors, in which he stands single by himself, against the constant and uniform suffrage of Divines Ancient and modern, Fathers and Schoolmen, Philosophers and Lawyers, and those both Canonists and Civilians: among whom it passes for an uncontrolled maxim, That, that is very vainly and impertinently commanded which may be securely neglected. Frustra est aliquid praecipere, quod impuné potest negligi: and this bold position he lays down, and gives us not the least reason for it, but his own affirmation. But tho he gives us no reason for his assertion, I am sure there is very great as well as very apparent reason against it; forasmuch as such Laws as these will neither secure the honour of God, nor serve the ends of his providence; being but in the nature of good advice, which as we said before, every man is at liberty to take, or refuse at his pleasure. So that while he makes the Law precarious, at the same time and for the same reason he makes the Obedience of men so too: in which case God must be beholding not to his own Authority, but to the good nature of his Creatures, that they yield any obedience to his commands. Perhaps you will say there may be other obligations, besides those of punishment which men may be under to practise their duty: such as are those of Honour and Gratitude, and the strong tie of Reason, which will bind a man to comply with his Duty, if there were no other motive to it, but this, that to do otherwise will be to act unsuitably to the dignity of his nature. All this may be fine in speculation, but will signify little when reduced to practise: the generality of men being governed by sense, the motions of which are too headstrong and furious to be kerbed by the bare commands of reason, when they are not enforced with the fear of punishment: the voice of which will be as feeble as that of old Eli to his rebellious sons, far too weak to master their violence: and therefore that frantic woman that some have talked of, who brought fire in one hand to burn up Paradise, and water in the other to quench the flames of Hell, if she had succeeded in her design, instead of promoting would have extinguished all virtue, and soon have rooted it out of the world. In short, to sum up what hath been said upon this subject: if there be no Justice naturally in God, there might have been no Providence, and if no providence, then men might have been left to the conduct of their own giddy and unruly passions, which would soon break through the restraints of reason; and when men were thus left to the government of Lust and Sense, the unavoidable consequence of this must have been, that the world would have been filled with Blood and Murders, with Impurity and Uncleanness, with Theft and Rapine, with Injustice and Oppression, and the gentle race of men would soon have become worse then the worst of wild Beasts, preying upon and devouring one another. And to suppose that God could be unconcerned at all this, as if there be no Justice in him which inclines him to punish such wickedness, he might be; is to have such a notion of God as it is reported Lewis the 11th of France had of his Leaden God which he carried about him, and when he had caused any man to be murdered, or done the like mischief, he would take it into his hands, and kiss it, and beg pardon, and then all was well again, and he himself became immediately safe if not innocent. In short at this rate, we should not dishonour God if we so conceived of him, as of one who did not necessary act according to the eternal and unalterable Rules of wisdom, Goodness, and Righteousness, that he might be a God not of Order but Confusion, which is not only an Impious, but a Blasphemous assertion. 2ly, My second reason why I account this Position of Socinus about Gods justice to be false and dangerous, is because it takes away the distinction between Laws Positive and Natural; which distinction hath hitherto been looked upon, not only to be true but sacred; forasmuch as the contrary would open a Gap to all manner of impiety and wickedness. Now positive Laws are accounted such as owe their original only to Gods free will and pleasure; and therefore as they cannot be known, so they cannot oblige any but those to whom he hath made such a declaration, and discovery of his pleasure. Jus naturale est dictatum rectae rationis, indicans, alicui actui, ex ejus convenientia aut disconvenientia cum ipsa natura rationali, inesse moralem turpitudinem aut necessitatem moralem, ac consequenter à Naturae Autore, talem actum aut vetari aut praecipi. Actus de quibus tale extat dictatum, debiti sunt aut illiciti per se, atque ideo à Deo necessario praecepti aut vetiti intelliguntur, quâ notâ distat hoc jus non tantum ab humano jure, said& à Divino voluntario, quod non ea praecipit, aut vetat, quae per se ac suâpte naturâ aut debita sunt, aut illicita; said vetando, illicita, praecipiendo debita facit. Grot. de Ju. B.& P. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Sect. 10. Natural Laws are those which are discovered by the light of nature, as being the necessary result of our Constitution, and that relation which we bear to God as rational Creatures: many of which tho revealed in Scripture, yet in themselves they are obligatory, antecedent to any such revelation. Now these Laws do necessary suppose Justice in God, without which they would be insignificant: for tho natural Laws owe their Original to the holiness of God, as being but a transcript of those essential Rules of righteousness which make up his nature; yet all their force and obligation,( without which they are not properly Laws) results from his Justice; that is, from the fear of punishment, which the Law threatens, and Justice inflicts, without which they would be perfectly insignificant. From which by a just and necessary consequence it unavoidably follows, that if there be natural Laws, there must be Justice naturally in God: so on the other hand, if there be no Justice, there can be no Laws of nature, forasmuch as without the former, they can have neither Force nor Obligation, nor consequently have the formal reason of Laws. 3dly And Lastly, This Opinion of Socin. is both false and Impious, because it tends to overthrow all natural Religion, by supplanting that which is the chief if not the only support of it in the world, and that is the fear of God. For take away his Justice as this Socinian hypothesis doth, and then you have left nothing in him which a man governed by the light of nature need to fear: not his unity, nor his eternity, nor immensity, not his holiness, nor his goodness to be sure; nor Lastly his power which in conjunction with the former, as it necessary is in God, is as harmless and innocent as either of the former Attributes, when it is not moved nor excited by a just displeasure and indignation. imagine therefore a Socinian were to discourse a Pagan, I would feign know how upon this principle, he could convince him that it were his Duty to worship God, and to live a virtuous life: he might tell him indeed, and tell him with great Truth, that the Divine nature and perfections are in themselves a just ground of Esteem and Adoration: That virtue hath many and those powerful tho invisible charms, as being both agreeable to our Reason, and at the same time serves to promote our welfare and happiness in this world; yet all this would lay him under no obligation to do that, which otherwise would be highly reasonable and fitting to be done: suppose it be honest, suppose it rational, suppose it his Interest, yet he is left to his liberty, and may, and no doubt will do what he pleases for all that: he may act indeed like a fool and a Bruit, yet he is guilty of no sin in the mean time; for where there is no Justice, there can be no fear of punishment, where there is no punishment, there is no obligation, nor consequently Law; and where there is no Law, there can be no transgression. So that tho his reason may upbraid him with the folly, his Conscience in this case would never check him for the guilt of his vices; which if the Laws of his Country did not take some care to prevent, he might securely practise without any fear of Gods displeasure. In short, notwithstanding all the fine discourses about the beauty and aimableness of religion and virtue; the inclinations of sense, would soon bear down the dictates of Reason, and the slightest temptations would prove too strong for these airy speculations; and as to the generality, the conclusion which they would draw from this principle, would be, Let us eat and drink for to morrow we die, and after death comes no reckoning or account. Come on let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the Creatures like as in youth: Let us fill ourselves with costly ointments, and let no flower of the spring pass by us: Let us crown ourselves with Rose buds before they are withered, Let none of us go without his part of our voluptuousness: Let us leave tokens of our joyfulness in every place; for this is our portion, and our Lot in this. Wisd. 2. v. 6, 7, 8. But tho this notion overturns all natural Religion, yet it is itself effectually overthrown by the dictates of natural Conscience, which are an unanswerable proof both of the existence and the justice of God: for we must know that Conscience is something more then bare Reason: for Reason may direct, but Conscience will prescribe; Reason gives us a Rule for the government of our actions, Conscience passes that Rule into a Law, gives it its force and obligation. The Facultas injungendi aliquid per modum Legis aut praecepti infert superioritatem, quemadmodum obligatio parendi arguit nos inferiores esse eo, qui praecipere nobis potest; saltem qua Imperium ejus se extendit: Ob eam causam suis decretis immediate nemo potest obligari irrevocabiliter, Pussendorf. Elem. Jur. Lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 4. prescribing of a Law is the act of a superior, and no man is properly superior to himself, and consequently no man can by his own act, peremptorily oblige himself, except that act be enforced by some other and higher obligation. And therefore Conscience is not bare Reason, but reason as it is Gods vicegerent, clothed with his Authority, armed with his Justice: and therefore in a more Imperious way it commands our obedience, not only persuading us to our duty, but threatening for the neglect of it: it puts on a majestic air, tells us this must be done, or refuse it at your peril: indeed it executes the office, and susteins the person of a Legislator, a Witness, and a Judge: first prescribes a Law, then accuses for our disobedience, and lastly solemnly arraigns the Sinner for his guilt, and then passes sentence upon him. So that these actions of Conscience and the Tribunal that God hath erected there, are one of the clearest and most uncontrolled proofs of a future judgement, of which the former are a kind of Anticipation. And indeed if we look back to former times, and consult the History of Ages and Countries, the most ignorant and barbarous, we shall find, that as the light of nature hath directed them to the belief and acknowledgement of a God; so one of the earliest notions that arose in their minds when they have thought of him, hath been the Apprehension of his Justice: of which among other things, the numerous, tho many of them Impious and Ridiculous rites, which they made use of to appease the anger of their incensed Deities, are an irrefragable Argument. And this apprehension of divine Justice, was, as one of the principal causes, so one of the chiefest, if not the only support of natural Religion in the world. Now to apply this to our present purpose, and to bring the parts of our argument a little closer together: If men by the light of nature could discover this Attribute of Justice in God, it must unavoidably follow, that justice in him his natural; for the light of nature can discover nothing in God but what is so: whatever is the effet of Gods mere pleasure, and the result of his free will, can never be known but by Revelation; and it is impossible it should be otherwise discovered, except we should suppose men to be Omniscient, and that they may know more of God then they can of one another: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man that is within him? 1 Cor. 2. 11. so much less can any man discern the things of God but the spirit of God. He indeed searches the deep things of God, such as are the results of his free pleasure, and the counsel of his will; which lay hidden in the breast of God, and must forever have done so, had not he who lay in the bosom of his Father, revealed them unto us: and therefore if justice were as the Socinians tell us, the effect only of Gods free will, it must have lain undiscovered to the gentle world, to whom God vouchsafed no revelation of his will; which yet is contrary to the account which the Histories of all times and ages have given us of this matter: from whence it is evident that the belief of Gods Justice among men, is Coeval with that of his being, written in the same characters, and Engraven by the same Hand, that implanted the notion of a God in the minds of men; and if so, then the same hand that defaces the notion of Gods Justice, must at the same time and for the same reason Erase the belief of his existence out of the Souls of men: and I doubt not if the Socinians had lived in those days, by this Hypothesis of theirs, they would have been extremely serviceable to Theodorus, Diagoras, Democritus and Epicurus, in the design they were engaged in, of rooting the belief of a God and Religion out of the world; for they might have told men not only with great plausibility but truth,( if this opinion were true) that all those accusations of Conscience, and anxities of Mind, which were occasioned by the belief and dread of divine Justice, were the effect only of fancy and delusion, and did owe their Original not to a divine Impress, but to the Craft and Contrivance of Priests and politicians; who instilled into the minds of weak and unwary men, the vain fears of invisible powers; representing them armed with Thunder and with the Sword of Justice in their hands, whereas really there was no such thing; But all this they did to keep the world in awe, and thereby to compass the designs of their interest and ambition. What further design Socinus himself might have, or whether he had any other design by advancing this Opinion, then the overturning that great Article of our faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ; I shall not positively determine. Only this I cannot but acquaint the Reader with, which hath been long since observed likewise by others, that Socinus and his followers in all their books and disputations, have made it their business chiefly to cavil and make exceptions to their adversaries, not caring what became of Religion, so that they might with any colour avoid the Arguments with which they were pressed, as is in some measure made evident by several passages which we have quoted out of their writings in the foregoing discourse. And I have this further to add, that as Socinus: by denying the divinity and satisfaction of Christ, hath plainly overturned the foundation upon which the Christian Church and Religion have been built: so by this assertion about Gods justice, and by several others dispersed and sliely insinuated through his writings, he hath given a shrewd blow to all Religion whatsoever, whether natural, or revealed; so that an unwary Reader, by perusing his writings, may find himself an Atheist before he well perceives how he comes to be so: as he saith in another case, viz. his Opinion against Hell Torments, that he had so contrived the matter, ut lector prius sentiat doctrinam istam sibi jam persuasam esse, quam suaderi animadvertat 1. And now I should come to a conclusion of this discourse about Gods Justice,( which I have spun out to a greater length then I at first intended) But that I foresee an objection will be made against all that I have said, by the Socinians and their friends; who will be apt to say, that I have been taking a great deal of pains to no purpose, to aggravate the mischiefs of an Opinion, which admit it were false in speculation, yet as it is stated by them, can in point of fact and practise, carry no inconvenience imaginable along with it. For whatever God may do when left to his own liberty, yet he hath thought fit to oblige himself by positive promises and threatenings to reward the righteous and to punish the wicked: so that now by the revelation of his will he hath indeed abridged himself of his natural liberty, but hath thereby taken effectual care to secure his own honour, and to establish Religion in the world, and all this is plainly acknowledged by the Socinians. To which I answer, that this doth not take off the falsehood and Impiety of this Socinian opinion, which I was obliged to discover; any more then if a man should say, that God hath indeed resolved to act wisely and righteously in the government of the World; but that neither wisdom nor righteousness are necessary and essential Attributes perpetually residing in him, but are only the effects of his free will: which were a most irreligious and profane assertion, notwithstanding the former acknowledgement. 2. Tho the Socinians hereby take care of revealed, yet they overturn all natural Religion, as we shewed before, where God hath made no such Revelation of his will, or discovery of his intentions how he doth design to deal with men; Epis. 6. ad Volkel and so as far as in them lies, by this principle, they help to make the See Breerwoods inquiries, Cap. 14. much greatest part of mankind Atheists. 3ly, When God hath declared his purpose, and hath accordingly given men Laws for the government of their actions, and hath to those Laws expressly annexed the sanctions of rewards and punishment, yet according to the Socinian principles, this doth not sufficiently encourage men in virtuous practices, nor lay an effectual restraint upon the wicked. 1st, As to rewards it is true the Gospel affords us, as the Apostle tells us, exceeding great and precious promises 2 Pet. 1. 4. which exceed not only our deserts, but our hopes: But what absolute assurance have we that they shall be made good to us. They are only the effects as Socinus tells us Liberae, or as Vorstius explains it, vertibilis voluntatis, not only of a free,( for therein we agree with them,) but of a mutable will: for according to them, as was shewed before, God is liable to alterations, and may change his purpose as he doth the weather, sicut potest pluere vel non pluere: but tho the Morning proves never so fair, yet the Heavens may be overcast; and the Sun that Rose so gloriously, may set in a Cloud. In short, if we believe the Socinians, the promises of God considered barely in themselves are not a sufficient Basis for a Christians hope and security; forasmuch as God being Voluntas Dei est principium cujusdam mutabilitatis in Deo, Vorst. Disp. de Deo. p. 212. mutable in his nature, he may repent of what he promised, and change and alter his Resolution. And that the Reader may not think that I have wronged the Socinians in laying this to their charge, I must refer him to a Treatise writ by Crellius, de Causis Mortis Christi; where he will find this that I have affirmed of them abundantly made good. For there he tells us that the true reason of Christs dying for us, was that thereby he might be a Mediator, and surety of the Covenant which God hath made with men; for tho God had given men the promise of pardon of their Sins, yet that promise was no sufficient security, because he might have receded or started from it: Therefore to fix him as it were to his word, Christ was sent as a sponsor and surety of the New Testament, which in the name of his Father, he did confirm and ratify, by sealing it with his Blood; whereupon now God is obliged to make good his promise, so that if he had a mind to revoke it he cannot, the Death of Christ compelling him to preserve it Vis atque efficacia mortis Christi ad remissionem peccatorum comparandam tanta est, ut etiam Deum, si fort eum promissionis suae de remissione peccatorum,& liberatione ab interitu nobis concedenda poeniter●t( utimur phrasi sacris literis usitatá) movere atque impellere posset, ne promissum suum rese●nderet, said quod pollicitus esset, reipsa praestaret. Crell de Causis Mortis Christi. p 613. . Indeed he could not but be sensible, that what he had thus delivered, would sound harshly in the Ears of Most Readers, those especially who had any concern for the Honour of their Maker, which by this supposition was so highly and scandalously Invaded: therefore to mollify this matter he tells us, that the efficacy which he ascribes to Christs Death, was not absolutely necessary in respect of God; whose own Love, Grace and Mercy, might move and incline him to make good his promise; yet however this put him under no obligation; for if it had, there had been no need of the death of Christ, either in respect of God, or ourselves, either to have tied him to the performance, or to have afforded us security. Therefore he tells us Nam ut nos tanto certius credere possemus, nobis in Christum credentibus peccata remissum iri, plurimum referebat Deum ad id faciendum obligatum esse,& nos jus ad illud obtinendum habere; jus inquam manifestissimis ac certissimis documentis nixum, quod jam quicquid tandem interveniret, Deum non pateretur promissa sua rescindere, Ibid. , that we might have a firm bottom for our hope, that if we believed in Christ, that is, obeied his Gospel, our sins should be forgiven us; it highly concerned us that God should be obliged to perform what he had promised; and not only so, but that we might acquire a Right to pardon; which right he founds not in the promise of God but the Death of Christ, which he saith gives us such an undoubted Title to Mercy, and that supported by such a firm and manifest assurance and proof, as will not suffer God whatever may happen, to break his word, and recall his promise. Hic revera sinis ac scopus fuit, ever Deus Morte Christi se nobis obligare volverit, ut porro ad Christum morti tradendum impulsus suerit, Ibid. And this he tells us was the true reason of Christs coming into the world, and of Gods delivering him up to death for our sakes. By all which it is evident, that in the Opinion of this man, the promises of God considered nakedly in themselves, do not afford us a sufficient security; forasmuch as something may intervene; which may cause God to repent of what he promised, and thereby hinder the performance: and that you may not think that he had forgot himself, by making an impious or impossible supposition, he tells us, utimur phrasi sacris literis usitata; that they used a phrase which was frequently made use of in the Scripture itself, which often mentions Gods sorrow and repentance, and therefore it can be no disparagement to almighty God to ascribe it to him, it being rather in their opinion an argument of his wisdom, as was shewed before. I must indeed aclowledge that this very Author at another time, Lib. de Deo. Cap. 25. de Sancti Dei. p. 241. affirms that the promises of God put him under an obligation, and that both his veracity and faithfulness engages him to make them good. But it is as evident on the other hand, that here he supposes the contrary, and that his Argument proceeds upon that supposition. But by this time I hope the Reader will not be much surprised to find Socinians contradicting themselves, and he need not be concerned at it; for I can assure him, whether he will or no, they will take the liberty of so doing. And hereby we find the observation which we a little before made concerning them, confirmed; viz. that in their disputations and writings they care not what they say, having no regard to the honour of God or Religion; being only concerned for their own reputation, and to defend and maintain their own loose and unwarrantable Opinions. 2ly, But let us admit that God by his promises puts himself under an obligation to men, so that he cannot go from his word, but is obliged to make it good; yet he may be at greater liberty as to his threatenings. Indeed these as the Gospel represents them to us are very terrible, whether we consider the punishments threatened either as to their Intensive pain, or as to the extent of their duration; for we are told that the wicked shall go into everlasting punishment; that the worm that gnaws their Conscience shall not die, and the fire that torments them shall never be extinguished. This is indeed enough to make the Sinner look pale, and to fright him either out of his wits, or out of his wicked course of living. But for all this he need not despair of Mercy; for tho God hath threatened severely, yet no man living can absolutely tell us, if we believe Socinus, whether he is resolved to execute his threatenings. For as at first God might either not have punished the Sinner at all, or not with eternal death, so now tho he hath declared by his solemn Edict that he will do so, yet for all that he may if he pleases not inflict the punishment. Deus potuisset, idque jure, homines licet peccantes morti aeternae non mancipare, sic postquam eos morti aeternae Edicto suo mancipavit, ex illius imperio eximere potest. Socin. de Christo serve. Lib. 1. p. 124. Eximere potest, saith Socinus, he may exempt the Sinner notwithstanding his Decree of punishing him; and why may not he hope that he will: the bare threatenings according to Socinus do not oblige God to execute them: and the consideration of Gods Mercy and Justice, to which the Torments of Hell as he may imagine can scarce be reconciled, may upon that score afford him some ground to hope that he doth not design to do so. We know sinners are apt to allow themselves, as too great liberty in sinning, so to flatter themselves with too great hopes of Impunity; and if they meet with any such compassionate Casuists as Socinus, who will afford they any encouragement, they are presently apt to run away with it, and never look back, to see that vengeance which pursues, and will at length certainly over take them. But how comes this man to know any thing of God besides what he hath revealed of himself in his word: must we have recourse to that exploded distinction of the Calvinists, and for which they have been so much railed at by their adversaries, concerning the revealed, and the secret will of God: for tho the question in the case may seem to be about the power of God, yet really and in truth it is about his will; forasmuch as God cannot do what he hath solemnly declared he will not do; and that for this plain and irrefragable reason, because God cannot deny himself. And now have we not reason to put the question, and inquire, whether went the Spirit of God from the Inspired writers, to rest upon the head of this Impostor, who makes his exceptions to what they have declared as the peremptory and unalterable decree of God. Nay who boldly ventures to affirm that, which Balaam could not be hired to utter, tho tempted to it by the wages of unrighteousness; but makes that pious acknowledgement Numb. 23. God is not a man that he should lye, nor the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? hath he spoken, and shall be not make it good? Now if it be Impossible for God to lye, then it is not possible for him to alter the sentence concerning the final state of men; which is delivered in Scripture in such terms, as plainly evince it to be his peremptory and irrevocable decree: The happiness of the Righteous, and punishments of the wicked, as to the extent of their duration, being expressed in the same words, and in the same sentence: and if it be possible to know any thing of the Absolute and Immutable pleasure of God; the wit of man could not contrive any plainer words, then what the wisdom of God hath already made use of, to declare his final and unalterable intentions, concerning the everlasting punishment of the wicked. Besides it deserves to be considered, that this Declaration is not only delivered in the manner of a threatening, but likewise by way of prediction, in the fullfiling of which, the veracity of God may seem to be more particularly concerned, then in the execution of a bare threatening delivered in a Sermon, or Exhortation, or the like. Now in those glorious visions which were communicated to St. John which he stiles the word of God, the Testimony and Revelation of Jesus Christ, concerning the things which were, and which should be hereafter, Rev. 1. v. 1, 2, 19. which are styled the true sayings of God, ch. 19. v. 9. the words that are faithful and true ch. 21. v. 5. I say in these visions are contained, as the state and events of the Church till the final dissolution of all things; so likewise the condition and fate of the Righteous and Wicked, after the judgement of the last day. Ch. 20. 21 he tells us that he saw the dead, both small and great, stand before God, and they were all judged according to their works, and whoever was not found written in the Book of Life, was cast into the Lake of fire, ver. 15. called ver. 10. the lake of fire and brimstone, where the Devil, and the Beast, and the false Prophet shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. And what is said in general of the wicked, we are assured shall betid the fearful, and unbelievers, and the abominable and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, who shall have their part in that lake, which burneth with fire and brimstone, Rev. 21. 8. this is that furnace of fire which our blessed Saviour so often mentioneth, Mat. 13. 42. 50. that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his Angels, Mat. 25. 41. That fire, which again and again he assures us Mark. 9. shall not be quenched, no less then five times within the compass of Six, verses 43, 44, 45, 46, 48. to declare unto us by this Repetition, the certainty of this thing, as in the case of Pharohs Dream, which was doubled to assure him that the thing was established by God. Gen. 41. 32. The wit of man could not find out words more full and significant, to express the eternal duration of these punishments, and Gods unalterable purpose to inflict them. Now to say, notwithstanding all this, that yet in the conclusion, things may happen to be otherwise then what the Son of God hath declared, and this servant of God hath foretold, is with great boldness to contradict them both: and if it be possible that these predictions may not be accomplished, then the words are not faithful and true, that is, are not undoubtedly and absolutely true: so that at the same time, that Socinus puts an end to the certainty of Hell Torments, he doth likewise put an end to the certainty of the writings of the New Testament, and the predictions that are contained there: which is highly derogatory to the Authority of those sacred Writings, and particularly of the Revelation of St. John; which looks too much like the taking away from the words of the prophesy of that Book; which yet I hope it is not, because of that dreadful punishment which attends those that do so, Rev. 22. 19. In short, if things may happen otherwise then St. John foresaw and foretold, some sceptics and Infidels, which the age we live in doth too much abound with, may be apt to account that a dream, which he calls a vision; and to think, the holy man was scarce awake when he pretended to foresee these things. Neither ought the case of Temporal threatenings be objected here in favour of Socinus's assertion: forasmuch as God himself hath told us, that in all such Threatenings, a condition is to be supposed, tho it be not always expressed; so that tho they are delivered in terms seemingly absolute, yet God without any impeachment of his veracity, may upon the performance of the condition revoke them. At what instant, saith God, I shall speak concerning a Nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the Evil, that I thought to do unto them, Jer. 18. 7. 8. and this was the case of Niniveh, where tho the threatening was seemingly peremptory, yet the execution was suspended upon their Repentance, which was the end of the threatening. But as to the punishments of the life to come, the threatenings of them must be absolute and unconditional, forasmuch as there can then be no room for Repentance and amendment: every mans state will then be finally determined: he that is filthy will be filthy still, without any possibility of change, or hope of pardon: and this is that which fills up the measure of the punishment of the damned: he that sinned without the fear of God in this life, shall be punished without Mercy in the next; and this despair will be that worm which will seed upon him to all eternity, which shall ever torment, but never devour the sinner, who will then become a terror to himself and an evelasting amazement. In short therefore, and to sum up all that remains to be said upon this subject; he that goes about to weaken the force of those declarations which God hath made concerning the eternal punishment of the wicked, gives a dangerous blow to all revealed Religion, of which we can have no certainty, if once we undermine the veracity of God, which is the foundation upon which it is built, and by which it is supported. But you will say the hopes which Socinus gives the sinner are but very slender, and those remote ones, which no man in point of prudence or safety should venture to rely upon. I confess I think so too: but for all this sinners will be bold and presumptuous: and you cannot wonder that men should grasp at any thing; lay hold upon any the weakest twig, rather then sink into Hell. But if this be not enough, Socinus can give the sinner more positive and direct encouragement; such as will not only put an end to the Torments of Hell, but likewise to his own vain and superstitious fears concerning them, and will extinguish those flames, which our blessed Saviour( who one would think should best know) hath assured us are unquenchable, but of this more hereafter. Now if what hath been hitherto said is not sufficient to show the impiety and detestableness of these Socinian notions, he that will be at the pains to peruse their writings, or will but have the patience to red what is here transcribed out of them, will find( if it were possible) yet greater abominations then these: particularly in the account which they give of those affections and passions which they ascribe to God, and with which indeed the Scriptures represent him to us, but in a quiter different sense then they are understood and interpnted by the Socinians; who give us such a description of almighty God as is repugnant to piety, and to the general sentiments, not only of all sound Christians, but even of Jews, and manysober heathens, who have had truer and more honourable conceptions of the nature of God, then these men furnish us with; who cloath him with all the passions and weaknesses of men, ascribing to him love and hatred, mercy and compassion, hope and desire, joy and sorrow, fear and repentance, which they make to be truly and properly in God, tho not exactly in the same manner as they are in men, no more then they are in other created spirits, or the Soul of man itself in its state of separation from the Body: that is, they are there, but without any motion, or sensible alteration of the Blood and Spirits, such as is to be found in men. But our Religion and right reason will inform us, that these things are attributed to God, but it is {αβγδ}, in a figurative sense, representing thereby to us the various administrations of Gods providence towards divers objects, who as they are endowed with different qualities and dispositions, so God is pleased to exercise different actions towards them; which actions in men indeed arise from different principles and passions, but do not so in God, who amid the variety of the actions and dispositions of men, and his dealings suitably to them, yet in his essence he continues still the same, without any perturbation or the least shadow of change. And therefore Divines tell us, and particularly Limburg, that these things are ascribed to God Non cum relatione ad ipsum Deum, said in ordine ad ipsa objecta, quae extra deum sunt, circa quae Deus operatur. Lib. 2. Cap. 10. 2 See Episcop. out of whom Limburg hath transcribed his Divinity, just. Th. Lib. 4. cap. 22. Quod non sic acc●pivadum est quasi affectus nulli proprie ac per se Deo competant: contra enim in Deo credimus affectus esse. Natura divinorum affectuum vix aliter à nobis concipi atque estimart potest, quam ex natura affectuum humanorum, five per similitudinem& Analogiam quam habent cum affect●●us humanis. , not with respect to God, but with a regard to those objects about which the acts of his providence are conversant, according to that known maxim of the School-men, affectus in deo notant effectus; and so far he is Orthodox: but a little after in the same Section: he overthrows what but just before he asserted, and so interprets and explains himself, that a Socinian cannot be displeased with his Opinion. For first he makes these affections to be acts, or as Crellius calls them commotions of Gods will, which some have thought could not be properly ascribed to him, without overthrowing the simplicity as well as immutability of his divine nature. But to let that pass. 2. He makes these passions in God to be Analagous to those in men, without which Analogy, or resemblance, there is no reason he saith why the Scriptures should ascribe them to God. Si nihil illis Analogum deo tribuamus, nulla apparebit ratio, cur iisdem cum affectibus humanis nominibus appellentur. So saith Limburg, Loc. supra citat, sunt enim in nobis affectus commotiones quaedam atque inclinationes appetitus, cvi vim facultatemque Analogam voluntas divina in se complectitur. So saith Crellius Cap. 26. p. 297. and here I think they perfectly agree. But for once we will make so bold as to ask these Gentlemen, whether when the Scriptures attribute hands, and feet, and eyes and ears to God, they think that there is something in the nature of God, that is, Analogous, and bears any resemblance to these parts of a mans Body, without which they could not with any reason be applied to him. Tho I have reason not to be overconfident of a Socinian, yet in this case I will take it for granted, they would both answer in the negative, and that there were here no {αβγδ}, but what the Fathers, and particularly St. Crysostome upon many occasions so often mention {αβγδ}, nay there is {αβγδ}& {αβγδ} or if in imitation of St. Paul you will join these two words together, there is {αβγδ}; nothing to be supposed in God by way of resemblance, but an exceeding great and adorable condescension in him, who stoops to our capacities, and expresses some properties and operations of his, by such parts, which are the Instruments of the like operations in men. So with the same truth, and for the same reason it should be averred, when human passions are ascribed to God, it is not by reason of any resemblance that is between God and Men in these affections; but by reason of that Analogy or similitude that is to be found between the operations of God, and these actions of men; which in them arise from such commotions of the Soul which we call passions, but in God proceeds from his simplo and uncompounded nature, who is Infinite and unchangeable, and therefore as our Church in conformity to the Scriptures hath taught us to believe, is without parts and without passions. Articles 1st. The Impiety of this opinion will further appear from a consideration of those particular passions which the Socinians affirm to be in God; which cannot truly be ascribed to him, without a great disparagement to his Infinite and adorable perfections, and those are Fear and Grief: under which we must comprehend sorrow and repentance, which properly respect things past, whereas Grief and trouble which always attend it indifferently respect things either past or present. And these are passions which necessary infer a weakness in God, such as a stoic would not allow in his wise and virtuous man. And first for fear, Crellius Sapientiae ipsius, quatenus circa creaturas versatur in peccata pronas, effectum esse proprié necessarium, Cap. 31. p. 324. will tell us that tho at first view this passion cannot without a seeming absurdity be attributed to God, yet he is truly liable to it, and indeed it is the necessary effect of his wisdom, as it is conversant about creatures prove and liable to sin. And this he proves from Deut 22. 26, 27. I said I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease among men, were it not that I feared the wrath of the Enemy, least their adversaries should say our hand is high, and the Lord hath not done all this. and then refers you to two other places before mentioned Exod. 32. and Numb. 14. where we have instances as he tells us of Gods altering his purpose of destroying the Children of Israel, out of this principle of fear Moses Deum à proposito perdendi populi Israeliti●i revocasse dicitur, Argumento met●endi mali Eventùs; quod s●il, Hostes Deum essent caluminaturi, videtur Deus hunc eventum, utpote sua natura poss●hilem, suo modo metuisse,& propterea à proposito suo recessisse. Vorst. Notae ad Disp. 10. p. 451. : least the Heathens and particularly the Egyptians, should misconstrue his actions, and for want of knowing the true reasons which moved him to this severity, impute it either to a malicious design, as if he had rescued them out of the hands, and delivered them from the Tyranny of pharaoh, that he might have the Glory of their overthrow in the wilderness: or else to his Impotence that he was not able to complete their deliverance, and to bring them into the Land which he had so often promised them. Now God to save his honour which else might have suffered by this action, and to prevent the upbraidings of his Enemies, which he was extremely afraid of, was prevailed upon by the Entreaties of Moses, and the reasons which he offered, to spare those, whom in his thoughts he had solemnly devoted to destruction. He further refers his reader to several other places where God is said to do something which otherwise he was unwilling to do, or to omit the doing of something which before he was resolved upon, as Gen. 5. 22. Exod. 15. 17. 35. 3. &c. out of a just fear of what might happen: and this is so far from being with him an Argument of Imperfection, that he saith it is the result of wisdom and a just caution, in foreseing some probable events, and thus wisely preventing them. Ibid. 2. For Grief and trouble, these likewise by the same Metaphor are to be ascribed to God, that is, saith Crellius, forasmuch as all Metaphors arise from similitude, something like these must be found in him. And for proof of this he quotes all those places of Scripture, where God is said to be provoked, to be displeased and grieved, Ps. 78. 40, 46. Ps. 106. 33. Esay. 3. 8. 2 Sam. 11. 27. and particularly that memorable place Esay. 1. 14. where God is said to hate the New moons and feasts of the Jews, they are a trouble to me saith God, I am weary to bear them. Where he hath this remark Cap. 31. p. 319. these things are then said to be troublesone to us, and which we cannot well bear Ea Demum molesta sunt,& in ill●s suslinendis laboramus, quae dolorem aliquem nobis asserunt. . which bring uneasiness and a certain disquiet along with them. And to say and think this of God, is so far from tending to his dishonour, that the contrary conceit would overthrow all Religion, forasmuch as it would introduce an Opinion concerning God fit only for stoics and Epicureans to entertain of him: quis enim, saith he, who can form such a notion of God, as of one that is not affencted with pleasure, nor sensible of pain, nisi qui ad Epicureorum vel Stoicorum saltem sententiam de Deo accedere vult, Loc. citat. 321. a God enjoying pure and unmixed pleasure, perfect rest and an uninterrupted tranquillity, never disturbed with passions, nor disordered by any of the actions of men, or the changes and revolutions that happen in the world; this doctrine concerning him is fit not to be preached in the Temples of Christians, but to be published in the schools of Zeno and Epicurus. Indeed we are beholding to him for that liberal concession, that this trouble and grief which he supposes to be in God, doth not arise from any Internal causes, such as are the indispositions of Body or mind which occasion grief in men, and make them uneasy: but only from external motives and reasons viz. the actions of his creatures Ex rebus extra deum existentibus, quas in creaturarum arbitrio posuit, Ibid. p. 320. . So that what God cannot do himself, he hath put it into the power of his Creatures to effect, so that if it were not for the follies and impieties of men he would be entirely happy, perfectly at rest; all that grief and trouble which affects him, is solely owing to the actions of his creatures, and not to any disorder of his own nature: A very pious acknowledgement. Lastly, for that sort of Grief which respects things past, which we call Repentance, this likewise is to be found in God: and not that only which signifies the alteration of his Counsels, or a change of his will, of which we have spoken before; which may indeed be called Repentance, but that saith Crellius is dilutior Metaphora Ibid p 322. : but as it betokens the passion and affection itself. And for this he quotes Gen. 6. 7. where it is said, that God repented that he made man, and that it grieved him at the heart. This is affectio in deo ingrata, Ibid. an affection that brings molestation with it, arising in God when he sees that those his actions which were so well designed by him, by the folly and malice of men, are so far perverted; as to produce effects so contrary to his Intentions. Now against all this it would be very natural for men to object, and the Socinian easily soresaw it, That what is thus asserted, must be quiter contrary to the sense of mankind, and to those notions which naturally arise in mens minds concerning the perfections of almighty God; for to suppose such variety of commotions in the mind of God, and these sometime opposite to one another, which cannot but occasion in him molestation and trouble; which must be further increased, when he finds his designs bassled, his Councils overthrown, his authority despised; which obliges him oftentimes to change his own purposes, and revoke his decrees: one would think that all this should really be not only a derogation to his Infinite perfections, but likewise a diminution of his happiness. 1st, As to what concerns the perfections of God, Crellius will tell you, that nothing of all this that is asserted of the nature of God is an Argument of Imperfection. It is true, he hath not the same notions of the perfections of God as you have. You may perhaps think him Infinite, but that is a weakness in you to think so: he is finite in his being, and consequently must be so in his Operations: he is limited in his presence to certain spaces: his knowledge hath its just bounds; he is mutable and liable to change: he is extended and for that reason must be made up of parts; in him you may find a composition of substance and accidents, and these oftentimes contrary to one another: he is clo●thed with passions, which have such a resemblance to those weaknesses of our nature, that from a Ex affectuum humanorum natura, à quibus ipse Dei spiritus ob Analogiam, ac similitudinem voces ad Deum transfert, aestimanda nobis erit natura illorum voluntatis Dei actuum. Cap. 29. de Affect. Dei. p. 297. consideration of human passions, we must make a judgement and frame our apprehensions of those motions which are to be found in God. And these motions in God are sometimes more calm, at other times more violent and impetuous, the Impieties of men provoking him to that degree that he is earnestly bent upon their destruction, but afterwards calmed by their prayers: now angry at men for their Sins, by and by appeased by their Repentance. Sometimes you will find him doing a thing, by and by repenting the doing of it; one while resolved upon one action, and anon resolving the quiter contrary: and all this to be found truly and formally in God, and not in that figurative sense in which the Scriptures ascribe them to him. For saith the same Author, separate all impurity from those passions, all corporeal mixture, nay it must be concretio terreni corporis, the mixture of a terrestrial body, that you may not mistake him: for there is a spiritual Body, and celestial matter which may belong to God himself: in short exclude all Impotence and Imperfection from these affections,( and indeed it must be a very nice and Metaphysical abstraction that is able to do it) and then whatever remains in the true notion and formal conception of these passions, are still to be supposed and must be left there, when applied to God himself. Sejungenda quaecunque Imperfectionem aut Imbecillitatem resipiunt, caetera, quae in natura cernuntur affectuum illorum, quorum nomina deo tribuuntur, esse relinquenda. Ibid. But however tho this should prove no Imperfection, yet the uneasiness and disquiet, that is the inseparable attendant, on grief and fear and sorrow, those tormenting passion, must one would think interrupt that tranquillity which we suppose God to be possessed of, and consequently be an abatement of his happiness. To which he answers first in general, Ut injucundum quendam rerum malarum sensum, ei tribuere non liceat. Idem Cap. 31. p. 321. that we ought not indeed to urge any expressions in Scripture, so far as to oppose the happiness of God; so neither on the other hand ought we to urge the belief of his happiness, so as to affirm him not to have a true sense of evil, mixed with uneasiness. But more particularly, you must consider in this case that tho men by their Sins Ea quae voluntati divinae adversa sunt, illius beatitudinem non evertunt aut Laedunt. Ibid. may grieve God, yet they cannot hurt him: tho they may disturb, yet they cannot deprive him, of any of his essential perfections. That is something, but not enough; for among men we are apt to account it an unhappyness to be robbed of our ease and quiet, tho they that do so should not have it in their power to deprive us of any thing else. Therefore 2ly, tho there are somethings of that force as to be able to create dolorem& molestiam, grief and molestation to God; yet the number of those other things which afford him satisfaction and pleasure, do so far exceed and overbalance them Ut vim ingratarum rerum& molestiam quam parere possunt, aut tollunt, aut imminent, p. 321. , that they do much abate the trouble and uneasiness that is occasioned by them: a Blessed Apology for the perfections and happiness of almighty God! And thus much shall serve to be said upon the first head, concerning the nature of God considered absolutely in himself, and his divine attributes; by which we may see the difference between what the Scriptures say, and what the Socinians affirm of him: and I doubt not but the pious Reader, will not only be offended, but struck with a just horror and amazement, at the boldness and impiety of these blasphemers, who are thus injurious to their maker, and think and speak thus dishonourably of him. But how little regard, and how mean soever their conceptions be of God, yet they have a good opinion of themselves; in that they make not only their reason to be the adequate Judge of his revelations, but even their own passions and weakness, the rule by which they measure, at least make an estimate of his infinite nature and most adorable perfections; an attempt, besides the impiety of it, more ridiculous, then if a man should endeavour to take the dimensions of the Heavens with a single span, or to fathom the depth and reach the bottom of the Ocean with his little finger. In the next place we must consider God Relatively in the great mystery of the Trinity. And that which the Scriptures teach us to believe of this matter, is briefly summed up in the first Article of our Religion established in this Church concerning faith in the Holy Trinity, in these words; In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, Power and Eternity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Or as it is with some alteration of words, but to the same purpose expressed, in the Doxology to be repeated upon Trinity Sunday; wherein we are taught to make this acknowledgement of almighty God, That he is one God, one Lord, not one only person, but three persons in one substance; for that which we believe of the Glory of the Father, the same we believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any difference or inequality. A brief but comprehensive Epitome, of what is more largely declared and explained, in the Creed, which the Socinians and Remonstrants have so great a spite against, commonly called the Athanasian Creed. This is the Faith of all the Reformed Churches, being herein Agreeable to the doctrine held by the Church of God in all Ages, ever since the first planting of Christianity in the world; what we and they believe of this matter, being conformable to the plain and express declarations of Scripture, and especially of what Christ and his Apostles have delivered to us concerning this matter, in the writings of the New Testament. For this you may consult the Harmony of their Confessions; both Lutheran and Calvinist all exactly agreeing in this doctrine, without any the least difference or variety: where you may likewise see the consent of the catholic Church from the first Ages next to that of the Apostles, from whose inspired writings the Fathers received this Doctrine, which by an uninterrupted Tradition, thro all the successive Ages of the Church, hath been delivered and brought down to the times we live in: In this Faith we have all been baptized, being at our first admission into the Christian Church, solemnly consecrated to the worship and service of those three ever blessed and glorious persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost Mat. 28. These being the three that bear witness in Heaven, and these three are one, 1 Jo. 5. 7. For that Text we shall not easily part with, notwithstanding the Cavils of the Socinians, and the over officious endeavours of some others, whether Papists or Protestants, who would weaken the Authority of that Testimony, and thereby rob us of the advantage of it. For tho some Greek MSS. want it, yet there are others more approved and of greater antiquity in which you may meet with it. Besides it is to be found in the writings of the Ancients, tertul. Cypr. Athanasius, and Jerome who quote these very words: and if you have a mind to know more of this matter, without going any further, you may peruse what Mr. pool in his Synopsis hath quoted out of Gerhard, Dr. Hamond and other Writers in vindication of this Text. From which I think it will appear, that the Authority of this place remains clear and in full force, notwithstanding the attempts that have been made to overthrow it. Tho if we gave up this Text, yet we should not the holy Doctrine contained in it, which is so plainly delivered in other places of Scripture, and shines there with so bright a lustre, that a man had need wink hard, who would avoid the conviction; or else must have so great a confidence in his Eyes, that he may hope in time to stare the Sun itself out of countenance. For as in some places of Scripture he will find the unity of the Godhead asserted; so in others he will find the name, and not only so, but to avoid any Cavils and exceptions that may be made about the ambiguous signification of that word: he will find the same divine Attributes, and Operations, on all hands acknowledged to belong to God the Father, ascribed likewise to the Son and the Holy Ghost; who yet are always mentioned as distinct from one another: from whence by an easy and a necessary deduction, it must unavoidably follow, that since they are really distinguished from each other, and yet agree in the same common nature, as the same properties and the same operations, irrefragably evince; they must be, what we have been taught hitherto to believe and profess of them, in the Language of the Church, three Persons and one God. And as we pretend to agree in the same doctrine with the Ancient Church, so I think it is highly sitting, and for many just reasons in a manner necessary, to preserve the same words in which it hath been delivered down to us, in opposition to any new modes of speaking. For the Ancient words by prescription and long use, have obtained both a just Authority among Christians, and a settled and determinate signification: whereas new phrases may be liable to great exceptions, and introductive at long run of new and unwarrantable opinions about these mysteries; beyond the intention of them who first made use of them. Now against all this the Socinians will tell you, that this doctrine concerning the Trinity is so far from being a fundamental truth, that it is indeed the foundation of all the errors that have crept into the Christian Church; as being opposite to the Scriptures, and plainly repugnant to reason: it is a Popish doctrine, so saith Socinus Lib. quod Regni Polon. &c. cap. 4. so Welsing. Lib. de office. hoins Christiani, and by so saying they do exceedingly advance the Reputation of Popery, by making it of so great and venerable antiquity, embraced by all sound Christians ever since the Apostles days. It is a Paganish opinion, Ethnicisnum sapit, so saith Smalcius, Exam. Cent. Err So opposite to reason, that it is a wonder how any man in his wits could ever have thought of it. So saith Ostorod. he cannot imagine, quomodo homini ulli ratione praedito in mentem venire posset. Inst. Rel. Christianae Cap. 4. that is, sure it could never have entred into any mans head, that ever had any brains there. Nay it is not only a very foolish, but a very dangerous error, that puts a stumbling block, and rub in mens way to Heaven. Strange that that doctrine should be thought a hindrance to mens happiness, the belief of which by all good Christians hath hitherto been thought necessary to salvation: but so it is if you believe Socinus, Lib. supra cit. eodem cap. And indeed it is no wonder it should hinder men from going to Heaven, if it be true that Volkel. tells us, that this doctrine of the Trinity is not an Error that is oweing to the ignorance and mistakes of Men, but to the delusion of the Devil Volkel. de Vera relic. Lib. 5. Cap. 9. . That it is a blasphemous Doctrine as another of them saith Sunt blasphama Dogmata, ex imo Orco, per perditionis Ecclesiis Gentium, virtute Satanae obtrusa Theod. Schimberg. citat à Gerhardo in Fxeg Loc. 3. de Trin. , hatched in Hell, and from thence fetched by the Son of Perdition, and obtruded upon the Church. And if this be so, I I must profess myself to be of the same mind with Propediem Exsibilabitur ista absurdissima simul,& falsi●●ima de dei essentia Opinio. small. Contra ●ranz. small. and to hope with him, that this absurd and most false doctrine as he calls it, will shortly be chased and hissed out of the World. But farther, particularly concerning Christ, they tell us that he had no existence before his formation in the womb of the Virgin: and the being which he then had was purely human, and therefore what is said of the Divinity of Christ is a more fable small. Resut. Smig. Fabula ista mundo tunc non innotuerat. , owing to senseless and absurd interpretations of Holy Scripture Facessant hae imperitae ac absurd●e interpretationes Socin. in 5. Cap. 1. Epis. Johan. ver. 20. . The Account of his Eternal Generation, is a mere Romance, false, impossible, a plain contradiction Nugae, falsum, impossible, contradictionem implicat. small. Refut. Smigl. ad Nova Monst. Ar. ; the Idem Refut. Lib. de Incarn. cap. 3. Vanissimum Comment um otiosorum Hominum. contrivance of some idle trifling persons, who had nothing else to do but to invent such absurd and incredible notions. Here by the way, I must desire the Reader to take notice not only of the impiety, but likewise of the unparalleled impudence and scurrility of these blasphemers, and consequently whether it be fit to entertain any favourable opinion, of the doctrines of these men, and much more to have their Persons and Writings in admiration. 2ly, Concerning the Spirit of God; they tell us that he is not a Person, as the Church of God hath hitherto vainly imagined: but only a quality, an accident; sometimes taken for the Innate power and virtue residing in God, and sometimes for the operations that proceed from that virtue and faculty Vid. small. Refut. Lib. de Incarn. cap. 27. Socin. Tract. de Deo,& Contra wire.& alibi passim. . Crellius hath written a particular Treatise de Spiritu Sancto, and therein he tells us that the word spirit, in its first and proper signification, denotes Flatum ex ore Animalis expression. p. 455. that breath which is expired out of the mouths of Men or other Animals; and from the resemblance that is to be found between them, it is transferred to signify that divine virtue in God which we call the Holy Ghost: and therefore when Christ Jo. 20. 22. breathed on his Disciples, and thereby conferred upon them the Holy Ghost; Indicavit Spiritum Sanctum ejusgue à Deo& Christo Emanationem seu Emissionem, afflatui sieve spiraculo esse similem, Proleg. de Spiritu Sancto Ibid. he did thereby give them to understand, that the holy spirit was an Emanation from God, not unlike a vapour or breathing. At this rate the Holy Ghost should it seems be a subtle and tenuious substance, contrary to what he asserts cap. 1. where he plainly tells us that the Spirit of God is not properly a substance but a quality, therefore called in the Scripture the power of the most High, & virtus proprié qualitas est, p. 466. But forasmuch as many things, by his own acknowledgement, are affirmed of, and actions ascribed to the Holy Ghost, which cannot well agree to qualities, but must suppose the thing to which they are ascribed to be a substance; such as are Local motion, Bodily shape, division and the like: to reconcile therefore these seeming differences he is of Opinion, that the Spirit of God considered abstractedly in itself, is a mere quality; but yet this virtue may be impressed upon, and conveyed into some subtle and celestial matter, & ejus naturae valde congruae, which is agreeable to its nature, Ibid. As we find the vital energy of the Soul communicated first to ●he Animal Spirits, and by them to all the other parts of the Body: and as we find the influences of the celestial Bodies, and qualities of Terrestrial ones, Heat, Light and odours, conveyed in some subtle effluviums, from the Bodies in which they are, into the Air, and some other subjects at a great distance. So saith he, by the Spirit of God is sometimes meant that Materia subtilis, quae qualitatem divinam in se habet,& per quam in hominum pectora deferri solet. Ibid. p. 467. tenuious matter which contains a divine quality in it, and by which it is conveyed into the minds of men: and in this sense he conceives the spirit of God, may be called a Corporeal substance, which hath extension, and is capable of division, as other Bodies tho spiritual are Isto modo Spiritum Sanctum substantiam quandam esse, eamqne corpoream non est negandum, Ibid. . And by this notion he thinks he hath found out an easy way, to solve the former difficulties concerning the Local motion of the Holy Ghost, and particularly, his descent upon our Saviour at the time of his baptism, and upon the Apostles in the days of Pentecost. Of his being poured out, of his being given, sometimes in measure, and sometimes without it: of his being divided and distributed and the like: which tho we interpret of the gifts, he doth of the nature and essence of the Holy Ghost, which according to this account he gives of it, may like other Steams and vapours be carried here and there, and may be divided and distributed in greater and lesser quantities as there is occasion. And thus God took some part of this celestial matter, which contained that divine virtue with which Moses was endowed, and put it into the 70 Elders Numb. 11. 25. and in the same sense Elisha had a double portion of the Spirit of Elias, that is, of that divine steam and vapour which enabled him to do wonders. Now if we shall further inquire what that celestial matter is, by which this divine quality which he makes to be the Holy Ghost, is conveyed and distributed among men; he hath not determined, but hath left it to the Readers discretion to conjecture: tho he hath given sufficient intimation how he would have him govern his Opinion. For in the other instances which he produces, the quality and the effluviums, proceed from the same subject; and he gives you no limitation, no caution in the least to think otherwise in this case: it is plain that some of his friends as he tells us, were of that Opinion, that the Spirit of God, was nothing but an Emanation, a tenuious steam flowing from the very substance of God, as the breath doth out of our mouths and nostrils Crell. prologue. de Spiritu Sancto, p. 1. Substantia subtilissima Halitui Oris Analoga,& quemadmodum ille ab Ore Emanat, ita Spiritus iste à Deo. : quam sententiam, saith he, in medio relinquimus; he will not give you his Opinion in this case, it being but fit that in matters of Religion, every man should be left to his own freedom, and therefore he fairly leaves you to your own. It is plain, if he were not himself of that Opinion, yet he thought there was no harm in it; otherwise he would have given his Reader some caution abou● it, which he hath not in the least done. And now we are come to the bottom, or if you please, to the very dregs of Socinianism, and that which is the true cause and source of all those extravagant, and indeed Blasphemous Notions which these men have of almighty God: who in their most resined and exalted speculations, cannot raise their thoughts to conceive any substance above matter. It is true, they call God a Spirit, but it is as certain that they mean a spiritual Body; as appears by what Crellius tells us when he comes to describe God, and to give the Deus est Spiritus Aeternus; Spiritum autem cum nominamus, substantiam intelligimus, ab omni ●rassitie, qualem in Corporibus oculorum arbitrio subjectis cernimus, alienam. Hoc sensu Angelos dicimus spiritus,& aerem licet sensibus quibusdam, ut tactui patentem,& alla corpora huic similia. Lib. de Deo.& Attrib. Cap. 15. definition of a Spirit which is contained in that description. When we call God a Spirit, saith he, we mean a substance free from all that thick gross matter which is the object of our senses shall I say, no thats too much, but which can terminate our sight; for a Spirit tho it be invisible, you must know it may be palbable; and such is the aer saith he, to which the word Spirit is a genus, common to it, to God and Angels Quorum unumquodque hoc nomen tanto magis fortitur, quanto est subtilius, Ibid. : each of which are spirits, but that which is most subtle is likewise most spirituous. And by this explication of the nature of a spirit, Crellius who calls God a spirit, and Socinus who plainly thought he was none,( as appears by his Vid. Vorst. Not. ad Disp. 3. de Natura Dei p. 200. forced and perverse Interpretation of those words of Christ Jo. 4. 24. which contain as plain and clear a declaration of this great truth, as could be expressed in words,) may very easily be reconciled. For whereas the Master denies God to be a spirit, he might by spirit mean an incorporeal, immaterial being; and the Scholar by acknowledging him to be one, did not intend to exclude matter from his constitution; but that he was not composed of such thick gross parts of matter as our Bodies are, which can terminate the sight; but of matter of a more tenuious and resined Contexture, more subtle perhaps, but of the same nature with Aer or Aether. And from hence result all their Impious Opinions about God, in opposition to his Immensity, simplicity; Omnipresence. Judging of their Maker by themselves; of his thoughts by their thoughts, of his ways by their ways, of his dealings with men by their own foolish passions: and in short, measuring all his Glorious and Incomprehensible perfections, by their own narrow and shallow conceptions of sensible objects. Hence it is that we have those bold assertions of Vorstius Ibid. p. 234, 235. . Deus non est infinitus, nec in essendo nec in operando. Infinita virtus non est in deo. Immensitas 3 Non est fortasse eorum verborum sententia, quam plerique omnes arbitrantur. Deum scil. esse spiritum: neque enim subaudiendum esse dicat aliquis verbum {αβγδ}, quasi vox {αβγδ} Recto casu accipienda sit: said {αβγδ} repetendum verbum ●●NF●●, quod paulo. ante praecessit;& {αβγδ}, quarto casa accipiendum, ita ut sententia sit, Deum quaerere& postulare Spiritum. Frag. Disp. de Ador. Christi cum Christiano Franken. p. 778. seu infinitas est {αβγδ}. To be Infinite is impossible, and therefore so far from denoting a perfection, that it implies a plain contradiction. And among other Arguments which he makes use of to prove God not to be Infinite, this is remarkable Ibid. p. 237. Because God at present saith he, is seen by the Angels, and shall be so hereafter by us, with our Bodily eyes; and therefore not Infinite. For what is so cannot be comprehended by any sense, as he rightly upon this supposition argues: Quia debet esse proportio inter objectum percipiendum,& personam percipientem: and whereas it may be objected that the Beatifick vision respects the inward speculation of the mind, and not the external perception of the eyes; some indeed so interpret it saith he, said nescio an sacris literis consentaneum sit; certe magnam futurae nostrae foelicitatis partem hac explicatione tollere videntur. Now if God be finite, it must further follow, and is plainly acknowledged by these men, that magnitude and extension, and a true local presence may and must be ascribed to God: and this is so far from being by them looked upon to be derogatory to the nature and perfection of God; that the contrary notion is scouted by them, not only as false, but as absurd and ridiculous, which asserts such a presence of God, as obliges us to believe him not be confined to any certain place, neither to have any parts commensurate to the parts of that place in which he is. For this if any thing must be the meaning of Exam. Censurae in Conf. Rem. Cap. 2. p. 43. Episcopius his Atomica& A●opica essentiae divinae praesentia; which he rails and exclaims against, and can scarce think of without horror and Astonishment. But further, if Local presence be ascribed to God, I think Local motion may with good reason be so likewise; forasmuch as it may be more honourable to God to Imagine that he may sometimes change, then that he should always be immovably fixed and confin●d to one certain place. Lastly if extension may be attributed of God, and such an extension as was said before, which hath its certain bounds and limits, by an unavoidable consequence, Figure must be ascribed to him also: forasmuch as figure doth naturally and necessary result from the termination of extension: this being the definition of a figure, quae sub aliquo vel aliquibus terminis comprehenditur. And now at length we see what a blessed notion of almighty God the Socinians have furnished us with; how scaudalous and dishonourable to God, how repugnant to piety, how opposite to right reason, and to those sober and just apprehensions which that hath furnished many wise heathens with, who I am afraid may one day rise up in Judgement against these men and condemn them. It may be now time to draw towards a conclusion of this Discourse, therefore I shall briefly sum up what hath been said upon this subject: that the Readers memory may be refreshed with the account which hath been given him, both of what the Scripture affirm of God, and what the Socinians say of him. The Scriptures have informed us that our God is Infinite, they say he is Finite, ours is Omnipresent, theirs Limited and confined to a certain place: ours Immutable, theirs Liable to change; ours is naturally just, theirs contingently so: ours necessary concerned in the government of the World, and taking care of human affairs; theirs might, like Epicurus his Deity, sit at ease in the enjoyment of his own happiness, leaving the world to the conduct of chance; and men to the guidance of that which is equally uncertain, their own giddy and unstable passions; neither giving them Laws for the regulating of their actions, nor assigning any punishments to the violation of them. Our God is Omniscient, theirs ignorant of future and contingent events: ours without parts or passions, theirs compounded of one, and liable to the other; even to those which argue the greatest weakness and infirmity, and which some of the Philosophers thought inconsistent, with the bravery and resolution, of a wise and virtuous man. In short, our God consists of three blessed and glorious persons, subsisting in the same undivided essence: They deny the divine nature of the Son, and yet by an unpardonable contradiction, say that he is a true God; and disown the personality of the Holy Ghost. From all which I think it will appear very evident, what we undertook to make out at the beginning of this discourse, that the Object of their Religion and ours is different; and that will go a great way to prove that the Religions themselves are so too. In short, the difference between us is not so small as some ignorant people may imagine, and some crafty and designing persons may pretend; among whom I cannot but reckon Curcellaeus, who most falsely and impudently against common sense and reason, and therefore one might be tempted to imagine, against his Conscience; would persuade the world to believe, that the difference between us and the Socinians, in the point of the Divinity of the son of God, was a {αβγδ}, a contention about words rather then any real difference, in a matter of faith: which is quiter contrary to the notion that either the Orthodox or the Socinians have of this matter: who lay a greater and truer stress upon their Opinions, then this man doth, who pretends to bless the world with a discovery of what no body ever knew before. But I believe the Reader who hath perused the foregoing discourse, will be induced to believe that either the Socinians or we are in a very great mistake, the distance between us being wider then that between Heaven and Earth: and indeed no less then between Finite and Infinite. So that upon a true state of things, I believe it will be found that our Opinions are not only seemingly inconsistent, but absolutely irreconcilable; forasmuch as in order to reconcile them, we must part with the Infinite nature of God the Father, and the Divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And surely that man must be very fond, nay he must be mad for peace, that can be content, to sacrifice both Truth and the Divine Author of it, in order to purchase it. Once indeed our Blessed Saviour came down among men, and offered up himself upon the across in order to reconcile the two greatest Enemies, God and Man: but it is too much in all Conscience which is expected of us, that we should make a new Oblation of our Saviour: and not only as the Jews did, nail his Body to the across, but sacrifice even his Divinity, to compose the differences in Religion. But perhaps some may say the Socinians are men of more reason and moderation, then to desire us presently to part with all our Religion to gratify them: They only pled for liberty, and in order to their joining with us, that we would remove those obs●acles of communion, viz. Articles, Creeds, Confessions of Faith, some useless expressions in our Common Prayer, which contain too plain and uncharitable acknowledgements of the Trinity; which hinder many pious, useful and excellent persons from coming to our Churches. Why should we not strip our Faith of all those larger and unwarrantable explications which Councils and Fathers have made of it; and reduce all to the naked expressions of Scripture: that is, content ourselves with a few Ambiguous words,( which the perverse and subtle Interpretations of heretics have made so) and let every man abound in his own sense. They believe Christ to be the Son of God, so as to be true God likewise: what need we trouble ourselves or them with the word Consubstantial; pity it is, that a word, ●ay a Letter should divide men in their Opinions and Affections. To all which, tho I have a great deal that I could answer, yet at present all that I shall say shall be this: That the Socinians are wise men, persons of a deep reach; but they must not think that all the rest of the World are fools. It were too much in all Conscience to desire us to part with all at first: but they know what advantage to make of our Concessions: if they can persuade us with that foolish woman Prov. 14. 1. to pull down our house with our own hands, it will save them the toil and drudgery of so doing: at least if they can prevail with us to demolish our Outworks, then they will be able as with greater ease, so likewise with greater hopes of success, to Attack the main Fort. In short, the Ancient Creeds and Confessions, and those Ancient words in which the Doctrine of Faith hath been conveyed down to us; are only Dr. Sherlocks Apol. a Hedge of thorns, as they have been truly and pertinently styled, with which the Christian Faith hath been guarded against the designs of disguised heretics, and I hope they will prick their singers, who shall attempt the removing of them. And thus much shall serve to be said upon the first Head, of the great difference there is, between what the Scriptures affirm, and what the Socinians say of the great object of our Religion God almighty. And if there were only this in the case, I hope it might prove sufficient to guard any pious well meaning Christian, from the Infection of their Impious Opinions, which furnish him with notions, so dishohonrable and injurious to his maker: and who by denying the blessed Trinity, and the Divinity of our Saviour, have subverted the very foundations of Christianity, altered the whole economy of mans Salvation: so that they and we must go different ways to Heaven, as having neither the same means of Grace, nor the same hopes of Glory. I should now proceed to show the Opposition between the Socinian tenets, and the other parts of the Christian Doctrine, which are thereby contradicted, and overthrown. But this must be referred till a time of further and better leisure: But by this Taste which I have given the Reader of socinianism, I may have reason to hope that he will be of the Opinion, that Religion is like Wine, the older, the more excellent and desirable. And therefore that no man of wisdom, or indeed of common sense, who hath not lost all Relish of divine things, when he hath tasted of the old Religion, will straightly desire the New, because he will find that the Old is much better. Now to the Holy, Blessed and undivided Trinity, three Persons and one God, be all Honour, Glory, and Praise both now and for evermore, Amen. FINIS. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST SOCINIANISM. THE SECOND PART. Imprimatur, Henr. Aldrich 'vice. CAN. OXON. July 3. 1694. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST SOCINIANISM: showing The direct Opposition between it and the Christian Religion, particularly in those two great Fundamental Articles of our Faith, concerning Original Sin, and the Redemption of the World by the Death and Sufferings of our blessed Saviour. THE SECOND PART. By JONATHAN EDWARDS D. D. OXON. Printed at the theatre for H. Clements. MDCXCIV. ERRATA. page. 3. line 9. red Psal. 8. p. 5. line 3. after in short, red it consisted. p. 22. l. 25. for actions, red ●ffections. p. 37. Not. for ●●s red ●●s. p. 40. l. 16. of Socinus, red of the Socinians. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST Socinianism. HAVING in my former discourse, shewed how plainly the Socinian Doctrines concerning God, considered either Absolutely in himself, or Relatively in the Great mystery of the Blessed Trinity, contradict the Account which the Scriptures give us of those matters: I come now to consider the Opposition between them, and the other parts of our Holy Faith; That I may make good my charge against Socinus, in averring, that by making those great and dangerous Alterations in the Christian Doctrine, he hath been the Author and Founder, rather of a new Religion, then of a new name and Sect among Christians: having by the Just judgement of Almighty God, fallen from one error to another, until at length he fairly shook hands with Christianity, and, as it is to be feared, at the same time took his leave of all Religion, whether natural, or Revealed: as may be shrewdly suspected from many loose and pernicious assertions, cunningly insinuated, and dispersed throughout his writings. And here the first thing that I am to consider, is the State and Condition of man, before, and after his Fall: This being antecedent both in order of time and nature, to his Redemption and Recovery; and therefore requisite to be discoursed of, before we can come to show the Fundamental difference, which by their dangerous Innovations, Socinus and his followers have made in the doctrine of our Salvation by Christ, which is the sum and substance of the Gospel. To begin therefore with the Creation of man. Here we must take our first Rise, as the Scripture doth, and where Socinus likewise begins his Errors. But tho he begins, he doth not end here: for as if he had raised an Hue and Cry after our Religion, he pursues it throughout the Bible, from the first Chapter of Genesis, to the last of the Revelations, Contradicting the account which the Scriptures give us of man, from his first Coming into the World, till his last Going out of it; that is, from the Creation, till the final dissolution of all things. Socinus was a wise man, and therefore was resolved not to do his work by halves: primus ad extremum similis sibi. He knew where his predecessors were wanting, and he was now able and willing to correct their mistakes. For when he hath entirely vanquished the Christian Religion, then he may hope upon the Ruins of it, the more easily, and the more securely to establish his own. First then, if we consider the Condition of man before his fall; the account which the Scriptures give us of it is this. That after God by his mighty and powerful word had spoken all things out of nothing; having Created the Heavens and the Earth, and furnished them with all the perfections suitable to their respective natures: Having I say, thus finished this Glorious fabric, he now thinks of a fit Inhabitant to be introduced into it. For sure it cannot reasonably be imagined, that so magnificent a structure furnished with every thing that might serve either for use or pleasure; was made either to no purpose, or for the service of some mean and contemptible Inhabitant. As therefore it was provided with all the ornaments and perfections which became so great a Palace: So God provided a suitable guest, of equal state and majesty, accomplished with all the endowments of body and mind, that might qualify him to Contemplate the admirable contrivance of the Creation, and to celebrate the praises of the alwise and powerful Creator. And therefore to put as it were his last finishing Mundani operis summa conclusa est, perfecto videlicet homine, in quo principatus est animantium univer sorum,& summa quaedam universitatis,& omnis Mundanae Gratia Creaturae. Ambr. Hexaem. Lib. 6. Cap. 10. stroke to the work of the Creation, he introduces man into this glorious palace, as one who was to be the Top, Crown, and Ornament of the Universe: for whose sake, next to his own glory, all these things were made, and to whose Government they were committed, God having put all things under his feet, Psal. 28. 6. And therefore it is to be observed, that when God comes to form man, he alters his style and language; for whereas before he only made use of his Authority, here he calls in as it were the assistance of his wisdom: he did but speak the word, and the rest of the works of his hands were made. His mighty voice not only commands things that are, but even things that are not: Confusion and emptyness submit to his authority; he brings fullness out of the one, and order and beauty out of the other; and at his single nod the visible world appears out of its state of non-existence. It was but saying, Let there be Light and there was Light; let there be a Firmament to divide the waters, and let the dry land appear and it was so, 1 Gen, 3. 6. 9. But when he comes to make man, he alters his style, Let us make man in our own Image, and after our own likeness, Gen. 1. 26. he proceeds, if I may so say, with greater care, and calls as it were a consultation of the blessed Trinity, being now to make a Creature who was to be as it were an Epitome of the whole Creation; all the excellencies that were divided and scattered in the other Creatures, were to be collected as it were into one Mass, and put into him, who was himself to be a kind of {αβγδ}, Greg. Nyss. de Anima& Resurr: {αβγδ}, Isid. Pelus. Epis. 259. little world, as well as the Inhabitant and Lord of the great one. And this Divines both {αβγδ}. Greg. Nyss. Ora. 1. in verba faciamus Hominem. Vide ejusdem Lib. de Opisicio hoins Cap. 3. Tanta itaque dignitas conditionis humanae cognoscitur, ut non solo Jubentis sermone, sicut alia sex dierum opera; said consilio sanctae Trinitatis& opere divinae Majestatis creatus sit Homo. Nec ob hoc solum, quod consilio Sanctae Trinitatis sic exellenter à Conditore conditus est, said etiam quod ad Imaginem ac similitudinem suam ipse creator omnium eum creavit, quod nulli alii ex creaturis donavit. Ambr. de Dignitate Conditionis Humanae libel. Ancient and Creatio sieve productio hoins long dissimilis ac diversa fuit à Creatione aliarum rerum omnium. Pro eo enim quod in aliarum rerum productionè, dictum tantum fuerat à Deo, vel fiat Lux, vel fiat Expansio, &c. Cum Homo efformandus esset, dixit Deus, quasi praestantissimum omnium esset producturus, quoddle consilio inito& majori molimine usurus, faciamus Hominem, ad indicandum futuri operis excellentiam. Episcop. Inst. Th. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. vid. Limb. Eadem ferè verba repetentem, Th. Christ. Lib. 2. Cap. 22. Modern( tho some of them otherwise do not use to speak over honourably of our first Parent) take particular notice of, as an Argument of the great dignity and excellency of man at his first Creation; viz. the deliberation that was used before he was made, and the Admirable pattern after which he was formed; which was the divine nature itself, of which he was in some measure made partaker; God engraving the image and character of his own glorious perfections upon him. Now if we farther inquire wherein this Image of God, according to which man was made, consisted. I Ans. it consisted chiefly and principally in that original Righteousness, which did perfect and adorn his Soul: not excluding that Dominion with which God entrusted him, which was indeed a Ray of Gods sovereign Authority, but was founded in great measure in that Righteousness now mentioned, and necessary supposes it: as is in part acknowledged by our Adversaries, and shall hereafter be made farther to Appear. Now this Righteousness which we say made up the principal part of the Image of God in the Soul of man, was its self composed of all those qualities, which are the ornaments and perfections of the several faculties of it: such as are wisdom and knowledge in the understanding: holiness and obedience in the will: submission, order, and regularity in the affections: and in short, in that happy and entire harmony which was in the Soul, arising from that uniformity and subordination which there was between all the powers and faculties of it▪ And thus man after he dropped out of the hands of his maker, was beholded by him with delight and complacency, and as a mark of his approbation, he pronounced him among the best of the parts of his workmanship, very Good, Gen. 1. Last verse. That is, entirely and perfectly so. Accordingly the wise man tells us, that God made man upright, Eccl. 7. 29. And indeed if he had not been so, he would have been a strange Image of God, as unlike, and therefore as unlikely to represent him, as beauty would be to be represented by deformity, or order by confusion. For should we suppose man at first made in such a condition, as he hath since by his own folly brought himself to: with ignorance in his understanding, stubbornness and perverseness in his will, rebellion and disorder in his affections: could any man in his right wits, think such a person made after the likeness and similitude of God. Can Ignorance, contention, and disorder, be a transcript of that pure and immaculate nature of God; in whom there is nothing but Light, Beauty, and Harmony. I confess a Socinian, who hath formed an Idea of his God, after the likeness and similitude of a man; who hath furnished us with the notion of a material and a finite God; of a frail and impotent Deity, {αβγδ}, made up of the weakness, and liable to the passions of men; in short, he that can introduce his God as the Heathens did their Deities, looking pale with grief, as one expresses it, trembling for fear, perplexed with doubtful and uncertain expectations of future events: may for ought I know account blindness, and that disorder which arises from the contention and struggle between the faculties, no disparagement to one of his noblest Creatures. In the mean time I hope others may be allowed to think and speak more honourably of their Creator, and of one of the most admirable parts of his workmanship, Man: I mean in his first and original frame and make. And that man was thus at first made with those perfections before mentioned, will appear from these following considerations. 1st. From the end of his Creation, which was for the attaimment of a supernatural good. He was made for the enjoyment not only of a temporal, F●cerat hominem rationis capacem, imitatorem sui, virtutum aemulatorem, coelestium gaudiorum cupidum? Ambr. Hexaem. lib. 6. cap. 10. but likewise a spiritual, and if he persisted in his duty, of an eternal happiness. Now this doth necessary suppose him furnished with all those abilities and powers, which were necessary for the attaimment of that end. Such must be 1st, the knowledge of God, himself, and his duty towards both; or else he could never have discharged it, 2ly, holiness, without which he could never have procured the favour of God, in which the happiness for which he was designed, did principally consist. Surely man was never sent into the world, only that he might eat, and drink, and sleep, and gratify his senses. All this he might do indeed: but the satisfactions resulting from thence, were to be subordinate only to those nobler pleasures, which were to arise from the contemplation of the Wisdom, Power and Goodness of God, displayed in the works of the Creation; which must needs far exceed all the lower gratifications of sense. And therefore as the {αβγδ} &c. {αβγδ}. Greg. Nyss. de Hom. Op. cap. 2. {αβγδ}, etc. Phil. De Mundi Opificio. p. 13. Fathers and others, sometimes compare the visible World to a Palace, furnished with every thing, that might serve either for use or pleasure: and tell us that Man was the mighty guest, who was to be entertained and feasted there: So at other times, they tell us that this world was Sicut mundum propter hominem machinatus est, ita ipsum propter se, tanquam divini Templi Antistitem, spectatorem Operum rerumque Coelestium. Lact. de Ira, c. 14. {αβγδ}. Greg. Nyss. de Hom. Opif. cap. 2. {αβγδ}, &c. Plut. de Animi tranquil. 2 Dei Imago ac similitudo ad quam conditus est homo, praecipue consistit in dominatu rerum omnium, praesertim inferiorum, sex illis diebus à Deo creatarum. Socin. Prael. Th. cap. 3. Chatech. Racov. de via salutis cap. 1. Sciendum est Imaginem dei non significare immortalitatem, said potestatem hoins& dominium in omnes res à Deo Conditas, supra terram, designare. a sacred Temple into which man was brought, as the great Priest and Antistes, who was to celebrate the praises of the wise Artificer, to give thanks unto him for his Benefits, as it were in the name of the whole Creation, and to purchase the continuance of his favour towards them. Now this must necessary suppose wisdom in him; for God hath no pleasure in the sacrifice of fools, Eccl. 5. and Righteousness likewise; forasmuch as the prayers and praises of the wicked are an abomination to him. 2. This may be proved from that Dominion with which man was entrusted over all other inferior Creatures: which is not only acknowledged by Socinus, but earnestly contended for, as that in which he supposes the Image of God after which Adam was made, principally to consist. Now this dominion could never duly be exercised without knowledge: forasmuch as without it Adam could never have attained the end of his Authority, which was his own good, and the common benefit and advantage of other Creatures. Nay since according to Socinus his hypothesis, this dominion of Adam, was of so vast an extent as to reach up to the Heavens: Vid. Socin. ad defence. Fran. Puccii respon. cap. 2. This must suppose in him a very great measure of knowledge; he must be a very wise man sure that can govern the Stars; more then ordinary skill in mathematics must be necessary, not only to describe, but to direct their motions; to overrule as well as to understand the influences of those celestial bodies. This was so evident, that even Socinus, tho sometimes he doth so far disparaged the wisdom of our first parent, as if he were not worthy to govern a flock of sheep; yet at other times, when it is for his purpose, he can subject the whole Creation without exception of any part of it, to his government. And then acknowledges that reason and understanding In imperio illo mens& ratio inclusa est; cum mens& ratio qua homo praeditus est, illius imperii causa efficiens sit. are necessary included and supposed in it, because without reason, it could never be duly or indeed tolerably managed. Nay he doth not mean only the bare faculty( for sure, for the discharge of so great and extraordinary a trust, it was requisite he should be accomplished with extraordinary endowments) but the Adime enim homini rationem& mentem,& illi omne propemodum imperum in res Creatas ademeris: quemadmodum prudentia, sagacitate& industria hoins potissimum fit, ut illi res creatae omnes subjiciantur, eique ad ipsius usus& commoditates deserviant, Idem Ibid. improvements of wisdom, prudence, and sagacity. 2. As this Authority of Adam could not be duly administered without knowledge, so neither without holiness. For it was not to be a brutish and tyrannical government: but such as was to be exercised with prudence, moderation, and righteousness. In short, he could not with any decency be presumed fit to be entrusted with the government of others, that could not govern himself; because if he had transgressed the rules of his own reason, and the law of his Creation, he would thereby have shewed other creatures the way, and have levied them in their revolt from his Authority, as it afterwards happened by his folly and prevarication. Lastly, without this Justitia originalis, Original righteousness, as man would have been unable to have answered the ends of his Creation: so neither could he have answered the Character which God gave of him, in pronouncing him very good. Now let us take this notion of goodness from Socinus his definition of it. That, saith he, may be styled very good, Id est valdé bonum quod omnem eam bonitatem habet, quae propria ejus rei est de qua quaeritur. Socin. De statu primi Hom. cap. 1. Ea dicuntur bona, quae in suo genere perfecta sunt, vel ad eum usum in quem comparata fuere, apta sunt& idonea. Idem ad defence. Puccii Resp. cap. 1. which is possessed of all those perfections and excellencies which belong to its nature. From hence it will appear that man was possessed of Original Righteousness, because it is that, which chiefly made up the dignity and excellence of his nature. It was a perfection that belonged to him in his state of Innocence and Integrity, which the Socinians themselves will sometimes allow man to be created in. For this Integrity in man considered as a rational Creature, and endowed with freedom, and a power over his own actions, necessary supposes both knowledge and holiness: these being moral perfections, of which man is capable, and which belong to him in his Original frame and constitution; and without which he could not have discharged his duty, nor have been, in eum usum in quem comparatus erat, aptus& idoneus,( as Socinus expresses it) fit for the end and purpose for which he was created, which was to serve and praise his maker, and consequently the want of them in any just degree, must have been a degree of imperfection: which would not only be a disparagement to man, but must have reflected a dishonour upon God, in forming a Creature destitute of those perfections of which he was capable, and which were every way suited to his constitution. To make this plain, let us for once make an absurd supposition, that God at first created man, with imperfect Organs of sense, speech and motion; Purblind and slow of hearing, with a faltering tongue and feeble knees; stammering when he spoken, and staggering as he went; who should complain of pains, aches and infirmities, as soon as he came into the world, as others use to do when they are ready to go out of it. Can any man imagine, that as soon as such a strange Creature had dropped out of the hands of his maker, he would have been dismissed by him, with the high commendations of health, soundness and integrity. So neither on the other hand, had he made a man of weak Intellectuals, of a perverse and stubborn disposition, with affections rebelling against the commands of reason, could it either with propriety or truth be said, that such a one was very good, who wanted those moral perfections of knowledge and Righteousness, of which he was every way as capable as he was of sight or hearing; and the want of which were as absolutely inconsistent with the integ 〈…〉 and uprightness of his mind, as sickness and infirmities wou●● be with the strength and vigour of his Body. You will say that a little degree of knowledge might have served Adam's turn in Paradise; and that no other Righteousness was requisite, but a freedom from Sin, that is, from any slain or defilement of his nature, ut omni labe ac vitio careat, as Socinus speaks, To this I Ans. besides all that hath been said before, man's liberum arbitrium, his free will, and that absolute power and dominion over his own actions, which our adversaries allow Adam to be possessed of, in his state of innocence, is a sufficient confutation of this assertion. For first, Free will supposes knowledge, the knowledge of God, himself, his duty; of all actions which he was obliged to perform, and of all the circumstances of them likewise, without which they would not be voluntary to {αβγδ}, Arist. Eth. Lib. 3. cap. 1. . 2. As his dominion over other creatures, gave him authority and supposed Abilities in him to govern them: so this dominion over his own actions naturally and necessary implies a power in him to govern himself, and all his affairs. And this again necessary supposes a subordination between the powers and faculties of his Soul, in which subordination we make Original Righteousness to consist. For he that cannot govern his thoughts and desires, will never have the entire government of his actions, of which the former are the springs and principles. You will say there may be some struggle between sense and reason, and yet reason may preserve its authority, and tho with difficulty, yet may keep the affections in order. I Answ. Any such struggle or resistance is inconsistent with that Absolute power over our actions, which we call free will: and which we suppose Adam to be invested with in the state of Innocence. Every propension to evil, every reluctance of our passions against our reason, is a real weakening of our dominion, which is not complete, when it is not able to keep all quiet in the Soul. No man was ever yet master of himself, that could not master his own inclinations, and therefore wherever that authority is entire, it will enable men to command the desires, and to govern the affections, so as that they may be at the beck of Reason, to move or stand still, like the Centurion's servant in the Gospel, and to act according to the direction of the superior faculties: otherwise a man in great measure hath lost his authority, and from being a master, in a little time will become a slave. In short, any inclination or proneness to Sin, is inconsistent with an absolute freedom over our actions: as is evident from this state of our corrupt nature, in which our liberty is so much weakened and impaired, that the bare commands of reason, neither are, nor ever were able since the fall of Adam, to keep the passions in order, without the assistance of some higher and supernatural principle, viz. the grace of God: as is evident from the experience of all the world, and is acknowledged by all Christians, except Pelagians, and Socinians, if these latter may deserve that name. And this was the state of man in Paradise; not a state of impeccability, as if it were impossible for him to Sin: for he was capable of being tempted, and as the event shewed, of being foiled by the temptation. But all this was through his own default, who might if he had pleased, have rejected the temptation, before it did in the least prevail over him. All which, notwithstanding the opposition that at some time is made to it, at other times seems to be acknowledged by our adversaries themselves. Socinus will tell us, first that man at first was made upright and innocent, not only without any Sin In eo naturalis perfectio hoins est, ut omni labe ac vitio careat: haecque fuit in primo homine, qui integer& incorruptus creatus est. Socin. prael. Th cap. 3. which might defile his nature Pronitas ad peccandum quae in homine conspicitur, ab ipsa prima creatione ortum non habet; nanque Salomone-teste, Deus fecit hominem rectum. Lib. Suas. quod Regni Pol. &c. cap. 5. , but without any proneness or inclination to it. 2ly, That man was endowed with freedom and power over his own actions Omnes concedunt,& Ratio ipsa manifeste docet, in primo homine ante Lapsum liberum arbitrium fuisse. Prael. Th. cap. 5. . Put both together, innocence and rectitude, a power to do good, without any propensions to evil, and you will make up that Original Righteousness which we contend for. Nay the Remonstrants will go further; and except in one case, viz. that of the forbidden fruit, where man was left to his liberty, it being the trial of his obedience: in every thing else they tell us, that he was so far from having any inclinations, that he had not a power of doing evil. That the law of nature, or right reason, was not to him, so much a Lex naturae Adamo tanquam stimulus fuit, quo infantium instar impelleretur ad bonum. Limb. Th. Christ. Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lex naturalis in statu integritatis, non erat tam lex officium praescribens, quam instinctus naturalis& stimulus, hominem excitans& impellens ad ea agendum quae illi consentanea erant. Sect. 2. ejusd. Cap. rule or direction for the government of his actions; as a kind of Instinct; pushing him on and compelling him as it were, to do those things which were agreeable to it: so that he could no more act against the dictates of his reason, then a child or a beast can against the direction of sense, and the appetites which naturally arise thence. So that he seems at his first Creation to act by a necessity of nature, and not by a principle of freedom and choice. Here it is to be observed in the first place, that as to Moral Righteousness, which consists in an obedience to the law of nature, Limb. and the Remonstrants make Adam to be possessed of it, in an higher manner then any Calvinist ever yet asserted; who tho they affirm man to be created in a state of holiness, yet they allow it to be a state of Freedom: and therefore notwithstanding the regularity and subordination which was between his faculties, by virtue of that natural dominion which he had over his own actions, they grant that he might disobey the dictates of his reason, and transgress the Law of his Creation. 2ly, That hereby Limb. very notably, and, if what he saith be true, very effectually overthrows two known and avowed principles which pass currant among the Socinians and Remonstrants, and which we have mentioned in the first part p. 19. First, whereas they generally say that freedom is absolutely necessary to the will in all its actions, being its essential property which cannot be separated from it: Here Limb. tells us that the will of Adam in his state of integrity, was not a Voluntas Adami non fuit neutra, in bonum ac malum aeque indifferens: said antequam ei Lex à Deo posita erat, rectitudinem habuit naturalem, ut inordinate nec concupisceret, nec posset. Integritas ergo talis in illius voluntate erat, ut contra naturae legem& Conscientiam peccare non posset, Limb. Lib. 2. cap. 24. Sect. 5. neutral will, Indifferent to the practise of good and evil: but that he was possessed of such a natural uprightness, that he neither did, nor could desire, or do any thing that was inordinate and unlawful. You will say that notwithstanding this Limb. is true to his principle, and that he still asserts the freedom of mans will, tho these expressions may serve to overthrow it. Adam indeed could not Adamus contra conscientiam peccare non poterat, non quia voluntas ejus non erat libera, said quia Lex naturae non proprie apud Adamum Legis officium exercebat, cvi Adamus obedire aut non obedire poterat: said stimulus tantum aut instinctus naturalis fuit, ad faciendum quod licitum erat. Instar infantium, qui nullo ad Legis transgressionem appetitu ducuntur, said re●●s omnibus quantum necessitas requirit, uti contenti sunt. Idem ibid. act against his Conscience, but that, saith he, did not proceed from his want of freedom: but because the Law of nature overruled that freedom. I confess he doth say so: but by this saying he is so far from mending the matter, that he makes it much worse, and within the compass of a few lines, heaps up so many contradictions, that it is almost as difficult to number, as it is to reconcile them. For first I would fain know of him, how that will can be free, according to the notion of freedom as it is stated by himself and all the Remonstrants, which is not neutra, a neutral or Indifferent will. Here he saith, Adami voluntas non fuit neutra& Indifferens: and yet in the same chapter he describes liberty by this very Vera itaque voluntatis libertas consistit in indifferentia activa, qua positis omnibus ad agendum requisitis potest agere vel non agere; hoc enim exigit libertatis ratio. Sect. 20. indifference which he makes to be the formal notion of it. From whence I must conclude, that if Adams will was not indifferent, it was not libera, a free will: and that if it were free, it must at the same time be indifferent. 2dly, I desire to be informed, how it is possible for Adam to preserve his freedom, and yet not be able to act against the law of nature and the direction of his conscience: since the very notion of liberty according to him, supposes an absolute power in the will over its own actions, to perform, or suspend the performance of them at its own pleasure. Sect. the fifth he told us, Adamus contra legem naturae,& conscientiam peccare non poterat. And yet Section the 20th. Exigit libertatis Ratio, ut voluntas potestatem habeat tam agendi quam non agendi, post quam omnia ad actionem requisita adsunt. Now he that can talk at this rate, takes too great a liberty in his writings, and presumes too much either upon the carelessness, or good nature of his Readers. 3dly, I want a further Resolution, how Adams will could be free; and yet he in the mean time act by a natural instinct, which is nothing else but in other words a necessity of nature. For whether that instinct proceeds from sense or reason, in this case it makes no difference, the actions which flow from it, being in both cases equally necessary and unavoidable. And therefore Limborch tells us, that Adam was governed by the law of nature, as infants are by the direction of sense, and sensitive appetites, who cannot be presumed before they arrive at the use of reason, to act by deliberation and choice. Now from hence one of these two things must unavoidably follow; Either first that Adam in the state of innocence had the faculty of willing, without Libertas haec à voluntate est inseparabilis, Limb. ibid. Sect. 20. Voluntatis proprietas libertas est, quae ita voluntati intima est, ut sine ea non sit voluntas, Sect. 9. the essential property of it, which they say is freedom, and therefore absolutely inseparable from it. Or 2dly, that liberty and necessity may be reconciled, which at other times they tell us can no more be done, then you can tie both parts of a contradiction together. 2dly, The other known principle of the Socinians and Remonstrants, which is clearly destroyed by Limborch is, Ubicunque necessitas dominatur, ibi Religioni non est locus, Exam. Censurae in Conf. Remonst. p. 82. that Religion and necessity, are absolutely inconsistent; Forasmuch as there can be no room left for the one, where the other doth prevail. Now that which necessary results from hence must be this; First that Adam before his Fall, acting by a natural instinct, was incapable of Religion; or 2dly, that Moral Righteousness, which consists in the practise of those duties which right reason, and the law of nature prescribes, is no part of it. Either of which must be a very impious as well as a very absurd assertion: for it must either suppose man, at his first Creation not to be endowed with reason: or if he were, that he was not obliged to act according to the rules and directions of it: which to affirm, were plainly to confounded and alter the nature of things, and to overthrow the first and original notions of Good and Evil. Now by what we have thus laid down out of the writings of the Adversaries of this Truth, one would think that there should be no great difference between us, but that we were if not perfectly agreed, at least in a fair way to be so. And indeed if we had to deal with men whose meaning might be guessed at by their words: or who would stand to any principles and be consistent with themselves; this part of the controversy might easily be ended, or at least, might be fairly accommodated: but when they come to explain themselves, they and we, notwithstanding this seeming consent, are found to be at as great a distance, as the arctic and antarctic Poles. For tho Socinus acknowledges that God at first made man after his own Image: yet he tells us that that Image, as we shewed before, consisted only in the Dominion which God gave him over the whole Creation: and that all other notions of similitude, whereby he may be thought to resemble God, are but Commenta Humana, the inventions of men; not any part of the Revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures. In short, that Adam was born a frail, mortal Creature, having only the bare faculties of understanding and will, but without the accomplishments of either, being neither endowed with wisdom nor holiness: a pure rasa Tabula, capable indeed of any impressions, but having no characters either of wisdom or Righteousness, engraven upon his mind, by the finger of God, when he first dropped out of his hands. Let us consider particulars, and thereby we shall be enabled to take a clearer view, and frame a better judgement of these Socinian opinions: and how far they are from being conformable to the Scripture account, and the notions which both Jews and Christians, have from thence formed of these matters. And first we will begin with the {αβγδ}, the supreme and leading faculty of the Soul, the understanding; and whereas we told you before that God Created man as in perfect stature of Body, so likewise in full ripeness of understanding, so that he had a perfect knowledge of God, himself, his duty, and all parts of the Creation: Socinus will tell you that all this is a great mistake. For tho he acknowledges that God Created him in perfect strength and vigour, at the full age, and with the complete dimensions of a Man; yet he would have us believe, that in his understanding he was a mere child; which was to grow up with him, by observation, study and experience as in other men. But otherwise at his first production, that he had very little knowledge of himself, or any thing about him. So that if you were to form an Idea of man from the writings of Socinus, you might fancy him to be an overgrown Baby, at his first coming into the world, gaping, and staring, and casting his eyes about him; surprised and pleased like a Child at Bartholomew-Fair, with great variety of beautiful objects, but totally ignorant of their natures, and the uses for which they were designed. For first say they, whereas God placed him in Paradise, where amid great variety of Herbs and Plants, grew the three of Life, of which Adam had the free liberty of eating; and the eating whereof must have been of singular use to him, either thro its natural efficacy, or Sacramental signification: yet this was of very little or perhaps of no advantage to Adam, Quamvis cibo illi subinde comesto, vim à morte in perpetuum conservandi insitam fuisse diceremus; hoc beneficio Adamus nunquam dici potest donatus fuisse, propter esum cili illius sibi permissum; cum ejusmodi vis ei nunquam patefacta fuerit, nisi postquam illius comedeudi facultate privatus fuit. Socin. ad deafen. Puccii Resp. p. 299. who was perfectly a stranger to the virtue of it, and therefore was not likely to receive any benefit from it. So that as to what concerned Adam himself, it might as well have been planted in Utopia, as in Paradise; for whatever virtues it had, he was totally ignorant of them, and knew nothing of the use, till he was peremptorily forbid the using of it. 2ly, Tho Adam was naked, yet he knew not that he was so, said instar infantis vel pueri se nudum esse ignoravi●, Smalc. de ver. Dei fill. cap. 7. One would think at this rate that he had not arrived to the perfect use of his senses, any more than the free exercise of his Reason; for if he had had but his feeling about him, sure he must needs have discerned whether God had given him a Coat of Mail, or only his own Skin for a covering. But he innocent creature like a perfect child, knew not the difference between being clothed with armor, and being armed with nakedness. 3dly, As to his Wife and the Beasts of the Field, when brought to him, he knew no more of either, than what was barely represented to his senses Quis tibi patefecit Adamum cognovisse naturam omnium Bestiarum,& suae co●jugis? anon vides, Bestiarum nomina non ad alia respexisse quam ad ea quae sensibus sose prodebant,& unicuique manifesta esse potuissent. Socin. de statu primi Hom. Cap. 4. p. 296. , so that his knowledge of them seemed to be little more then that of the Brute Creatures themselves. You will say Adam's giving names to all the Beasts of the field, and Fowles of the air is an argument of the quiter contrary, viz. of very great knowledge, because to enable him to assign proper and pertinent names to creatures, he must have had the knowledge of more than their external shape and appearance: otherwise a pibble might be mistaken for a Diamond, and every thing would have been called Gold that glistered. He must therefore have had a perfect knowledge of the natures Neque enim Hebraei Animalium nomina temere imposuerunt, ut Latins, Graeci& Barbari, said sapienti consilio. Nempe ipse ille Adamus Animalibus ad se adductis, nomina imposuit illorum naturae congrua, partim ab iis sumpta quae in sensus incurrebant, voice puta, colore& externa corporis specie; Partim ab iis quae intus latebant,& soli animo se offerebant, ab indole nimirum& moribus: quae non usu didicerat, &c. said sapientia quadam infusa& congenita pervidebat. Deo singulorum Animalium arcanas proprietates in illius oculos ingerente, Boch. de Animal. Sacr. Praef. p. 2. Nec sine numine Adamum illa imposuisse ex eo liquet, quod horum nominum vix ullum est, quod non certa ratione constet, nec est quod suspicentur Hebreae Linguae ignari, haec à nobis temere asseri, cum rem à multis saepe jactatam, longa inductione demonstrare conati sumus, ibid. p. 18. , properties, powers and faculties both of Plants and Animals: because names led us into the true understanding of the natures, and distinction of things. And therefore Plato in a Dialogue which he wrote upon this very subject {αβγδ}, which he Entitles his Cratylus from one of the persons speaking in it; openly declares {αβγδ}. that it was no ordinary matter, nor the work of any mean vulgar persons to impose names upon things: nay since he who at first assigned names, must know the nature of those things, he was of opinion, that he must be master of more than ordinary, {αβγδ}, Ibid. nay indeed then of human wisdom, to enable him to do so. But let Plato say what he will, and let other wise, either Heathens or Christians think what they please: Num tibi videtur ex his Colligi posse, Adamum cognovisse naturam omnium Bestiarum,& suae conjugis? Nam ex nominibus conjugi impositis clear liquet, quatenus ea cognitio, quam nominum impositio arguit, progrederetur; nimirum ad ea, quae quilibet quantumvis stupidus cognoscere potuisset. Socinus will tell us another story, that this was so far from being an Argument of more then ordinary wisdom, that it might be consistent with the greatest ignorance: and therefore that neither Adam himself, nor any body else, should put a more than ordinary value upon his knowledge upon this account. It is true he gave names to creatures, but herein he did no more than what, quilibet quantumvis stupidus, the meanest and most ignorant Blockhead might have done. Lastly, whereas God at first made Adam mortal, being liable to death by the very constitution of his nature, as Socin. again and again tell us de statu pri. Hom. yet he knew nothing of his Primus homo se mortalem esse, nemine indicante, non agnovit, cap. 4. p. 259. mortality: Verisimillimum est Adamum ne scivisse quidem, quando ex terra sumptus esset; quis enim hoc illi indicaverat? Nemine autem indicante, quomodo id scire potuerat: cum simul atque creatus erat, terra non amplius esset, said aliud quid, quantum sensibus percipi poterat, a terra long diversissimum? p. 296. Ante lapsum Adamus fuit terrenus,& sic ante lapsum corpus sui natura omnino abolendum habuit, p. 263. he was formed out of the earth indeed, but that was more than he knew, and into dust according to the course of nature, and the Law of his Creation, tho he had not sinned, he was to have returned. But for all this he might dream of an immortality, as other Quis hac de re dubitare potest, cum vix ipsi nos, rationibus licet efficaciss●nis perpetuaque ac certissima experientia edocti( praesertim cum florente adhuc aetate sumus,& recte valemus) moriendum esse nobis plane credamus, immo nos nunquam morituros esse, sperare videamur? p. 296. vain men have done since, who think that their Houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all Generations. Ps. 49. 11. And thus by making our first Parent to feed himself with those vain and imaginary hopes, he turns the Garden of Eden into a Fools Paradise. Now if this be true, I must profess myself to be of the same mind with small. Sapientiam primo homini tributam, Idaeam esse in cerebro hominum natam, small. contra Franz. p. 44. that all this wisdom of our first Parent which hath been so much talked of, and magnified by Christians, is but a mere Chimaera, owing to the inventions and whimsies of some fanciful men. And with him Episcopius Rectitudo itaque haec, in simplicitate& innocentia constitit, quae aetati issi primae Adami, tanquam infantili, conveniens fuit. Episcop. Inst. Th. Lib. 4. cap. 4. seems very well to agree, who tells us that in Adam before the fall we might find the innocence of Children joined with the simplicity and ignorance of them. In short, Adam in this state of nature was a very natural, a mere Infant, that did not know the difference between Good and Evil, and could scarce distinguish between his Right hand and his Left. And was such a one fit to be Gods Vicegerent, and under him to be entrusted with the care and government of the world? red but the Fathers and they will tell you another story, who can scarce speak things great enough of the Dignity and Excellence of mans nature, as may in part appear from those few passages( among many others, which might be collected) which we before cited out of their writings. And when they have hereby enabled you to form an Idea of a creature adorned with exquisite perfections, with all the accomplishments human nature was capable of: in short, when they have raised your expectations to the greatest height, so that you might well have thought, that you were to behold a kind of celestial man, or rather a terrestrial God: all this, to your great amazement, when you come to peruse the writings of Socinus and his friends, dwindles into the description of a weak, frail, simplo ignorant Baby; a mere Puisnè; in stature perhaps a man, but in understanding a very child. And indeed Socinus himself when it is for his purpose, viz. to establish the belief of that mighty sovereignty which sometimes out of his great bounty he will be pleased to confer upon Adam;( and which could not be well or wisely entrusted but with a person of extraordinary endowments) can graciously allow him to be endowed with prudence, wisdom, and sagacity, as was said before. In effect no man ever raised the Dominion of Adam to so high a pitch as he hath done: for he makes it reach above the Clouds, placing the Heavens as well as the Earth under his feet, making the glorious Luminaries of them, not only subservient to his use,( as Marc. Anton. Flaminius in his Paraphrase on the 8th Ps. well expresses it, and which is quoted with great commendation by Socin. but doth not serve his purpose) but likewise subject to his Empire: bringing in the Son and Moon and Stars, as in Joseph's Dream, doing as it were their Homage, and making obeisance to him. Lastly the very Quibus verbis addi potest, Angelos ipsos, quamvis ad hoins usum non itaque creatos, Homini tamen Dei jussu inservire: ita ut nihil plane esse videatur, praeter ipsum Deum, quod Homini aliqua ratione subjectum esse dici non posset. Ibid. Angels of God, those glorious Spirits, and every thing but God himself, he makes the subjects of this vast and mighty Dominion. And thus when he hath prepared you to entertain your thoughts with the contemplation of one of the most glorious in some respects of all Creatures, you find yourself strangely disappointed: for when you come narrowly to survey him, this Giant all on a sudden shrinks into a Dwarf; and he whom God placed but a little lower than the Angels, and whom Socinus when in a good humour can be graciously pleased, to place above them: at another time he shall put upon the same level with the Beasts, and make him like the Horse and the Mule which have no understanding. A perfect stranger to himself and every thing about him: being naked, he good man might think that he was arrayed in a rob of State, when( alas!) he was wrapped up only in his own Innocence. Tho mortal, and subject to Death, he thought of nothing but living forever. How scandalous is this account, how injurious to the first great parent of mankind: but they who think and speak so dishonourably of the second Adam, as to degrade him from his Divinity, and place him in the number of mere men; may with as good reason, Dethrone the first Adam from his dignity, and rank him in the number of the Beasts that perish. Let us now proceed, to the account which they give of the holiness of Adam, which is the other principal part of that Image of God, after which he was made. And here Socinus endeavours to rectify the mistakes, which have passed for currant among Christians in this matter; for whereas we have hitherto been taught to believe, that man was at first made with holiness in his will; order, submission, and regularity in his affections: This great Reformer will tell us, that this is a groundless imagination, vetus ac foetida fabula, Primum Hominem sanctitate,& Donis supernaturalibus ornatum fuisse ab ipsa creatione, vetus est ac foetoda Fabula, small. Refut. Lib. Nov. Aria. cap. 24. as Smalcius stiles it, a stale and senseless fable. We may if we will, fancy never so great things of Adam in the state of Innocence; that there was nothing but order and uniformity between his faculties; all calm and serene in his mind; no clouds or mists of passion to disorder his reason; no Rebellion of the Inferior against the superior faculties. But the plain truth of it is, Adam was cast in the same mould, and made up of the same ingredients with ourselves. He found the same Sunt qui dicunt, Originalem hoins justitiam in eo fuisse, quod Rationem Appetitui ac sensibus dominantem haberet, eosque Regentem, nec ullam inter ipsam& illos dissidium esse. Verum nulla ratione adducti hot dicunt: cum potius ex eo quod Adamus deliquit, appareat appetitum ac sensus rationi dominatos fuisse, nec been inter Hanc& illos antea convenisse. Socin. Prael. Th. Cap. 3. struggle in his breast as we do; his reason directing him to one thing, and his senses to another; and in this combat, reason was sometimes foiled, and, what no body ever told us before, his passions had often disobeyed his understanding and got the mastery over it, even before he disobeyed the commands of God in that famous instance of eating the forbidden fruit: which in other words amounts to this, that his Actions had oftentimes tripped up his Reason, before he received his great Fall as it is usually styled by us. And with him agree the Remonstrants, who tell us that Concupiscence, or the first motions and inclinations to Sin are natural, and were found in our first Parents, in their first and original State; that the will of Adam after his fall, Fateor Adami Appetitum post peccatum magis inclinasse in malum, quam in statu integritatis, Limb. Th. Christ. Lib. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. 27. Adami Appetitus, postquam semel peccavit, pronior redditus est ad concupiscendum illicita, Ibid. Sect. 24. was more depraved indeed, and that his inclinations to sin were stronger and more violent than before; but however a proneness and tendency to evil there was in him from the first instant of his Creation: desires of, and a complacence in such unlawful objects which gratify the senses, being things purely natural, which arise from the constitution and frame of human nature. And particularly Limborch saith that concupiscence, quatenus fertur in rem illicitam, as it comprehends those first desires, those Original commotions and tendency of the affections towards that which is evil, is no Sin. And among others he assigns these two reasons for his assertion. Quam diu haec concupiscentia est à natura peccatum non est, said naturalis solummodo Appetitus habendi quod carni gratum. Fuit in primis Parentibus ante primum peccatum, absque eo primi parentes in peccatum induci uon potuissent, si autem concupiscentia ista fuit in primis parentibus ante Lapsum, fieri nequit ut sit effectum Lapsus, Idem. Cap. 3. Sect. 4. Concupiscentia erga rem illicitam, quatenus complectitur motus primo primos, non est peccatum. Primi affectuum impetus& commotiones ex proposito objecto grato vel ingrato, non est peccatum, said sunt naturales commotiones in nobis excitatae. Non enim sunt in nostra potestate, &c. Tantum abest ut sint vitie, ut sint materia exercendae virtutis, &c. First because these motions are, as we said before, natural, and not within the power of the will, to be kerbed or restrained by it, and consequently not subject to the commands of reason: which is very true, if men are considered in this state of corrupt nature; but he means it of nature antecedent to any Depravation. And therefore 2dly, Fuere etiam hi motus in nostris parentibus, Idem. Lib. 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 8. 9. tells us they were to be found in Adam in his state of innocence: without which he would not only have been innocent but impeccable; uncapable of sinning, because he could not otherwise have been in a capacity so much as to be tempted and solicited to Sin. If this be so, then I must confess that what we have asserted of the subjection of the passions to reason, and the subordination between the powers and faculties of the Soul, in the state of innocence, may be well accounted, what Smalcius calls it, Commentum Humanum, vetus ac foetida fabula. But upon a fair examination, I doubt not but it will be made to appear, that what Socinus and his friends deliver to the Contrary, will be found to be no less dishonourable to God, than injurious to our first Parent. For 1st, The account they give us of this matter, is unbecoming the wisdom of God. For to suppose man at his first Creation, made with his affections struggling against his reason, and sometimes getting the upper hand of it; is to have the same imperfect view of Adam, as that poor blind man in the Gospel had of other persons, who when his eyes were first opened, saw men as trees walking, Mark 8. 24. A man as Naturalists tell us is a three inverted. Now since Reason is the supreme faculty of the Soul, and the affections may be properly styled the Feet of it, upon which it moves; the description which the Socinians and Remonstrants give us of Adam, is just as if you should represent a man walking upon his head, with his heels capering in the Air: which is a very proper posture for a man newly stolen out of Bedlam, or for one fit to be sent thither: but a very unbecoming one for him, who just came out of the hands of his maker, with the approbation of goodness and uprightness. Can we think it agreeable to the wisdom of God, to proceed with so great care and deliberation to the making a piece of workmanship so irregular and deformed: we may as well think God made man with a distorted Countenance, as with a depraved mind. It is true indeed, by the Devils cunning, and mans folly, things at present are brought to this pass: the order of nature being quiter inverted. But it will become us to think more decently of the Allwise former of things, than to imagine, that he who made every thing else with that admirable symmetry and proportion of parts; all things in number weight and measure, so as that they might best answer the ends of their Creation; should now in extremo actu deficere, in the conclusion of all, produce such a rude inartificial piece, who would have been so far from being the Crown and Ornament, that he would really have been the disparagement and disgrace of the Creation. 2dly, As this is unbecoming the wisdom, so it is opposite to the holiness of God, because hereby God is made the Author of Sin: for if the contention between the superior and inferior faculties of the Soul, and a proneness and inclination to Sin be natural, and at the same time be a moral evil: for as much as God is undoubtedly the Author of nature, he must by this Hypothesis, at the same time be the Author of Sin. Now that Concupiscence or a propensity to evil is Sin, I think may easily be made to appear from this consideration, that it is a violation of that great fundamental Law of placing the whole soul and affection entirely upon God. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all thy mind, this is the first and great Commandement; Mat. 22. 37, 38. I hope I need not be put to the trouble of proving, either 1st, that Adam in his state of innocence was under the direction of this Law. Or 2dly, That he had complete abilities and full power to obey it. Or 3dly. That this Law, tho it takes in the outward actions, yet that it chiefly and principally respects the Soul; the motions and inclinations of which come under its first and immediate obligation. All this I shall take for granted: and from hence I argue, that Adam being by virtue of this Law obliged to place the whole bent and inclination of his mind upon God( which is the meaning of Loving him with all thy Soul, and with all thy might) every propension to evil must be a direct breach and violation of it, and consequently a Sin. There is nothing that I can think of, which can possibly be replied to this by our Adversaries, but one of these two things. Either 1st, that there may be this concupiscence and inclination to sin without the affection to it: Or 2dly, that an affection to sin may be consistent with the perfect and entire Love of God, neither of which can be affirmed without great absurdity. For 1st, All desire is naturally founded in Love, which is, usually and properly distinguished into amor complacentiae, and amor desiderii. Now desire is nothing else but the tendency of the Soul towards its beloved object. As it is therefore in a pair of Scales, the inclination or leaning of them towards either side, must proceed from the greater degrees of weight, that are in one more then in the other: so it is in all desires, which are the moral inclinations of the soul. When a man desires any thing, it must proceed from his affection to, or complacency in that thing. And if sin be the object of those desires, it can be for no other reason, but because it is the object of his affection; for no man ever yet could desire that which he had an aversation to. 2. Where there is a perfect love of God, there the whole soul is entirely bent upon him: and this is absolutely inconsistent with any inclination to sin: As much as it is for a man to stand boult upright, and stoop towards the ground: to be in perfect health, and yet have a tendency to a fever or a Consumption. Do you think it was possible for Lot's Wife, to have gone with her face directly towards Zoar, and yet at the same time to have cast a glance towards Sodom? I confess it is no new thing for a man to have his face look one way, and his affections go quiter another. But that a man should place his affections entirely upon God, and yet lean towards sin, is absolutely impossible: as much as it is for him at the same time to go backward and forward, to wink with his eyes, and yet stare another man directly in the face. In short, I would ask this plain question, whether to love God with all the Soul, were a duty incumbent upon Adam, or not? If they say no, I would fain know, who hath told the Socinians, that God gave Adam leave to place any part of his affection upon that, to which he himself hath declared an eternal and irreconcilable hatred: that the same thing may lawfully be the object of mans desires, and Gods aversation: if they say it was his duty, then I desire to be informed, how it is possible for a man to love God with the whole Soul, and yet reserve any part of it for his sins: which is as plain and as dangerous a contradiction as it was for Ananias to bring the whole price of his estate to the Apostles and yet to keep back part for his own use, Act. 5. But against all this that hath been said, of the perfection and integrity of mans nature, there is one objection that is commonly made with great plausibility; and that is, if Adam had been sent into the world, with all those moral accomplishments, which we have assigned him, one would think it were impossible for him to have sinned. And that he must not only have been innocent, but impeccable. For first, if there were that submission of his affections to his reason, as is pretended: how comes it to pass that they ever rebelled against it? Why did not his reason subdue the first and earlyest motions of his sensitive appetite, and strangle them in the birth. If reason had so great an authority, as we talk of, the least beck or nod would have calmed any present uproar of the passions, and have kept all quiet in the Soul. Or if we suppose the temptation to begin at the understanding, sin entering that way into the Soul: it may be asked, how it was possible, that a person endowed with so much wisdom and sagacity, as Adam is supposed to be master of, could ever be wrought upon to do a thing so contrary to all reason, viz. to harken to the suggestion of an evil spirit, in opposition to the plain declaration, and peremptory threatening of his Maker. He must be strangely surprised one would think, and tho he had great knowledge, sure he had not his reason, or at least his consideration at that time about him. To which I Ans. That Adam tho created with all the before mentioned excellencies, yet was made in a state of probation and trial: and tho perfectly good, yet not so confirmed in goodness, but that he was left in the hands of his own counsel, so that his happiness or misery was purely in his own power. His state of innocence, was a state of liberty: being endowed indeed with Righteousness, but at the same time with Freedom likewise, having a complete power over his own actions, so that he might either do an action, or suspend the doing of it; harken to his reason, or disobey the dictates of it, as he thought fit. He was made up of such faculties, whereby he was capable of being tempted, and upon the account of the before mentioned liberty, of complying with the temptation: in which there was something offered by the Devil to gratify his sense, and something to work upon his understanding. The three was good for Food, and pleasant to the Eye, Gen. 3. 6. Here was a plain temptation offered to the senses. You will say reason might easily have restrained the sensitive Appetite, and then the temptation would have been insignificant. But we know that reason itself may be perverted, and here was something offered to bribe that. In the day you eat thereof your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil, ver. 5. so that now it was a three, which was not only pleasant to the eyes, but a three to be desired to make one wise, ver. 6. Place therefore the temptation and let it begin where you will: by virtue of that Dominion which Adam had over his own actions, he might, if he so thought fit, gratify the dictates of sense, against the directions of reason, and suffer the suggestions of satan, to prevail against the commands of God. But however tho the senses might be wrought upon, and the affections consequently excited; yet the will one would think should not be moved but by the direction of reason, and it is scarce to be imagined how so pure, so refined a reason could be imposed upon. Ans. yes, the understanding itself is capable of being wrought upon, either immediately by Argument, or mediately by persuasion, and the allurements of the senses; which are apt to make wise men inconsiderate, and inconsideration is one great step to error; and not only so, but the senses oftentimes transfer their own prejudices upon the understanding; nothing being more usual, than for men to believe that to be true, which they earnestly desire should prove so. But when all is done, tho we should grant that the affections were moved, and the understanding so far perverted as to act so foolishly, it is not easily understood, how the will, which was so holy and righteous, should ever consent to so wicked an action; and without that consent, the action would never have been committed. I Ans. This might be done, by virtue of that power which the will had over its own Actions: for tho it were a righteous, it was a free will: and consequently capable of acting according to its duty, or contrary to it. But to put this matter beyond all doubt, or at least beyond the cavils of our adversaries; I shall offer two instances, which are allowed by them, for proof and illustration of this matter: viz. That Adam, tho in a state of the greatest perfection, yet might be capable of consenting to a temptation, and consequently,( as it happened) of being overcome by it. And the first instance shall be that of a Regenerate man whose condition is thus represented by Limb. Vid. Limb. Lib. 5. cap. 15. Intellectus divinae voluntatis cognitione illustratus certam vitae normam ac regulam habet. Voluntas judicium intellectus seguitur, aliaque non appetite, quamquae intellectus Appetenda dictat;& odio habet, qua ●odio digna judicat. Hanc consequuntur affectus, &c. his understanding is illuminated with the knowledge of the divine pleasure, so that he cannot mistake for want of a certain rule to govern his judgement by. His will follows the direction of the understanding, and is so far swayed by it, that in its choice and aversation, it is guided by the determination of that supreme faculty. Lastly the affections are obedient to the will, and move according as they are moved or incited by it. Nay this blessed Harmony between the faculties is not disturbed by Esse autem& remanere in homine Regenito naturalem corruptionem,& concupiscentiae innatae reliquias, quas Deus in hac vita tollere nolit, quibusque homo regenitus subinde ad pe●candum impellatur, à ratione alienum est,& scripturae adversatur, Ibid. any remains of concupiscence, or natural corruption which are left in the Soul, whereby he is solicited, and excited to the practise of that which is evil. Here one might think that a man having all his faculties thus fortified and guarded by the grace of God, should almost be out of the reach of any temptation: and yet such an one, of so pure, so refined, so consummate a holiness,( you would think it, the description of the state of Innocence, and not of Regeneration, b● which the Image of God is but imperfectly renewed in this life,) is not only liable to be tempted, but likewise( according to him) to be foiled by it, to the loss of his spiritual life. So that he may fall from one Sin to another, until at length by a total apostasy, he may extinguish all dispositions to virtue, and become of a Child of God, a Son of perdition. If you inquire how such an one can be prevailed upon, to act so contrary to his knowledge, nay to his inclinations, having no inward concupiscence to assist and help forward the temptation: He will tell us, it is by virtue of that essential power of the will, which is not destroyed by grace: the most Holy man being left in a state of freedom, and therefore may be enticed by the deceitfulness of Sin. The same answer may serve for Adam, whose case seems to be in a manner parallel: only it may be said that the Remonst. and Socin. do allow motus primo primi concupiscentiae, or the first and original inclinations to Sin to be in Adam: which, as they were matter for the exercise of virtue, so likewise were they the subject for the temptation to work upon, and his sin consequently might enter in at that door, which by our account is shut, so that we leave no passage for its admittance. Tho this objection if we had time to consider it, would make no great difference, yet I shall produce another instance, which is beyond all exception, and that is the case of the fallen Angels: who at the first instant of their Creation, were possessed of all the advantages both of knowledge and righteousness, in a much greater and more sublime degree than man in the state of innocence was capable of, whose spiritual nature gave them many advantages above man: who tho he had no vicious inclinations originally put into his nature; yet he was made up of sense as well as reason, and had other appetites to be gratified besides that of knowledge, and consequently had more ways than one for the temptation to enter, and might therefore the more easily be seduced. Perhaps it may be said, that Angels are not so immaterial as many may fond imagine, being made up of other ingredients, besides reason and knowledge, and consequently may have other appetites to gratify. Ex alia materia constant, quam homines, saith Socin, De statu primi Hom. contra Pucc. p. 307. But be that as it will, they are as immaterial as the Soul of man at least, neither are they clogged with such dull, heavy substances as our bodies are, which are joined to the Soul, and with it make up the essence of man. In short they were not composed of senses, nor consequently had any sensual appetites to gratify in opposition to their reason: neither had they any external enemy to entice, solicit and push them forward, which was the case of Adam, who was seduced by his wife, as his wife was by the Serpent, and beguiled by his subtilety. And yet these holy, knowing, refined, subtle spirits were wrought upon, and either thro pride, envy, curiosity, or whatever else it was, did rebel against their maker. But how could envy find a passage into the minds of these pure and immaculate spirits, any more than wisdom enter into a Soul defiled with Sin? What could they possibly desire, which they were not already possessed of? What accession could be made to their happiness, what addition to their subtle and refined knowledge? Did they hope to mend their condition by revolting from their maker? How could so wild an imagination enter into the minds of such wise and intelligent beings? Had they no knowledge of God and themselves, and the infinite distance between both? If they had not, let us no longer magnify their wisdom nor aggravate their crime, which their ignorance must extenuate, if not totally excuse. If they had, how could they think of fighting against God, and not know that in the conclusion they should be mastered by him? They could not but be sensible, that they had to do with him who was neither an impotent nor a careless being; consequently, one who would be provoked by an affront, and could revenge it. Ero sunilis altissimo, might be a wish, fit for a proud, but not for a wise and intelligent spirit; who could not but know the attempt to be impossible, and therefore ridiculous; and consequently inconsistent with an ordinary degree of wisdom, and much more with the deep and piercing judgments of those once glorious Angels. This and a great deal more might be urged to show the improbability of their apostasy and Fall. But it is in vain to argue against plain matter of Fact. They did enter into a conspiracy against their Maker, are turned Rebels and Apostates, at the instigation, as it is like, of one Chiestain and Ringleader, who is styled satan, and the Devil by way of Emphasis; and have left their first habitation, being tumbled down into those lower regions, where they are reserved in chains under darkness, unto the judgement of the great Day, Jud. 6. All which the Scriptures have assured us the truth of: and how unlikely or improbable soever it may seem, yet is acknowledged by those persons with whom we are now disputing. Having thus given an account of man in his state of innocence, now we come to consider him in his Fallen state, and what the Scriptures have informed us of it, is this. That Adam having disobeyed his maker, in eating of the Forbidden fruit, became obnoxious to the sentence and penalty of the Law, which was Death. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2. 17. But besides the punishment of Death, he was further liable to a twofold misery, which was the unavoidable consequence of his disobedience. First, hereby he lost his integrity, and a great measure of that Original Righteousness which we before described. 2dly, He forfeited the favour of God, which made up the principal and noblest part of that happiness which he was possessed of in the state of innocence. And of this, the curse which he brought upon the earth; the toil, and labour, and sorrows which he pulled upon his own head; and much more his expulsion out of Paradise, and separation from the three of Life, were an evident argument; as being the plain indications of Gods high displeasure against him. All sin doth more or less defile mans nature, and therefore must put him out of Gods favour, who cannot behold the least impurity without Aversation: no unclean thing can enter into his presence, but must for ever be excluded and banished, from the habitation of his holiness, and the place where his honour dwelleth. And here we have the acknowledgement of some of them, who in other things Communis poena fuit mors, seu moriendi necessitas; cvi conjuncta fuit foelicitatis primaevae privatio; amissio nim: integritatis in qua conditi fuerant, ejectio ex paradiso,& separatio ab Arbore vitae. Limb. Lib. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. 23. Adamus amisit quidem justitiam originalem, seu potius excidit ex statu innocentiae& integritatis, in statum peccati. Idem Sect. 24. are our adversaries in this truth, viz. That Adam by his disobedience, forfeited his happiness, lost his Original Righteousness in which he was at first created, and fell from a state of uprightness into a state of sin; Episcop. Disp. 5. Thes. 3. Natura Adami privata fuit bono gratiae& gloriae. being hereby deprived both of Grace and Glory: which is all that we mean when we speak of the corruption of mans nature, which doth not only consist in a bare negation of holiness, and consequently a disability by his own natural strength to perform any saving good: but likewise in necessary propensions to evil, as is acknowledged by Limb. Adami Appetitus post lapsum, magis inclinavit in peccatum,& pronior redditus est ad concupiscendum illicita, as we cited him before, Lib. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. 24. I know it is said both by the Socinians, and Remonstrants, notwithstanding their former confession, that it cannot be conceived, how one sin should be of that force as to corrupt all the powers and faculties of Adam's Soul. To which I Answer, this might very well happen from the nature of the thing, as well as by the appointment and judgement of Almighty God. And this I shall make out by two instances which cannot well be denied by our Adversaries. The first shall be that of a Regenerate man, who by their unanimous confession may fall from a state of Grace, and that not only by repeated and multiplied acts, but by the commission of one great sin, such as is Idolatry, murder, Adultery, Perjury, denial of the Faith, and the like, which do not only put a man out of Gods favour; but destroy the state of Regeneration; which they say is inconsistent, with the single commission of any such enormous sins. And this they prove from the examples of David, and Solomon, who by the commission of those two great sins of Adultery, and Idolatry, did totally fall from Grace, as well as from the just hopes and title to Salvation. It is true indeed, they say, the habit of Faith in David was not by this sin totally extinguished; neither do we say the like of the Righteousness of Adam after his Fall; but however, Facto isto habitum sanctitatis infregit, actum fidei consequentem, obedientiam seu sanctitatem peremit, assensu licet aliquali adhuc permanente, as Lib. 5. Cap. 82. Limb. speaks, he did thereby weaken the habit of Righteousness, and destroyed his Faith as it was a principle of holiness, or a saving Grace: which is all that we need to affirm of the effect of Adam's sin, which was by the confession of Episcop. peccatum enorm. For tho as to the external Fact, of eating the forbidden Fruit, it was but One, yet if we consider the ingredients, causes, and preparations to it, it was a Complication of Sins. I suppose our adversaries will aclowledge, that Adam before he sinned was tempted; that he harkened to the voice of the Tempter; that he broken thro the strongest restraints, viz. the threatening of Death annexed to the prohibition, which must necessary suppose in him insidelilty, a contempt of Gods Authority, and a kind of apostasy and revolt from his Maker: man being now no longer to be subject to God, but to be equal with him. So that his Sin had some Affinity, with the Pride and Rebellion of the Apostate Angels,( which was the second instance to be given for the illustration of this matter) which sin of theirs, hath so totally infected and poisoned their natures, that they are in a manner made up of Pride, Malice, Envy, and Wickedness. In short, it hath so entirely corrupted them, that there are no relics, no footsteps remaining of their first and original purity: not the least spark of goodness left, but all inclinations to, and endeavours after it are absolutely and eternally extinguished. But we need not so far aggravate Adam's Sin, and the misery consequent upon it. Let it suffice to say, that it might be of as great efficacy, as either the Adultery of David, or Idolatry of Solomon was, to weaken if not to destroy his Original Righteousness: to put him out of the favour of God, and consequently, to deprive him of his happiness and integrity together. This was the effect of Adam's Sin upon himself, but it did not rest here, but reached all his posterity: for Adam must be considered as the root of mankind: and so in a natural way, his happiness or misery might be conveyed to his posterity; and much more when we consider him as a federal Head: God having made a covenant with him, as the representative of all mankind, so that according to his obedience or disobedience respectively, his posterity was either to enjoy or be deprived of that happiness, and those advantages he was possessed of; the promises and threatenings comprehending them all. And this the Apostle plainly makes out, in the comparison instituted by him between Adam and Christ; who were both, tho in different respects, the Heads and Representatives of all mankind. And so they are put in opposition to one another by St. Paul, both in the 1 Cor. 15. ch. And especially in the 5th of the Rom. v. 12. For as by one man Sin entered into the World and death by Sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. That is, as the punishment was transmitted from Adam to all his posterity; Dr. Hammond very well observes, That the 13th and 14th verses are to be red as in a Parenthesis, the second part of the Comparison, which respects Christ, rising higher than the former which related to Adam, and so is necessary changed from the form of a Comparison or equality, to that of an Argument à minori ad majus, from the less to the greater. so, or rather, much more than so, the gift of grace and mercy thro Christ, hath abounded to many, vers. 15. or to all, to whom it belongs, and for whom it was purchased, and to whom upon performance of the conditions required in the new covenant, it shall certainly be applied. For so the word {αβγδ} is to be understood, it being as much as {αβγδ}; as is evident by comparing the 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19th, ver. together: for whereas in the 15th vers. The free gift is said to have abounded unto many, {αβγδ}; in the 18th, It is said the free Gift came {αβγδ}; and whereas in the 12th v. Sin is said to be, and enter into the World {αβγδ}, and death by Sin: The word {αβγδ} must signify as much as {αβγδ}; the Apostle himself so explaining it in the same verse, telling us that Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Once more v. 19. we are told that as by the disobedience of one, many were made or constituted Sinners; so by the Obedience of one, shall many be made or constituted Righteous. Now these many, in the verse immediately foregoing 18. are said to be all men; for by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men unto Condemnation; so by the Righteousness of one, the free Gift came upon all men to Justification of Life. By all which it is evident, that as the Righteousness of Christ was not personal; the sufferings indeed were in the person of Christ, but were not terminated there( I mean as to their virtue and efficacy) but reached and extended to all mankind, so far, as to put all men into a capacity of Salvation, who before were under the displeasure of God, and obnoxious to the sentence of the Law: So the Sin of Adam was not merely personal, but such as involved all his posterity in the same guilt, and made them liable to death, which was the punishment threatened by the Law. And this is so plainly delivered, and so often repeated by the Apostle in this chapter, that one would think there should be no room left, not only for any probable, but any the remotest doubt. red but the 12th verse and there you will find, that by one man sin entered into the World, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Where we have first, an account both of the cause and original of sin, and of its overtaking all mankind: and that is the disobedience of Adam, he was that one man: as also of the effect and consequence of that sin, which was Death. 2dly, We have the proof of that Assertion, viz. that sin entered into the World, or upon all men( for those two words, as we shewed before, are equivalent, and signify one and the same thing) by a demonstration à posteriori, because Death which is the punishment of sin, hath overtaken all men. It is plain then, as words can make it, that Death is the punishment of sin: Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin. 2dly, it is equally evident, that since the punishment hath overtaken all men, that all are involved in the guilt: because death could not otherwise seize on all men, but because all have sinned: the crime and the punishment being of equal extent. For death, or, mortality being come into the World, seized not only on Adam, to whom it was peremptorily and expressly threatened( in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die) but upon all mere men also that were afterwards born, because all were sinners. Idem ibid. And that we may not think death now to be the only condition of our nature, we being mortal men, born of a mortal parent, but properly a punishment: the Apostle makes it plain beyond all contradiction v. 16. It was one man that sinned, but the judgement( or sentence,) by reason of one offence( of that one man) was unto condemnation to {αβγδ}. . From hence it is evident, that they on whom the sentence passed, and were condemned by it, were punished for that one offence, and consequently were guilty of it: for where there is no crime, there is no punishment. And that we may not think, that the condemnation overtook Adam only: we are told the sentence was passed, and executed on all his posterity. So by the offence of this one, that judgement mentioned in the 16. v. came upon all men unto Condemnation, v. 18. without exception. For those universal forms of speech, as Dr. Ham. well observes, are to be taken in the greatest and most comprehensive latitude, without exclusion of any: and there was great reason that the punishment should reach those who were involved in the guilt: for in the 19. v. by the disobedience of this one man, many, or all were made sinners, and then it is no wonder they were all liable to the same condemnation. And thus all the Children of Adam, viz. all mere men, by virtue of his sin are become sinners, that is, Guilty of his disobedience which is imputed to them; whereby they are deprived of original Righteousness, born with propensions to evil, and a disability by their own natural strength to perform any saving good; being likewise obnoxious both to a temporal death, and also to an eternal separation from the presence of God, in whose favour is life: of which Adam's expulsion out of Paradise, and his separation from the three of Life, was a Type and Figure. And this is the plain Doctrine of the Scriptures, taught by the catholic Church, and more particularly exlained by the Fathers and Councils, after the publishing of Pelagius his Heresy. It being not the Invention of St. Austin, as the Pelagians formerly, and their successors of later years, have vainly( not to say maliciously) suggested. For herein he had the consent of the Ancient Church, as he himself hath proved at large in his first book against Julian the Pelagian. Let us now consider what the opinion of Socinus and his followers is in this matter, and see whether it be agreeable to the Scripture account, both as to the sin, and the punishment. First as to the Sin, Adami debitum nobis non imputatur: Socin. Lib. quod reign. Pol. Cap. 5. Quicquid Evangelici una cum Pontisiciis malorum effectuum in humano genere, primo illi primi parents peccato tribuunt, vana hominum commenta ac somnia ut s●●t necesse est. Quicquid Theologi de peccato originali disputant, id omne humani ingenii figmentum prorsus censendum est. Ibid. they tell us( as the Pelagians did before them) that Adam by his disobedience only hurt himself, but that his posterity were not in the least concerned in the guilt. 2dly, As to original sin, as it bespeaks the depravation of our natures, which is itself both a Sin and part of the Punishment of Adam's Sin, they would persuade the world to believe, that it is, Commentum humanum, a mere fable; Adam's sin being so far from corrupting his posterity, that it had not the efficacy to corrupt the powers of his own Soul Socin. praelect. Cap. 4. Etenim unum illud peccatum per se, non modo universos posteros, said ne ipsum quidem Adamum corrumpendi vim habere potuit. Concludimus igitur, nullum, improprie etiam loquendo, Originale peccatum esse, id est, ex peccato illo primi parents, nullam labem aut pravitatem universo humano generi necessario ingenitam fuisse, &c. Ibid. ; the Image of God being not defaced in Adam, and remaining still in all men. So that in short, it is such another Fable as the Divinity of Christ, which tho it be as plainly delivered by the Inspired writers as can be expressed in words, yet the Socinians have the confidence to tell the world, that it is, commentum otiosorum hominum, the contrivance of some idle persons, who had nothing else to do, but to invent and obtrude such extravagant notions upon the world. Nay Socinus 1 will go one step higher, and lets us know, that this Idle story concerning Original Sin, is a Jewish fable, picked up from them by Antichrist, and introduced into the Christian Church, in order to establish those two pernicious errors concerning the Incarnation of Christ, and the Baptism of Infants. From hence we may observe, what is very well worth our notice, what the opinion of the Church, generally received among all good Christians( before Socinus his time) was, concerning the true reason of Christs coming into the World,( which some have since placed upon another bottom, tho with what service to Christianity may be hereafter examined) viz. to reconcile mankind, and restore them to the favour of God, who were universally involved in the guilt and obnoxious to the punishment of Adam's disobedience: and consequently 2dly, How near and close a connexion there is between these two Doctrines, and therefore what great reason Socinus had to oppose the former concerning Original Sin with all his might: as being of so pernicious consequence, as to draw along with it, the acknowledgement and proof of Christ's Incarnation, and the dangerous Doctrine of the Redemption of the world by that means. I wonder when Socinus his hand was in, that he went no higher than Antichrist, and that he did not ascribe the invention of this Doctrine, as Volkel. doth that concerning the Trinity, not only to the Son of perdition, but also veteratori Satanae, to that old Serpent the Devil, the Father of all Lies and Errors. Tho by the by, upon examination I am afraid it will be found, that that veterator and these novatores hold but too good a correspondence together. 3 Commentum illud de peccato originis fabula Judaica est,& ab Antichristo in Ecclesiam introductum, ad stabiliendum perniciosa dogmata: nempe Dei incarnationem,& Infantum Baptismum. Idem Dial. de Justif. Tom. 1. Oper. p. 604. 2dly, As to that other part of the punishment of Adam's Sin, Death; they say Per Adamum omnes moriuntur, quia ille mortalis erat,& ob eam causam omnes qui ex eo nascuntur, mortales esse necesse est. Ipse primus homo qui nos progenuit, de terra sumptus ac formatus, ac proinde terrenus fuit. Verum hoc ante lapsum in ip●o creationis initio extitit; igitur ante lapsum Adamus terrenus fuit,& sie ante lapsum corpus sui natura omnino abolendum habuit. Antequam peccaret Homo corpus animale habuit:& ita, antequam peccaret, habuit corpus corruptibile, vile& infirmum. Socin. ad Arg. Pucc. Resp. Cap. 9. Per peccatum ipsam mortem in mundum intrasse, non cam significationem habet, ut si homo non peccasset, mors in mundo non extitura fuisset; said tantummodo, ut peccati occasione quadam Adami lapsu praecedente, humanum genus mortem contraxerit, quamvis alioquin eam nihilominus subiturum fuisset. Idem Cap. 8. Poterat Adamus si non peccasset, quamvis natura mortalis, à morte Dei beneficio conservari, vel si mortuus fuisset, in vitam aliquando revocari, atque immortalis fieri: haec& sibi& posteris peccato suo quodammodo invidit, itaque nisi novus Dei favour nobis adsit, necesse est omnino, ut omnes moriamur,& in morte maneamus. Idem Prael. Th. Cap. 1. that Adam was at first made, as we are now born, a mortal creature, and that Death was that which was the consequence of his constitution, and the condition of his nature. That if he had not sinned, he might have dyed before, as well as after his fall: nay, you might have pronounced it as safely and peremptorily of him, as you can of any of his posterity, nay of the very Beasts, the Ox and the ass, that he was mortal and liable to Death. It is true indeed God might have exempted him from the lot and condition of his nature as he did Enoch and Elias: But of this he had no promise, and therefore could have no reasonable expectation. In short, Adam if he had preserved his innocence, yet might, and in all likelihood would have dyed; his death, now by being made necessary, is, say they, become more certain than before the fall; but however if he had not sinned, according to the course of nature he must have dyed, and nothing but a miracle could have preserved him. Now I say that this whole account of Socinus's, concerning the consequence of Adam's sin, is not only repugnant to the plain declarations of Scripture; but likewise inconsistent with their own assertions, they being herein not more opposite to the truth, than they are to themselves. Which when it is made out, I hope we may be allowed to account this Hypothesis of theirs both impious and absurd. For 1st, if we consider the sin, it is evident that it reached all Adam's posterity, because, as the Scriptures formerly assured us, the punishment did so. Sin first entering into the World, and Death by sin, Rom. 5. 12. To avoid the force of this Argument, Socinus tho he durst not plainly deny the Scriptures' yet he dare pervert them, and thereby takes as effectual a course to elude their Authority, as if he had absolutely disowned it. And here, there being so close a connexion between the sin and the punishment, I must acquaint the Reader, that whilst I speak of the one, I must be forced to include the other; the sin necessary inferring the punishment, and the punishment being the clear evidence and proof of the sin. Now then when it is urged that Death is the wages of sin, the forenamed Author will tell us, that bare Death is not thereby intended, but necessary and eternal Death; Socin. ad Pucc. defence. Resp. Cap. 8. Praecipua mortis causa fuerat ante peccatum, said per peccatum tantummodo invecta est moriendi necessitas. Non potest peccatum mortis naturalis, quatenus naturalis est, ullo modo esse causa, necessitatis quidem moriendi fuit causa, Vid. Episcop. Inst. Th. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. that the curse threatened to Adam, relating to death, brought no other inconvenience along with it, but that what before was natural, now by his sin became necessary, which properly made it a punishment. Now this is not to interpret Scripture, but to abuse it, and at the same time to dally with the threatenings of God, which ought to be treated with more respect. For this account, besides that it contradicts the formal notion of punishment, by overthrowing the true ends and reason of inflicting it, which plainly evinee that it cannot be natural; makes the curse of God inanis lusus, a mere trifle. Instead of trembling at, men would deride the judgments of God, and laugh at the messengers who brought the tidings of them. Suppose a man should tell us that if we sinned, we should inevitably be exposed to Hunger and thirst, to sleep and weariness; and then upon an enquiry,( which must naturally arise hence,) how this could be a proper method to deter men from sinning, since by the condition of their nature they were liable to these infirmities, from which the greatest virtue could not protect them; he should gravely be told, that the above name threatening, tho it doth not denounce any new thing to which before they were not liable, yet that it alters the respects of things. Those infirmities before were natural, but now they are become necessary, and therefore the punishment of their sins. Would any man be deterred from the practise of any the greatest wickedness by this means: for what is natural is eo ipso, upon that score necessary. All natural agents act by a necessity of nature, and cannot but act, except they are hindered in their operations. Adam was, according to Socinus, born a mortal creature, and by the condition of his nature, without a Miracle he must have dyed: it is true, God might have altered the course of nature, and have exempted Adam from the Laws of Mortality; and so, if he had thought fit, if we believe the same Socinus, he might have reversed his threatenings and overruled his own decrees; so that, as far as I can see, Death was equally necessary to Adam, before as well as after his Fall: a miracle of Mercy could have saved him in one case, and nothing less than a miracle of Power could have preserved him in the other. To make the absurdity of this Socinian assertion the more apparent, let us suppose, that by the settled order and laws of nature; and by the powerful influences of the Stars, the old world had been liable to be overflown by a Deluge, and Sodom and Gomorrah to be burnt with Lightning: and then that Noah and Lot should have endeavoured to deter the men of those times, from their evil courses, by denouncing those Calamities against them; would they not( think you,) have laughed at those preachers of Righteousness, who would have been unto them, what Lot really was to the Sodomites, like men that mocked? Or should any man now pretend to reform the manners of the Age he lives in, and in order to it, should acquaint people if they did not amend their lives, that God at a certain time( by an Eclipse, which of itself would certainly happen) would darken the Luminaries of Heaven, so that the Moon should look black, and the Sun should not give his light: Would any man of any tolerable knowledge in the motions of the Heavenly bodys, be otherwise affencted, than to deride the folly of any such pretender, to know and foretell the judgments of God? He could not but look upon such an one to be an Impostor, and account this diviner mad. Forasmuch as this were only a fit method,( by such Bugbears) to fright Fools and Children into their duty. Perhaps it will be said that Adam was but an Infant in knowledge, who knew very little of himself, or any thing about him; and therefore this might be a proper method to work upon his weakness and ignorance, who tho he was made mortal, knew nothing of his mortality: tho he was by the constitution of his nature liable to Death, yet he might dream of living for ever, as was said before. Now this is to abuse Scripture as well as Adam, and if this be not trifling with the threatenings and Judgments of Almighty God, I know not what is. Indeed this whole matter as it is delivered by the Socinians, is so odd, so contrary to the plain declarations of Scripture, that to preserve a seeming reverence for, and yet to avoid the conviction of it, it engages them in an account, so awkward and perplexed, that it was plain, they were so far from giving any reasonable satisfaction to others, that they could not satisfy themselves. For first whereas the Scripture saith( as we cited it before) That by the disobedience of one, many( or all) ●eere made Sinners, Rom. 5. 19. By Sinners, they say is not meant, that men are truly and really become such, but Crell. in Loc. Socin. libel. Suas. cap. 5. Herein followed by Episcop. Lib. supra cit. cap. 2. Limb. lib. 3. cap. 3. whose writings are full of Socinus's Divinity. tractantur a Deo tanquam peccatores, they are dealt with by God as if they were Sinners. Now to be treated as Sinners, and in the mean time to be innocent, seems scarce reconcilable to the Justice of God, which at other times they seem so much concerned for; where there is no fault, there can be no punishment, being a maxim allowed on all hands. Now when Socinus Peccatum igitur non mortalitatis naturalis, said necessariae mortis causa fuit, Praelect. Th. cap. 1. & alibi passim. tells us, first, that necessary and eternal death is the punishment and wages of Sin; 2dly, that Ob inobedientiam illam primi ●ominis factum est, ut multi, id est, omnes homines constituti sunt peccatores, id est, quod proprium est eorum qui peccant, necessariae ac perpetuae morti sunt obnoxii, libel. Suas. cap. 5. by the disobedience of Adam, all men were liable to that certain and perpetual death: from these premises this must be the conclusion, since all men are obnoxious to the punishment, they must one way or other be partakers in the guilt. I know it is said by Vid. Soc. libel. Suas. Cap. 5. Episcop. ●nst. Th. Lib. 4. Cap. 2. Sect. 5. our adversaries, that all men were liable to, and punished with death, by occasion of Adam's Sin indeed, but it must not be esteemed the impulsive or meritorious cause of That Death. Ans. The contrary seems plainly to be implyed in the Antithesis that is made by the Apostle in the forementioned Chapter, between the Origine of our Righteousness and Life, and that of our Condemnation and death. By one mans offence the judgement came upon all to Condemnation, so by the Righteousness of one, viz. Christ, the free gift came upon all to justification of life, v. 18. By one mans disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many were made righteous, V. 19. Now the righteousness of Christ is not only the Antecedent and occasion, but the true and proper cause of our righteousness: so Adam's offence must be( to make out the agreement between the Protasis and the Apodosis) the cause of our Condemnation and death. You will say the Socinians deny Christ to be the meritorious cause of our justification and life. I know they do so, but I hope all other good Christians will detest their opinion as impious, and tending to subvert the whole Christian Religion, and with it all our hopes of happiness, which have no true bottom to rest upon, when that is once undermined. 2dly, The Apostle tells us that Death reigned from Adam to Moses, over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, v. 14. This in the opinion of many interpreters both Hieron. August. &c. vid. Estium in Loc Ancient and Modern, includes infants as well as men of riper years; who tho they committed no actual Sin, yet by virtue of their Original guilt, were subject to the dominion of death, and consequently must be reckoned in the number of sinners: Death having therefore passed upon all men, because all have sinned, v. 12. But suppose infants are not comprehended in this Antithesis, yet death reigned over all Adult persons, who, if we believe Qui in Adamo ante Legem nati erant, legem nullam mortis poena sancitam habuerant. Episcop. Cap. supra citat. our Adversaries, did not sin, nor were liable to the guilt of any sin against any positive Law, which contained an express denunciation of eternal death against those transgressions. Well, but if the Law did not threaten it, how come they to be punished with it; this doth not seem to be dealing with men Aestimatio ista, nec est secundum veritatem, nec est non secundum veritatem: fateor esse aestimationem non gratiosam, said dico aestimationem esse nullo modo injustam. Idem ibid. secundum veritatem: if they had known what would certainly have come of it, perhaps this might have prevented their sin, and consequently their punishment. But it may be said, what they did, deserved Death; and therefore God might inflict, tho he did not threaten it. This he might do indeed without the impeachment of his Justice; but this is to act with men ex rigore justitiae, in extreme rigor, and doth not seem to be agreeable to that gracious and equal way of dealing with sinners( which the persons we are now disputing with, are wont upon all occasions so much to magnify) who usually gives them warning of their danger, that by their repentance, and amendment, they may avoid it. You will say he did, not by any positive Law indeed, but by that of Certum est in iis fuisse Legem naturae, sieve dictamen naturalis rationis& conscientiae, ex qua sciebant, non modo quid decorum, quid turpe, said& {αβγδ} sieve jus Dei, vid. eos, qui scelera contra conscientiam suam faciunt, dignos morte esse, Ibid. nature written in their hearts, whereby they were convinced that they who do such things are worthy of death. If so, then at the same time that he gave them the Law, he threatened the punishment, the sanction being annexed, and coming along with it; and then their sin bears such a resemblance to that of Adam, that they might be said to sin after the similitude of his transgression which is contrary to the apostles supposition. Ans. They knew what they did was worthy of death, tho God did not absolutely and peremptorily denounce it. Why then was it inflicted? upon the account of their own sins? no, not necessary, for God might have pardonned and spared them; but it was upon the account of of Adam's sin, Peccataeorum quanquam morte digna, Deus iis non imputavit, habita scil. ratione meriti peccatorum eorum, quia legem nullam mortis poena sancitam habuerant: said quia Deus Peccatum istud primum Adami tam enorm esse judicavit; ut qui ex Adamo peccatore nati peccaturi erant, eos licet non tam enormes peccatores, uti Adamus parens eorum fuerat, solius istius enormis peccati respectu, mortieidem subjacere,& punire volverit, Ibid. his peccatum enorm, his great and crying sin in the Language of Episcopius, which made their punishment-certain and necessary. So then, that we may bring this matter to some issue, they were worthy of death upon the account of their own sins, but they were actually punished upon the account, or with respect, or upon the occasion( call it what you will) of Adam's sin: And if so, Adam's sin making death certain or necessary, makes it at the same time a punishment, in the opinion of Socinus and the Remonstrants, who, as we shewed before, make natural death the condition of our nature, but necessary death the punishment of sin. And this Limborch after many shiftings and turnings to avoid the force and evidence of this truth, is at length whether he will or no forced to aclowledge, viz. Licet non sine respectu ad propria peccata mortui sint; tamen quia ex Adamo, qui ob transgressionem pr●●cepti divini moriendi necessitate punitus ●uit, geniti sunt; ad ipsos qu●que mors pervenit, it a ut jure dici posset, ipsos magis ob Adami peccatum,& quia ex Adamo geniti sunt, quam ob propria peccata mortuos fuisse, Limb. Th. Christ. Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 15. that those over whom death reigned between Adam and Moses, may truly be said to be punished more for Adam's sin, than their own. Which he had much better have done at first, in my judgement, and without any subterfuge. The one would have argued a dutiful submission to the truth, whilst this latter confession, looks like an involuntary conquest, and kind of compulsion. But it may further be asked, since God might have spared as well as punished these men, all this being purely voluntary; how comes Adam's sin to be of that efficacy, as to determine Gods will to the punishing side? Why should Adam's sin overtake those unhappy men, who lived 2500 years after the commission of it,( for so long time at least, passed between the sin of Adam, and giving of the Law) if they had no ways been concerned in the guilt, as our adversaries say they were not; we may as well imagine that God permitted the Spaniards to Butcher the inhabitants of Mexico and Peru, chiefly for the ambition and tyranny of Nimrod, or the Luxury and effeminacy of Sardanapalus. That, tho their own sins deserved it, yet that God was principally moved to bring all that calamity upon those miserable creatures, to show his high displeasure against the wickedness of those Eastern Monarchs. In short, where there is no sin, Per peccatum itaque eorum, non intelligitur peccatum originale, said propria ac personalia eorum peccata, per se digna morte quidem, said idcirco tamen non nisi per solam divinam aestimationem morte eadem, quae Adamo ex legis vi debebatur, punita, quia peccatum non imputatur, non existent Lege, id est, quia non videtur mortis poena infligi posse iis, quibus Lex poena mortis sancita lata nunquam est Ibid. there can be no room for punishment: and yet they who lived between Adam and Moses, were punished more for Adam's sin than their own. How could this be if they were not guilty of it? Is there more injustice in imputing Adam's Sin, than in punishing men for it? Nay I thought it was therefore seemingly unjust, because of the punishment which was consequent to the imputation; for without the former, the latter would have carried no great inconvenience along with it. You will say it sems hard, that men should be punished for anothers offence. Ans. It was so anothers, as at the same time to be their own. Ob. But all this must be by imputation, and thats the difficulty. Ans. The Scriptures affirm it and thats enough: it being plainly repugnant to reason, as well as true piety, either to disown the Authority, or contradict the meaning of those inspired writings, in such matters which are plainly delivered there, because we cannot comprehend the reasons, or solve all the difficulties relating to them: it would much better become us to supect our own shallow reasonings, than, in a matter of fact affirmed in the Scriptures, to question the truth and justice of Gods dealings with men. And for illustration of this matter, I shall produce two, instances, in which the Remonstrants( who in conjunction with the Socinians, are the great adversaries of this truth) are puzzled to give an account of some of Gods dealings with men: and yet for all that, they neither can deny the matter of fact, nor dare impeach either the wisdom or righteousness of those dispensations. The first thing that I shall instance in, shall be the prescience of God, his forcknowledg of future and contingent events, such as depend upon the spontaneous and arbitrary determinations of mens free will: This is plainly revealed in the Scriptures, and yet how we shall be able to reconcile it to the methods, which God makes use of for the reclaiming of obstinate and incorrigible sinners, who he foresees will not be reclaimed; is a work of great, and perhaps of insuperable difficulty, at least in the opinion, and according to the hypothesis of the Remonstrants, of whom we are at present speaking. What now is to be done in this case; if you please we will refer this matter to Episcopius, and abide by his determination. Is it fit to deny Gods foreknowledge, because we cannot solve all the doubts and objections that may be made against it? Ad me quod attinet, ego hactenus sieve religione quadam animi, sieve divinae majestatis reverentia, non potui in animum meum induc●re, rationem islam allegatam tanti esse, ut propter eam Deo futurorum contingentium praescientia detrahenda sit: maxim cum vix videam, quomodo alioquin divinorum praedictionum veritas salvari posset, sine aliqua aut incertitudinis Macula, aut falsi possibilis suspicione. Episcop. Resp. ad secundam Epist. Joh. Beverov. no, by no means: partly out of Reverence to Almighty God, and out of a due regard to the truth and certainty of the predictions contained in the Scriptures; we ought firmly and undoubtedly to believe his prescience. But how is this consistent with his dealings with wicked men; by his Monitions, Entreaties, Exhortations, Reproofs, &c. which yet he foresees will be ineffectual: and therefore as to the event, that they will no more prevail, than if you made a long and elegant Oration to a person who hath lost his hearing, or should lay your commands upon a man wrapped up in his windingsheet, and require him to stand upon his Legs: why should God resolve to use any such methods, when he foresees the issue, and how can we reconcile them either to his wisdom or goodness? To which the answer is ready, Decreti rationem dare nostrum non est, nedum aliorum eam à nobis exigere, ea pertinet ad sapientiam divinam, cujus reconditas rationes saepenumero nec nos persequi debemus nec adsequi possumus: sufficere nobis debet, quod Deo decreti sui rationes constent: nostrum est eas adorare& admirari: praescientia futurorum Contingentium, ad divinae majestatis gloriam augendam maxim facit. Nec ulla aut Iniquitatis aut Indecentiae suspicio eam minuere potest. Id. Inst. Th. Lib. 4. Sect. 2. Cap. 17. It doth not become us to assign the reasons of Gods decrees, nor is it fit for others to require it of us. That infinite and unerring wisdom, which governs and directs his resolutions, is placed out of the reach of our little and impertinent inquiries, and by all our searching can never be found out: in short, God knows the reasons of his own councils, which we should stand in an humble admiration of, and adore what we cannot comprehend. A wise and a sober answer, which if he had in other cases governed himself by, he might have escaped many of those dangerous mistakes, which he first, and many others led by his authority, have since fallen into. The second instance shall be that of the whereupon of the world by the death of Christ; there is nothing that is delivered in the New Testament more plainly, or more frequently, than that Christ dyed for all men; that the end of his coming into the world, was to reconcile his Father by his sufferings, and to make an expiation for the Sins of the whole world: yet if we consider the seeming inequality of Gods dispensations towards the inhabitants of it, in the several parts and quarters of the earth; we shall meet with many difficulties, in this affair, and those I think more hard to be solved, than any thing that can be offered against the imputation of Adam's disobedience. What then is to be done in this case, must we deny the whereupon of mankind? no that cannot be done without offering plain violence to the Scripture: must we impeach the wisdom and righteousness of God, because we cannot assign the reason of his actions? no by no means, it were great impiety to think that the Judge of the whole earth, should not do righteously. What then is left for us to do? Why the same Episcopius Nec nobis ea mens est, ut exactam proponamus rationem qua Deus in Evangelicae praedicationis dispensatione utatur. Ea quidem utitur quam ipse justitiae& sapientiae novit esse convenientissimum. Nos vero, quae judicii nostri est tenuitas, eam exact comprehendere non possumus. Quare judicia Dei inscrutabilia,& impervestigabilia esse libenter agnoscimus. Def. Sent. Rem. de Morte Christi p. 331. and his bretheren will inform us, that it will become us to take sanctuary in the Apost. {αβγδ} Rom. 11. 33. Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out. Tho this might serve as a sufficient answer in general, to silence those Cavils which are usually raised against the imputation of Adam's sin, yet there is something that may be offered particularly, as containing a more direct vindication of the justice of God, which is called in question in this affair. And that is from the Laws, which are the measure of right and wrong, and the practise consequent thereunto, of all, or most governments that have ever been in the world. I am sensible that I am now entering into a large common place: and therefore must only hint at some things, which might very easily, and would very well deserve to be further enlarged upon. Now I say, there hath not been( for ought I know) any Nation or Kingdom in the world, that hath not in some cases, and for some weighty reasons, thought, and adjudged it lawful to punish one man for the Sins of another. So that overhastily and peremptorily( as the Socinians and Remonstrants do) to pronounce the imputation of Adam's Sin, and the punishing of his posterity for it unlawfully, barely for this reason, Nunquam Deus aliena peccata in quoquam vere punit, qui culpae affinis non sit, Socin. de Christo serve. par secunda cap. 7. Poena sine antecedente culpa esse non potest: ad culpam constituendam propria voluutas ejus, qui in culpa futurus est, omnino requiritur. Idem Prael. Th. cap. 4. Poena quae sit sine propria culpa ejus qui punitur, sieve peccantem egreditur, injusta est, Episcop. Th. Inst. Lib. 4. Sect. 4. cap 8. Poena sine omni praevia culpa est injusta:& culpa unius non potest esse culpa alterius, qui in eum non consent it propria sua voluntate. Ibid. that no man can be justly punished who was not a party, and actually engaged in the practise of the Sin, is to contradict the reason, and condemn the usage of all mankind: and not only so, but as this position is roundly and without exception laid down by them, it tends plainly to overthrow the whole design of the Gospel, by denying the sufferings of Christ, to have the true notion of a punishment, whereby he satisfied the Justice of God for the sins of mankind. In short, The present matter in debate between us and our Adversaries, turns upon this point, whether in any case, a person may lawfully, and justly be punished for a crime which he did not personally commit. They deny it, and condemn the practise as absolutely unlawful: we, on the other hand say this may be justly done, and for a proof of the legality of it, we can produce the consent, Ubi consensus aliquis antecederet, ferme ausim dicere omnium eorum, quos Paganos diximus, neminem fuisse, qui alium ob alterius delictum puniri injustum duceret. Grot. De Satisf. Christ. cap. 4. Quod, Testimoniis satis luculentis, i● a●●is etiam poenis ostendit, quae non consensum aliquem, said solam personarum conjunctionem respiciunt. of all the most civilized States and Governments that have been in the World, who have accounted it in some cases lawful, and those especially two. 1st, Where there hath been the voluntary offer and consent of the party, as in the case of Sureties, Hostages, &c. Or 2dly, Without that consent, where there is either a natural, or civil and political union between the persons offending, and the persons punished; such as is that between a King and his Subjects, Parents and Children. And here we have, which is a consideration of much greater weight, the particular direction and example of God himself, to justify and warrant this practise. Saul slay the Gibeonites, and his Sons and Granchildren are executed for it, Sam. 2. 21. David Sins in numbering the people, and God sent a Pestilence among his subjects which destroyed seventy thousand of them, Sam. 2. 24. Achan stolen the wedge of Gold, and a Babylonish Garment, and his Children pay dear for it, for all Israel stoned both him and them with stones, and Burned them with fire, Josh. 7. 25. But not to multiply instances, of which the Scriptures afford great store; we shall mention but one more, but it is one, if I may so say, of ten Thousand; and that is, that remarkable vengeance which overtook the whole Nation of the Jews, and which still pursues their posterity to this day, for the Sin of their Forefathers in Crucifying our blessed Lord and Saviour. Which is so plain and irrefragable a proof of this matter, that the Socinians themselves cannot deny it. And particularly Sanguis ejus supper nos& supper liberos nostros, idest, si sanguis istius innocenter& immerito effundetur, nos& posteri nostri id luemus. Erat autem mos antiquus, non se solum, said& liberos suos diris devovere. Quod gravia scelera etiam in liberis vindicentur, communis est opinio ferme cunctarum gentium, quae id experientia magistra didicerunt, Wolzog, in Loc. Wolzogen, in his Commentary upon these words Mat. 27. 25. His blood be upon us and our Children: doth ingenuously aclowledge, that it was the opinion in a manner of all Nations, that great Crimes are often punished in the posterity, as well as the persons of the Criminals. I know it will be replied, that the posterity of those Murtherers are punished for their own Obstinacy and Incorrigiblness, and not for this sin of their Forefathers, which may be the occasion indeed( which is the word that Aliud est insontem puniri, aliud aliquem puniri occasione peccati alieni, cujus ipse reus non est Episcop. Inst. Th. Lib. 4. Sect. 4. cap. 8. Episcopius at every turn makes use of in these and the like cases) but it is their own impenitence that is the true cause of their Calamities. To which I Answer, First, that it is so the occasion, as likewise to be the principal motive, that inclines God to continue those heavy judgments upon that unhappy people. Secondly, They are at this day so punished for their own obstinacy, as likewise to be punished for the sins, and particularly that great sin of their Forefathers, by the confession of the same Si liberi parentum vestigiis insistant, tam patrum ipsorum, quam propria illorum slagitia simul in iis jure vindicantur. Judaeis enim mandatum erat, non solum propria, said Patrum quoque pe●cata agnoscere,& Deum pro illis deprecari. Idem. Ibid. Cum legimus punitos aliquos non ob sua tantum peccata( quorum ratione nocentes erant) said insuper ob aliena, sequitur punitos etiam qua non erant nocentes, si autem ex parte aliquis potest puniri qua non est nocens, quo minus& in totum posset, natura non obstat, Grot. Lib.& cap. citat. Wolzogen. That innocent bloood, the Guilt of which they have brought upon their own heads, making up the bitterest part of that potion, which they are at this day forced to drink; which hath so far intoxicated them, that they seem like men smitten with blindness and giddyness, so that they can neither see the mind of God in his word, nor discern the meaning of his Judgments which they lie under. Which furnishes us with a Third Answer to the above name Objection, viz. that, That very Obduration and Impenitence which is supposed to be the only real cause of their miseries, is itself the consequence, and punishment of their Fathers Sin, God having given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this very day, Rom. 11. 8. Their eyes being darkened, and they themselves concluded, and shut up in unbelief, v. 10. 32. And what the meaning of these expressions is, if the Reader hath a mind to be informed, he may if he please consult Spiritus soporis est animi quidam veternus ac torpor, quo oppressus ac gravatus, Evangelicam doctrinam non considerat nec intelligit, solet enim Deus iis quos pu●ire vult, oculos& mentem eripere. Hos ergo concludit Deus {αβγδ}, tum permittendo, eosque suis viis ire sinendo, nec illos revocando ut resipiscendi occasionem habeant: tum etiam indurando, quod fit cum occasio agnoscendae divinae veritatis alicui subtrahitur, cum mvlta sunt quae animum ejus pravum offender, ac incredulitatem ejus confirmare,& obstinatum reddere possunt: haec est ratio qua Deus homines continere solet in hoc carcere, quae Justissima est,& Deo dignissima. Sic nun● detinentur& adhuc detinebuntur Judaei. Crell. Comment. in 8. 10. 32. Vers. Cap. 11. Epist. ad Rom. Crellius upon the place; who will tell us, that when God hath a mind to punish men, he is wont to rob them of their eyes and understanding, to sand a spiritual Lethargy and drowsiness into their Souls, so that they shall be still nodding, not able to hold up their eyes, and keep them open, to behold and consider the doctrines of the Gospel: sometimes suffering them to go on in their evil ways, so far, that he will neither allow them the opportunity of repentance, nor the means of acknowledging the truth. If this be not enough, you may further peruse In qua stupiditate tam pertinaciter haerere,& eam pro vera defendere nulla ratione possent; nisi divina eos ultio hactenus persequeretur,& in Caecitate invitos detineret. small. de Divin. Christi Cap. 10. Smalcius upon this subject, viz. of the causes of the incredulity of the Jews, who tell us, that it were scarce possible for them to continue in that obstinate stupidity, which is so remarkable in them, were it not for that divine vengeance which still pursues, and keeps them in blindness, etiam invitos, even against their own wills and inclinations. So that they are as Crellius intimated before, kept close prisoners in infidelity, like men shut up in a Dungeon, who shall not be permitted to see the light, tho they had never so great a mind to it. Here you see he speaks home to the point, and comes up more fully to it, than any the most rigid Calvinist I ever yet red. Having thus finished what is to be said concerning Death, which our adversaries aclowledge to be the consequence, and which we say, and have I hope in some measure proved, to be the punishment of Adam's Sin. I come now to consider, the corruption and depravation of human nature, which as was said before, is both itself a sin, and likewise the other part of the punishment of Adam's sin. For the clearing of which matter, I am to make out these three things. First, That the nature of man is universally corrupted and depraved. 2dly, That this corruption and depravation of human nature is truly and properly a moral evil, or sin. 3dly, That it is the effect and consequence of Adam's disobedience: and this when it is made out, will serve for a sufficient Answer to three Opinio haec triplici ratione vera esse non potest, primum quia concupiscentiam istam, sieve ad peccandum proclivitatem, in omnibus prorsus hominibus naturaliter esse non constat: deinde, qui etiam si de eo constaret, non propterea illud esset, quia Adamus à quo omnes prognati sumus, divinum illud praeceptum transgressus fuerit: postremo, quia cupiditas ista& ad peccandum pronitas, cum conjunctam secum hoins ipsius in quo est culpam non habeat, ejus peccatum proprie dici non potest. Socin. Prael. Th. cap. 4. contrary positions, which are advanced by Socinus in opposition to this great truth. And first that human nature, I mean as it is to be found in all mere men,( for our blessed Saviour was more than such, and therefore must be excepted out of the number) is polluted and depraved, is evident by the plain declarations of Scripture; such as are those which tell us that every imagination of the thoughts of mens Hearts were evil continually, Gen. 6. 5 Even from their youth, Gen. 8. 21. That not one can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, Job. 14. 4. or as the Septuagint red it, {αβγδ}. who is clean from any pollution, not one, tho he be but an Infant of a day old. That we are conceived in sin and brought forth in Iniquity: as David complains of himself, Psal. 51. 7. That whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, Jo. 3. 56. That is, that we are carnal men born of carnal parents, standing in need of a Regeneration or new Birth, before we can be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. All which places( and a great many more which might be instanced in) are not only cited by modern Reformed Writers, but produced likewise by the Ancients, Origenes, Ambros. Basil. Crysost. Hieron. Theod. &c. for proof of this pollution of mens nature which we are speaking of. But indeed if the Scriptures were silent; the experience of all men, in all Ages of the World, would be an uncontrollable evidence of it, and might justly be thought of that weight, as to bear down all opposition to a matter of fact, so universally and irrefragably attested. But what can be expected from men who have hardened their Foreheads against all conviction, arising either from Scripture or the unanimous confession of all mankind. But to this bold assertion of Socinus, I shall only at present oppose the Ingenuous confession of another Socinian. Ostorod. Citat. à Franz. in vind. Disp. Th. pro Ang. Conf. adversus Smalc. who acknowledges that there are to be found in all men, propensions and inclinations to sin, which make up a great part of this corruption we are speaking of. Tho he met with a rebuk from Smalc. for his pains, who in his answer to Franz. tells him that sure Ostorod. memoria lapsus est, forgot himself when he made that acknowledgement. 2dly, This depravation of our nature is a moral evil or sin. The Socin. and Remonst.( which are but two names in a manner for one and the same Adversary in this controvesy,) tell us that these propensions to evil where they are found, are chings merely Socin. supra.& libel. Suas. Cap. 5. Simplicem& plane naturalem, concupisentiam in homine esse ait. Peccatum originale non habent pro peccato proprie dicto, said pro malo, infirmitate, vitio aut quocunque alio nomine appellatur. Remonstr. Apol. ad Cens. Concupiscentia neutiquam est malum ethicum, said physicum; non malum culpae, said neutrum: quails sunt multae miseriae naturales, quae nec peccata sunt, nec peccatorum poenae, talis fuit Caecitas juvenis illius. Jo. 12. 1. Talis est haec concupiscentia. Limb. Th. Chr. Lib. 5. Cap. 15. Sect. 15. natural, and consequently innocent, as being out of the reach of mans power; which render him therefore neither worthy of blame, nor liable to punishment; that concupiscence is indeed an infirmity, or weakness, a languor and defect of our nature, but no Sin. Now this opinion falls under very many, and those great inconveniencies, and tends to led men into sundry dangerous errors, which are not more opposite to Scripture, than they are repugnant to reason and piety. For first, right reason will tell us, that all faculties and dispositions, whether natural or acquired, together with the actions which flow from them, are distinguished, and specified by their objects. And this is very apparent in moral actions; where tho a good object alone will not be sufficient to render an action virtuous, yet it is absolutely requisite to make it such; and an unlawful object, doth absolutely and unavoidably render an action which is conversant about it unlawful, and consequently sinful. From hence it must necessary follow, that, That wilderness and inclination to sin which is to be found in all men, as it comprehends the first desires, and Original tendency of the affections towards that which is evil, must itself likewise be evil. And therefore to say as Limb. doth( as we quoted him before p. 23.) that concupiscence, quatenus fertur in rem illicitam, as it is conversant about an unlawful or sinful object, is no sin, can amount to no less than a plain contradiction. You will say the consent of the will is necessary to make those Original desires sinful. Ans. no, not to make those motions sinful in themselves; for they must be so antecedently to any consent of the will, otherwise that consent will never make an innocent action evil. It is true indeed, by the tenor of the new Covenant, they shall not be imputed to them who are regenerate and believe in Christ, but that doth not hinder, but that they may be, and are in themselves evil and sinful. 2. Right Reason will tell us, that whatever is prohibited by the Law of God, is eo nomine, upon that very score unlawful, the Law being the measure of Right and Wrong; {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, being two words that signify one and the same thing. Now the same reason informs us, or if that should be silent in this case, the Scriptures will assure us, that the Law of God prohibits those original inclinations and lustings after prohibited objects. This appears, partly from that great and fundamental Law, of Loving God with all the soul, and all the might, which was mentioned before p. 25. Which perfect Love of God is inconsistent with any degree of affection or inclination to sin;( as was shewed there and need not be again repeated.) And more plainly from the Apostles downright affirmation Rom. 7. 7. I had not known sin but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except the Law had said thou shalt not covet. From which words these two things are evident. 1st. That the sin which the Apostle knew was Lust. 2dly, That the Law which forbade it, was the 10th Commandment, Thou shalt not covet. If therefore sin be a transgression of the Law, which is the rule by which we judge of the Rectitude and Obliquity, not only of actions, but likewise of Intentions, Thoughts and the inclinations of the Soul; then this concupiscence and proneness to Sin, must itself likewise be a Sin. I know against this it is said by the Socin. and Remonst. and particularly by In praecepto decimo Decalogi, non vetantur motus concupiscentiae primo primi. Lib. 5. cap. 15. Sect. 14. Concupiscentia est triplex. Primo sunt motus primo primi, &c. 2. Est delectatio, quae vocatur morosa, quando mens cogitationi de re aliqua illicita& inhonesta cum mora inhaeret. 3. Deliberatum propositum quavis data occasione peragendi quod carni gratum est. Hae duae Cogitationes quin malae sint, non dubitandum est. Idem. cap. 4. Sect. 10. Ejusd. Lib. Limb. That the first propensions and inclinations of the Soul towards sin, do not come within the intention of the Law, and consequently are not prohibited by it, except in these two cases. 1st. When they are of long continuance, the mind dwelling upon such desires, and persevering in them. Or 2dly, When they are joined with the full consent of the will, and a deliberate purpose to put them in execution. Now let us a little consider, what must be the natural and unavoidable consequences of this Exposition. First, from hence it must follow, that these original commotions and propensions to Sin, being things purely natural, and therefore not prohibited by the Law, ought not to be resisted, so as to be destroyed, or rooted out of the Soul. Hitherto we have been taught to believe, and it hath been given us as a rule to be observed in the exposition of the Commandments, that whenever God forbids the Fact, he likewise forbids the Causes, and Principles, which have a direct and necessary tendency towards the production of that effect. And such are those inclinations before mentioned, every man when he Sins, being drawn away by his own Lust and enticed by it, James 1. 14. And therefore, whereas formerly we were told, that we should principiis obstare, hinder the beginnings of Sin, the first motions towards it, and if it were possible to strangle them in the Birth: this new Casuist will tell us that we neither need, nor indeed ought to pray or struggle against them, Primo hi motus non sunt in nostra potestate, imo nonnunquam quo acrius iis obsistimus, eo vehementius illis infestamur. Secundo tantum abest ut vitia sint, ut sint materia exercendae virtutis, &c. for two reasons; First, because being natural they are absolutely out of our power, and therefore all resistance is but labour lost and in vain, it is like striving against the stream, which when it is dammed up it swells the higher, grows more furious by opposition, and at length bears down all before it. I aclowledge indeed, that these inclinations are not absolutely in our power, but however we may and must oppose them, and by opposing, we shall thro the assistance of the grace of Christ, restrain and moderate them; in short we must fight against them, tho we cannot hope for an absolute and entire conquest in this life: we must pray, and strive, and labour, and our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord. No, saith Limb. have a care what you do, all attempts of this nature are not only unprofitable but dangerous, for 2dly, You must know there is a closer connexion between virtue, and those inclinations to Sin, than most people are ware of. These latter being as it were the seed from whence virtuous habits arise, or at least the matter necessary for the exercise of them. In short, Virtue without them either could not subsist, or at least were a very useless and insignificant thing. Haec facultas, cum sit naturalis, extingui nec potest, nec debet, cum sit materia exercendae virtutis, Id. Lib. 5. Cap. 15. Sect. 3. And that we may not think that he accounted concupiscence only the accidental occasion of the exercise of virtue,( in which sense bad manners are said to be the cause of good Laws) he tells us that they are the proper direct subject of it. Materia per se virtutis exercendae, quatenus requiritur subjectum quod illis motibus corripi potest, ut sit Idoneum ad obedientiam praestandam. Ejusd. Cap. Sect. 15. Without which it could not exert its operations, and consequently would be an idle and useless thing: so that as far as I can perceive, at this rate, virtuous actions, and vicious inclinations, like Hippocrates his twins, must live and die together. Therefore these inclinations to sin are such, as neither can, nor ought to be extinguished. 2dly, From hence it must follow that concupiscence being natural, as it ought not to be destroyed, so need we not be troubled about it; for what is not sinful, need not be the subject of our humiliations, nor even of a general repentance. Some pious persons indeed, have been accustomend in their confession of sins, to rise up to 2 the spring and fountain of them, 1 So did David in that excellent penitential Ps. 51. v. 5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. But to this the Socinians will tell us, that this confession of David was not literally true; it was rather an hyperbolical expression, the Holy Psalmist acting the part of an Orator,( tho one would think this was a very improper time, when he was humbling himself before God, to show his abilities that way) and by this Figure endeavouring to move God to mercy and compassion. Verisimile est, Davidem potius ad excusandum peccatum suum it a locutum fuisse,& in humana fragilitate commemoranda, hyperbole ista usum fuisse, quasi peccatum homini res plane naturalis sit, non autem quod res it a sit revera, Socin. Pr. Th. Cap. 4. David ut Deum ad misericordiam flectat, dicit se in iniquitate genitum, hyperbolica loquendi ratione innuere volens temperamentum, suum sanguineum, &c. Limb. Lib. 3. Cap. 4. Sect. 16. which is the corruption and depravation of our nature. But these were weak, tho well meaning people: Limb. will teach them another Lesson: they may go to bed and sleep securely, and never trouble themselves with any such superstitious and melancholy reflections. For first as to Non hic intellige primam illam concupiscentiam ac carnis titillationem, ex oblato objecto carni grato in nobis excitatam: illa enim naturalis est, nec in potestate nostra, ut eam plane declinemus; imo virtutis exercendae materia est, quae sine hac nulla foret. said quam cogitationibus nostris objecto illi immorantes, voluptatemque ind orituram saepius meditantes in nobis excitamus. Limb. Th. Ch. Lib. 5. Cap. 52. Sect. 25. the lustings of the flesh, and the motions of it consequent to them, these if you do not dwell upon and cherish them, are things purely natural, and consequently harmless and innocent. It is true Christ hath told us, that whosoever looketh on a woman to Lust after her, hath committed Adultery with her, in his Heart, Math. 5. 28. But this declaration of our Savior's must not be too severely interpnted, but with a just allowance and condescension to flesh and blood. Illis cogitationibus adulterium cord nostro comittimus, quoniam cogitationibus omnes actus quibus adulterium constat peragimus, similemque voluptatem quam adulterium adfert, in nobis excitamus. Ibid. vid. Cap. 4. Ejusdem Lib. Sect. 8. Quando cogitatio de voluptate carnali in animo fovetur, homoque ea delectatur; imo omnia cogitationibus suis peragit, quae, si pec●atum hoc facturus sit, opere ipso peracturus esset, indeque voluptatem carnalem percipit similem ei, quam ex ipso opere percepturus esset: haec voluptas est illicita. Dominus Jesus definite hanc delectationem esse adulterium in cord commissum. Then only are such dedesires unlawful, when we long meditate and ruminate upon them, and revolve in our thoughts all that scene of Impurity, in which the actual commission of Adultery consists. So that, as far as I can find, the impurity of our thoughts and desires, are not much, or rather, are not at all to be blamed; the mora, the persisting in them is the only fault. If you do not fix your eyes upon a Woman, tho you cast a lascivious glance, there is no harm in all that. And the like may be as truly, and for the same reasons, affirmed of other irregular( as they are generally esteemed) Appetites. And hankering after a wedge of Gold, and a desire to flich it, tho it creeps down insensibly to your fingers ends;( as a lie doth sometimes to the tip of some mens tongues who are accustomend to that blessed and fashionable 'vice,) provided that this be by surprise, and that you keep your hands back; must be reckoned only Idem Lib. 5. Cap. 4. Sect. 8. in the number of those motus primo primi, and is to be accounted only complacentia rei quae nobis grata est,& proinde amore nostro digna videtur. So that at this rate, a thievish inclination, if it be not cherished, and long entertained, may overtake, and consequently when it is natural, arising from the temper and constitution of the body, can be no disparagement to an honest man. Now whether these and the like doctrines which are the unavoidable consequences of this Opinion, that concupiscence is no sin, do not tend to undermine all piety, tho the Abettors of it do not only pretend, but may really design to promote it, let the Reader judge. But this is not all, for 3dly, From hence it farther follows, that these evil inclinations,( so I make bold to call all inclinations towards evil) being natural, must challenge God to be their Author, who is undoubtedly the Author of nature. And if so, then a man may be said to be tempted of God, when he is drawn away by his own Lust, and enticed; according to that known maxim, causa causae est causa causati, which holds good in all necessary causes, and such is concupiscence, in this case, which necessary and unavoidably tempts and seduces men to sin. The consent indeed is a mans own voluntary Act, and therefore even in unregenerate men, not so absolutely necessary. But the first motions are purely natural, if we believe Limb. and the temptations arising thence to commit actual sins are unavoidable. Therefore since the temptation proceeds from the faculty, as the Faculty proceeds from God; according to the order and connexion of necessary causes, the temptation, upon this supposition, must likewise come from God. Indeed Hinc nec inordinatos esse dicimus( de motibus concupiscentiae loquitur) said inordinati forent si iis indulgeremus; non tamen sequitur eos esse à Deo, said sunt à facultate à Deo nobis indita, quatenus objectis quibusdam commovetur, Id. Lib. 5. Cap. 15. Sect. 15. Motus eos antea ostendimus non esse peccata, said à Deo vim motus illos excitandi carni nostrae inditam esse, ut materia sint exercendae virtutis. Id. Lib. 5. Cap. 79. Sect. 13. Limb. saith otherwise, but he gives us no reason for his assertion. But tho he wanted a reason to prove, we need none to disprove his position, because it carries its own confutation along with it. Lastly, I shall use but one argument more to show the absurdity of this Opinion, and that is, if Concupiscence be natural, it must be found in Christ himself, who took upon him our whole nature, with all the infirmities of it, sin only excepted. Now to say that there was in Christ a proneness and inclination to sin, Motus concupiscentiae,& carnis titillatio, ex oblato objecto carni grato excitata, as Limb. before defined concupiscence, which he made to be natural; is not only a false, but an impious, and indeed a Blasphemous affirmation. In Christo fuit talis natura, in qua svit affectus repugnans voluntati, nec tamen is fuit peccatum, quia assensus seu voluntas non subsecuta est Jo. Geister apud Pelt. Concupiscentia non est peccatum, nec reliquiae peccati originis; cum uti antea vidimus, in primis nostris parentibus fuerit ante lapsum,& in ipso Domino Jesu. Limb. Lib. 5. Cap. 15. Sect. 13. And yet this must be the consequence of this Opinion. It is true indeed, there were in Christ himself,( who was as other men are, made up of sense as well as reason) Sensitive Appetites, which were purely natural and consequently blameless. For whatever is grateful to sense, is not eo nomine, and for that reason displeasing to God. In short, when our desires, I mean those which arise from sense, are placed upon a due object, and do not otherwise exceed their just limits, then are they innocent and harmless; and such were they in our blessed saviour, who could not( except it were very falsely and maliciously) either be accused of any actual sin, or of any inclination to the commission of it. I know against all this that hath been said upon this head, it will be replied, that some Fathers, and Learned Schoolmen, were of Opinion, that those first motions of concupiscence, and the inclinations towards unlawful objects, could not properly be accounted sins. I Ans. That tho they might show some doubt about the name, yet they made none about the thing. For they do readily aclowledge, that this part of Original Sin, is a moral deflection from the Law of our Creation. That it contains in it, an aversion from God, and a conversion to the Creature; that it is opposite not only to the perfection of Gods Law, but to the purity of his blessed Spirit; that it pollutes our nature, and consequently is the object of Gods Aversation, and should be so of ours. Which is all that is intended by us, when we call it Sin, and all that is worth the contending for. The rest is but a {αβγδ}, purely a contention about words: As may appear from that extremely nice and curious distinction made use of by the Schoolmen, and particularly by Lib. 2. Distinc. 32. Sect. 6. Estius in this case, viz. that Concupiscence is quid Iniquum, non quia est peccatum, said quia malum, inordinatum, vitiosum, deoque displicens. He that hath a mind to see more of this matter, may, if he pleases, consult the same Estius, in Lib. 2. Sent. Distinct. 32. and Voss. Hist. Pelag. Lib. 2. Par. 3. Thess. 2. The last thing that remains to be done, is to prove that this depravation of our nature is the effect and consequence of Adam's Sin. And this the Scriptures plainly declare to us, as was shewed before; when they let us know, That by one man, viz. Adam, Sin entered into the World, Rom. 5. 12. And by his disobedience many, or all, became Sinners, v. 18. But if this Scripture-account of the Origine of Evil, doth not please our Adversaries, what course will they direct us to, to find it out. Must we have recourse to the Ancient but justly exploded Opinions of Heathens and heretics? is this corruption owing to an evil Daemon; to the malignant influences of the Stars; to the perversity of matter; or lastly to that pernicious, restless, quarrelsome principle, discord, and antipathy out of which, together with Friendship and Harmony, the world( as many Heraclitus, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Plato apud Plut. de I side& Osir. of the ancient Philosophers imagined) was made? Not to these to be sure. To what else then must we ascribe it? why our Adversaries In ipsius hoins arbitrio positum est, utri parere malit, appetitui, aut rationi; utrum malit recte facere,& à malis abstinere, an vero ea facère. Socin. in Fragm. de Justif. Quae in Adamo causa fuit, cur peccaret, etiam si nullo peccato Originis infectus erat, ea etiam in aliis etiam hominibus causa esse poterat, cur peccarent, etiam si nullo peccato Originali infecti essent. Smalc. Disp. 2. Contra Fran. Hanc voluntatem comitatur proprietas quaedam inseparabilis, quam libertatem vocamus, à qua voluntas dicitur esse potentia, quae positis omnibus praerequisitis ad agendum necessariis, potest velle aut noll., aut velle aut non velle, pro diversitate finium aut mediorum, circa quae voluntas actibus suis occupari potest. Decl. Sent. Rem. circa Art. 3.& 4. p. 6. Fons seu Origo hujus duplicis miseriae( peccati scil.& mortis) est propria unius cujusque hoins culpa, seu liberrima ejus voluntas, qua seize sponte ac volens in miseriam hanc praecipitavit. Limb. Lib. 3. Cap. 2. Sect. 1. will inform us; the true cause of it is that {αβγδ}, that freedom of will which every man is endowed with, which gives him an absolute power over his own actions. But I would fain know how this freedom in men( which as these persons constantly state it) is a principle of absolute indifference, should be so universally, and in a manner so fatally determined to one, and that the worst side. It is a known and an undoubted maxim, that one constant and universal effect, must be ascribed to one certain, necessary and uniform cause; and such cannot be every mans particular free will, except we confounded freedom and necessity: for it makes no difference in this case, whether the will doth determine itself, or whether it be determined by some other cause; as long as the effect is certain, and universal; as it is in this case. The Scripture assuring us, That there is none that doth good, no not one, Ps. 14. 3. That there is not a just man upon Earth, that doth good and sinneth not, Eccl. 7. 20. And the experience of all Ages confirms it, quae omni teste mayor est; which in part is acknowledged by our Adversaries. But Pronit as ad peccandum quae in homine conspicitur, non à primo illo peccato statim exorta est: said continuatis post peccatum illud aliis peccandi actibus, peccandi habitum paulatim homines contraxerunt, seque ipsi corruperunt,& sic corruptionis istius semina, per propagationem ad posteros transmiserunt. Socin. libel. Suas. Cap. 5. Fatemur infantes nasci minos puros quam Adamus fuit Creatus,& cum quadam propensione a● peccandum; illam autem habent non tam ab Adamo, quam à proximis parentibus, Limb. Th. Christ. Lib. 3. Cap. 3 Sect. 4. Inclinatio illa ad peccandum proprie dictum peccatum non est, said naturalis inclinatio, &c. Quae proprie oritur à temperamento corporis, quod à proximis parentibus propagari scimus. Id. Cap. 4. Sect. 1. they tell us that this Corruption of our natures, which now, and for a long time hath prevailed in the World, is not owing to Adam's disobedience, but to the vicious habits, which by long custom in sinning, men have voluntarily contracted, whereby they first corrupted themselves, and then transmitted the seeds of corruption, and a great proneness to Sin, to their Posterity. So that the persons at present living, received these evil inclinations by way of propagation from their next and immediate Parents, as they did from their Forefathers, and so forward: but where shall we six? as we must somewhere, there being no progress in infinitum: we must find out the first mover of all this sin and mischief that hath overtaken, and overspread the whole world: And since our Adversaries either will not, or cannot direct us, I think, to save ourselves any further and endless inquiries, we must be content to take up, and rest satisfied with the account the Scriptures give of this matter, viz. That by the Offence of Adam, Sin entered into the World, as we said before; that he by his disobedience first corrupted himself, and then transmitted that corruption by way of Propagation to all his posterity, which is much heightened and improved indeed by mens actual Sins: but that first evil disposition which is born with us, is the effect and punishment of our first parents sin. And thus, I have at length finished what I had to say upon this great and important Article of our Faith, concerning original sin, which I take to be not only a certain, but a necessary Quid quod hoc de peccato Originali dogma inter rudimenta erat Christianae Religionis, nec tanquam ad structuram ejus pertinens, said quasi fundamenti pars censebatur. Voss. Hist. Pel. Lib. 2. p. 1. Thes. 6. and Fundamental Truth, and without the acknowledgement of which we can have no right Notion, nor, I am afraid, any firm belief of the Christian Religion; This being at the bottom of the whole dispensation of the Gospel: upon which account it is necessary that this Foundation be well laid, that so the superstructure may with the greater ease and safety be raised. When the doctrine concerning Original Sin is rightly stated, and apprehended, then every thing appears plain, and easy, and intelligible in the doctrine of our Salvation by Christ, I mean, as far as this is revealed to us in the Scripture; but when the former is either denied or perverted, then men are forced upon harsh and unnatural interpretations of Scripture, dangerous and novel Opinions are advanced, and introduced into our Religion; and in short, there have been no Alterations made in this Article, but what have proportionably, in all Ages of the Church, affencted the Doctrine of our Salvation by Christ. And I have been the longer upon it, in endeavouring to make it as plain and as easy as I could, and the nature of the thing would bear; hoping thereby, to remove that rock of offence, at which many both in former, and later Ages have stumbled, and fallen into error and mischief: some having hereby been hindered from embracing the Faith, and others having afterwards made shipwreck of it. Here it was that the old Enemies of the Christian Religion, Celsus, Simplicius, and Julian began their attempts against it; deriding and exposing the whole account concerning the Sin and fall of our first Parents, as an absurd and ridiculous story. The first Vid. Celsum apud Orig. Lib. 4. p. 186. Judaeis atque Christianis inscitiam atque ignorantiam objicientem, ac si {αβγδ}, incredibilem& inerudiram fabulam {αβγδ}, de Homine terrigena sinxissent, quam, {αβγδ}, anilem etiam fabulam appellat. calling it an old wives tale, the second simple. do phies. and. Lib. 8. Narrationem Mosaicam, tanquam {αβγδ}, fabulosam traditionem, ab Aegyptiis desumptam, sugillat. a fabulous Tradition received from the Egyptians, and the third accounting it not only a false but impious Fable, filled with Blasphemies against God, and such as equals all the fictions of the Greek Poets. Here it was that others who owned the Christian name, began their attacks against that great doctrine of Christianity, concerning the Redemption of Mankind. Such were Pelagius of old, and Socinus of later years, followed herein by Episcopius and his Disciples; and particularly Limb. And I choose to mention him the rather, because I find his Institutions, 3 Apud cyril. Lib. 3. Contra Jul. ( which is one of the corruptest Systems of Divinity, that hath been published of late years,) put into the hands of many young Students in Divinity, by whom it is perused with Approbation and Applause; to whom yet I shall make bold to give the same caution that In ejusmodi scriptis legendis,( de Sommeri cujusdam scriptis loquitur) necesse est summum judicium, summamque diligentiam adhibere, ne una cum cibo venenum etiam sumamus, Socin. Ep. 3. ad mat. Rad. Socinus doth in another case, viz. That great care, and great judgement ought to be used in reading his works, least they swallow poison, at the same time that they think they feed on wholesome diet. To conclude this point, tho I am sensible that many things here delivered, might deserve, and perhaps want an enlargement; especially when it shall be considered, that the account which the Scriptures give us of the Creation and Fall of Man, is but very briefly and summarily set down there; which hath been the occasion of some difficulties, and hath furnished Atheistical persons with sundry plausible pretences, who have desired, and greedily laid hold on any such pretences to cavil at our holy Religion: yet as to the main of this doctrine, I doubt not but the pious and unprejudiced Reader, will upon examination, find it plainly and clearly delivered by the Inspired Writers; in which opinion he will receive greater confirmation, when he shall have duly weighed the nature, and just reasons and consequences of things; together with the Analogy and Harmony that there is between the parts of our Holy Faith. In short, he that shall seriously and with due care, compare the Old Testament with the New, the second Adam with the first, the whereupon and recovery of man, with his fallen and degenerate state, which is supposed in, as being antecedent to the former, will easily be induced to believe this Doctrine concerning Original Sin, not only to be true, but as we said before, a certain and necessary Truth; and for such it hath been reputed and owned, by Fathers and Councils, and in one word, by the catholic Church. And I doubt not to aver, that there is no one Article of the Christian Faith, not excepting those concerning the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of our Saviour, and the whereupon of the World by his Death and Sufferings; which hath been more plainly, and constantly, and uniformly delivered down to us from the Apostles days, through all Antiquorum Testimonia vide apud Voss. Hist. Pelag. ac speciatim Lib. 2. Par. 1. Thes. 6. superius citat. Ages of the Church, to the very times we live in, than this concerning Original Sin. So that we need not fear the dissent of any, from this important truth, who preserve a due regard for the Inspiration and divine Authority of the Scriptures, a just reverence for the determinations of the Ancient and catholic Church, and lastly, an esteem for the unanimous Confessions of all the Reformed Churches, without exception of any one of them; and particularly for that of this See the 9th Article of Orig. Sin. The Hom. or Serm. concerning the misery of Mankind. And that of the Nativity. Office for Bapt. Church Chatechism. Excellent and Orthodox Church of which we are members. But as for others who have shaken off all Reverence for these, who slight every thing in comparison of their own novel and singular Conceits, which they put in opposition, to the constant and uniform declarations of all Churches both Ancient and Modern; That is, for them who are neither good Christians, nor true Protestants, nor sound Members of that excellent Church of which yet some of them would be reputed Sons, or at least, not long since have desired to be owned for such; we cannot much wonder at their disagreement from us; however in the mean time we shall not cease to pray to God, to forgive them their pride and vanity, and to give them better minds, that is, more humble and teachable tempers, which may dispose them to submit their understandings to all divine Revelations, and to captivated their proud reasons to the obedience of Faith. Having thus finished what I had to say concerning man in his lapsed and degenerate state: I come now to speak of his Redemption and Recovery by Christ. And here according to the method before laid down, I shall first give an account of what the Scriptures inform us in this matter; and then secondly, of what alterations Socinus and his followers have made, in this great and Fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion. In speaking to the former, I must inquire into the great end and reason of Christs coming into the world: and secondly, by what way and means he did procure and accomplish that end of his coming. First if we inquire into the next and immediate end of our blessed Saviours coming into the World, and without a respect to which he would not have been sent into it; the Scriptures will inform us, that it was for the redemption and reconciliation of all Mankind, the whole Mass as descending from Adam, who were universally without exception of any, under the displeasure of God; obnoxious to his justice, liable to the penalty of the Law which they had transgressed; which was both a temporal death, and likewise an eternal separation from the presence of God, in whose favour is life; as was said before. Here are two things to be made out, First that all men, I mean all mere men, the whole posterity of Adam are Sinners, and consequently under the displeasure of God, and obnoxious to his justice. Now this the Scripture is so express and punctual in, that one would think there should be no room left for doubt or cavil. St. Paul Rom. 3. 9. tells us, That he had proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they were all under Sin. That every mouth must be stopped, when charged by God, having nothing to say in vindication of themselves, the whole world being guilty before him, v. 19. And in one word, That all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, v. 23. Not to repeat those other places in the 5. Rom. which we formerly cited; viz. That by the disohedience of one, many, or all men became sinners. v. 19. And that death passed upon all men, because all have sinned, v. 12. These universal forms of speech being of that Latitude, as to comprehend all the Children of Adam, without exception of any: Jew, and gentle, Bond and Free, Male and Female, Young and Old, one with another. Thus the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, Gal. 3. 22. I hope I need not farther prove, that all men being thus sinners, were under the displeasure of God, and obnoxious to his justice: for the immediate and necessary effect of Sin is guilt, and Guilt is nothing else, but an obligation to punishment. From whence it follows, that all men being born sinners, bringing along with them corrupt and depraved natures, must likewise be by nature Children of wrath, as the Apostle speaks, Eph. 2. 3. 2dly, That Christ came into the world, to redeem men from that deplorable and miserable condition, into which sin had brought them; which he did by making an atonement for their sins, and thereby reconciling God and man together. And of this we have so full, as well as so plain an account in the New Testament, that the Gospel is from thence styled the Word and Ministry of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. viz. That God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their Trespasses unto them. This being the reason of his taking upon him our nature, that he might make reconciliation for the sins of the people, Heb. 2. 17. This was the great instance of Gods love to the World, That he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jo. 3. 16. You see in what condition all the world were left, if God had not in great compassion sent his Son to their rescue, they must inevitably and irrecoverably have perished, and have been lost for ever. And what God the Father thus did, is likewise ascribed to the Son himself: for whatsoever was thus done for the recovery of lost man, was by his own voluntary consent and undertaking; Who gave himself for our Sins, Gal. 1. 4. That is, to deliver us from the Guilt, as well as the Dominion of them; or as the same Apostle expresses it, Tit. 2. 14. Who gave himself, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar People, zealous of good works. Where we have an account of two things, First of the reason of Christs giving himself for us, or the next and immediate end of his coming into the World, viz. to redeem Hanc {αβγδ} sic explicat Greg. Nazian. Orat. 36. p. 591. Christus dicitur {αβγδ}. us from our iniquities, from the guilt and demerit of them. And then of the end of that redemption, that being thus purified, we might be a people zealous of good works: Or as we have it in the prophecy or Song of Zacharias, That we being delivered out of the hands of our Enemies, to wit, from the Curse of the Law, and the dominion of the Devil, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life. 1 Luke. 74, 75. But of this latter redemption from the power of Sin, we are not now speaking, the former being the only Subject of our present discourse, viz. Our freedom from that punishment which we had deserved by our Sins. Hence Christ is said to have redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, by being made a Curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. That is, by {αβγδ}, Oecum. in Loc. undergoing the punishment threatened by the Law, and which we must have suffered, had not he placed himself in our room and stead: which Redemption is defined by the Apostle, and said to consist in the Forgiveness of our Sins, Eph. 1. 7. Repeated again by the same Apostle, Col. 1. 14. In whom we have redemption thro his blood, even the forgiveness of Sins. Whosoever then are redeemed by Christ have their Sins forgiven them; and they who are no Sinners have no need of, and consequently receive no advantage by the redemption wrought, and purchased by our Blessed Saviour; I confess the Pelagians and Remonstrants are of another opinion, who have furnished us with new notions of Redemption, without any regard had to the pardon of Sin, which St. Paul knew nothing of. But of this we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. If this matter wanted a farther explication, we might instance in those other places of Scripture, which mention our being redeemed from our vain, or sinful conversation, 1 Pet. 1. 18. Redeemed from iniquity, Tit. 2. 14. cited before. In which places Sin is put for the punishment of Sin; the word {αβγδ}( as De Satisf. Christ. cap. 8. Immunditiae nomine significari passim reatum, fatetur Socinus. Hinc {αβγδ}& {αβγδ}, est eum reatum tollere, sieve efficer remissionem, ut ipse Scriptor ad Hebraeos exponit verbum {αβγδ}, cap. 9. v. 22. Christus per seipsum fecit hunc {αβγδ}, Heb. 1. 3. Christus {αβγδ} conscientiam ab operibus Mortuis, Heb. 9. 14. Hoc est, ipso Socino interpret, à reatu& poena, poenaeque timore conscientiam liberat, Id. cap. 10. Grotius well observes) which denotes expiation, which is added in Titus, and the mention of a Sacrifice by St. Peter( couched under that phrase of a Lamb without spot, and without blemish,) making it evident, that it ought so to be interpnted. In which sense Christ is said to become Sin for us, who knew no Sin, 2 Cor. 5. 21. That is, {αβγδ}, Oecum. in Loc. bore the punishment of our sins, by being made a Sacrifice for them. Once more, Christ is said to undergo death for the redemption of transgressions, Heb. 9. 15. Where the Phrase {αβγδ}, must be taken in the before mentioned sense; it being taken in no other by any either Sacred, or profane Writers( as Hoc autem loquendi genere {αβγδ}, aut latin, culpas, delicta, crimina redimere, non tantum significari causam moventem ad liberandum, said talem etiam, quae compensationem aut satisfactionem includat, manifestum est. Nullum adfert locum Socinus aut sacri aut profani Scriptoris, ubi redimere peccata, offensas, aliud quidpiam ab eo quod diximus, designet, Grot. De Satisf. Christ cap. 8. p. 158. Grot. assures us) being always made use of by them to denote the freedom or deliverance from the punishment of Sin. Of what hath been thus said, this is the sum. That all those for whose sake Christ came into the World, and took upon him the seed of Abraham, i.e. an human nature, which he received by propagation from Abraham, from whom as to the flesh he was descended: or, that those for whom he gave himself, viz. to Death and the bitter passions of the across, were Sinners, Enemies to God, obnoxious to his Justice, and therefore stood in need of a reconciliation. But Christ gave himself, and come down from Heaven, for the sake of the whole world, Jo. 3. 16. by which phrase is meant Genus Humanum, all mankind: under which are comprehended all mere men of whatsoever Age, Sex, or Condition: wise or foolish, Infants as well as persons of riper years, men and women: all these making up, and being parts of the Would: God by giving his Son, and clothing him in our nature, having given an instance of his superlative Love, not only to this or that particular man, this or that sort of men,( tho some particular persons have a more eminent and peculiar share in it than others; to whom the benefits of Christs coming, in the conclusion is only applied; but that is for other reasons not needful here to be mentioned) but to all mankind, who stood in need of him, and without whom they must universally, and inevitably have perished. Hence he is said to have suffered for us, indefinitely, 1 Pet. 2. 21. To have born our Sins in his body on the three,( i.e. He bore the punishment of them on the across,) That we being dead unto Sin, should Live unto Righteousness, v. 24. To have died for Sinners, Rom. 5. 8. who by being Sinners, were likewise Enemies, and therefore wanted a reconciliation, which was purchased by his death, v. 10. He gave his life a Ransom for many, Mat. 20. 28. Mark 10. 45. {αβγδ} being here to be interpnted in the same sense, as it is used by the Apost. Rom. 5. 19. where it is put for {αβγδ}, as was formerly observed. But if these Phrases do not seem full enough, the Scripture furnishes us with others more punctual and express, assuring us that Christ dyed for all collectively, 2. Cor. 5. 14. Gave himself a Ransom for all, 1 Tim. 2. 6. That he tasted death for every man, Heb. 2. 9. And in one word, That he is the propitiation for the Sins of the whole World, 1 Jo. 2. 2. From these two premises thus laid down, this conclusion must necessary and unavoidably be inferred, viz. That all the World, all Mankind, and every individual person, were Sinners, under the displeasure of God, and the condemnation of the Law, and as such were looked upon, and esteemed by God, Antecedently to his Decree of sending his Son into the World; who for that reason came into it, to make a reconciliation of them all; to restore them to the favour of God, which by their Sins they had forfeited. Indeed this reconciliation is not available to all; but this arises from their non-performance of the Conditions, required to entitle them to the actual participation of it: and tho we must aclowledge that the application of pardon, as well as the purchase of it, is performed by Christ; yet it is not done in the same way, and by the same means, the latter, viz. the purchase of reconciliation requiring something to be done on Christs part, the former, viz. the Application of it, requiring certain conditions on ours: the one being the effect of Christs Priestly, as the other is of his Regal Office; which are perpetually confounded by the Socinians. Now against all this, which hath been plainly deduced out of the Scriptures, the Socinians on the other side with great vehemence contend, that Christ was not sent into the World, to reconcile it; That is, as we have stated it, to purchase the favour of God, and remission of Sins for Mankind. And that for these two Reasons, 1st, Because, all Mankind were not Sinners, and consequently stood in no need of pardon and reconciliation. Adam hurt none but himself by his disobedience; the Mass as descending from him, was not tainted and leavened with any infection: Men being now born into the world, as Adam was at first Created, in a State of Innocence. So that there was no need to redeem such from the punishment of the Law, who were not liable to it upon the account of their own actual Sins, and therefore not liable at all. And this is the case of all Infants, and was, or at least might be the case of several adult persons if we believe these men. 2dly, Tho all men had been Sinners( as they who committed actual Sins certainly were) yet there was Causam impulsivam in salute nostra nullam excogitare poteris, praeter puram Dei liberalitatem& clementiam, Socin. de Chr. serve. par. 2. cap. 25. Hinc patet, non Deum fuisse hominibus inimicum, cum Christum filium suum ad eos mitteret: proinde nec Deum fuisse hominibus per Christum placatum, said Deum potius homines sibi placasse per Christum, adeo ut in hunc finem etiam eum volverit eff propitiationem, quo penitus esse certi possent de gratia sua,& peccatorum remissione, Slichting. in Epist. ad Colloss. Cap. 1. v. 20. Videmus hic non Deum mundo, said mundum Deo fuisse infensum& inimicum cum Christus moreretur; proinde per mortem Christi non id esse actum, ut Deus mundo, said ut mundus Deo reconciliaretur. Neque enim utrinque fit reconciliatio, ubi una pars alterius parts amicitiam omnibus modis,& maximis etiam impendiis ambit. Quod Deus fecit, qui mundum sic illo tempore diligebat, ut filium suum unigenitum pro eo daret, Idem in cap. 5. Epist. ad Rom. v. 10. Docet hic locus quam sit alienam à vero, Deum humano generi iratum à Christo fuisse placatum,& hominibus reconciliatum. Contra se res habet; nempe Deum homines sibi iratos placasse,& reconciliare per Christum& Apostolos omnibus modis conatum fuisse, Id. in 2. Ep. ad Cor. cap. 5. v. 20. no need of Christs coming to reconcile them to God; who was not angry with men for their iniquities, nor provoked thereby to show any marks of his displeasure towards them. There being no such Attribute in God as vindictive justice,( which is a quality fit only for passionate and revengeful men) which either inclined him to punish, or hindered him to pardon them without a compensation made for the wrongs and injuries done to his Authority, by the violation of his Laws. In short, the only obstacle of reconciliation was on mens side, if they would but forsake their Sins for the future, what was past should make no breach of kindness between them. He was so far from denying them his favour, that he courted their friendship; and tho he were the person injured, yet he desired no other compensation but that they would lay aside their enmity; and, in one word, he would be abundantly satisfied, if they would vouchsafe to be reconciled to him. If you inquire what reasons then there were that moved God to sand Christ into the World, they will tell you there were several. And among others they instance principally in these three following. First, this was done in a gracious condescension to the follies and weakness of mankind, and particularly with relation to one impious and superstitious custom, which had long, and in a manner universally prevailed in the world before Christs coming into it. For so it was, that those persons who had in their life time been renowned for their valour, or had otherways been useful and serviceable to mankind; after their Death were usually consecrated, and placed in Heaven, and there advanced to the dignity of a kind of inferior Gods: to whom their surviving friends or subjects betook themselves for patronage, and implored likewise their Mediation, and intercession with the superior deities. Now in compliance with these Nullam in rem magis prona& proclivia sunt, semperque fuerunt hominum ingenia, quam ut homines vita functos, quorum eximia aliqua virtus dum viverent enituit, aut enituisse credita est, in coelin collocent;& ex iis patronos ac opitulatores coelestes sibi faciant, quorum opem implorent,& ad quos magna cum religione confugiant. Hoc Deus ipse fecit in Christo, hominum tanto desiderio ac saluti gratificaturus. Quis Christo fuit virtute ac sanctitate& divinis operibus conspectior? Hunc morte affectum in vitam revocavit, dominum& servatorem nostrum constituit, hunc à nobis adiri, coli,& invocari volvit. Slichting. come. in Epist ad Rom. cap. 1. v. 25. extravagant desires and apprehensions: God thought fit to sand an excellent man into the world, eminent for his virtues, and renowned for the admirable and divine works, which he wrought for the good and benefit of men: him being delivered up to Death, God raised from the Dead, exalted him to Heaven, placed him at his right hand, and there appointed him to be a perpetual Advocate and Intercessor for us. 2dly, Forasmuch as it had been a general usage amongst most nations, to confirm all Covenants, and public Leagues, especially, by the death of some Beast, the shedding of whose blood was looked upon to be a ratification of what the parties had mutually consented and agreed to: In compliance therefore 1 with this ancient and venerable practise, God having thought fit to establish a new Covenant of Grace and Mercy with mankind, and therein to give them the promise of pardon of Sin, and eternal life;( which as these men tell us he had 2 Tertia ratio qua Christus ipse novum foedus confirmavit; est ejus acerbissima mors, sanguinisque fusio. Quodvis foedus olim sanguine, id est, mactatione alicujus pecudis sanciebatur, ad indicandum ac contestandum, quod quisquis foedus illud violaverit, perinde sit morti afficiendus, atque illud pecus. Christus novum foedus non sanguine hircorum, said suo pretiofissimo sanguine obsignavit: Wolzog. Proleg. in Nov. Test. p. 1. Caetera foedera coeso Animali aliquo, sanciri& sanguine ejus confirmari solerent:& ipsum foedus antiquum, sanguine fuerat initiatum ac stabilitum: Quare cum sanguis Christi Novi foederis doctrinam confirmet, potuit morti Christi adscribi foederis sanctio. Crel. Resp. ad Lib. Hu. Grotii de Satisf. cap. 1. never done before) in order to afford them all the assurance imaginable, that he designed to make it good; and withall to lay an obligation Vis atque efficacia Mortis Christi tanta erat, ut etiam Deum, si fort eum promissionis suae paeniteret, movere atque impellere posset, ne promissum suum rescinderet, said quod pollicitus esset, reipsa praestaret, Crell. de Causis Mortis Christi. p. 613. Hic revera finis ac scopus fuit; cur Deus Morte Christi se nobis obligare volverit, &c. Ibid. upon himself, that he might not( whatsoever unforeseen accidents should happen,) start and recede from his promise; he was pleased to ratify this Covenant likewise with blood: but not with that of Calves and Goats, but with the blood of Christ himself who was the first publisher of it: by a new and unheard of way, the Herald himself was content to be the Sacrifice, to lay down his own life, and thereby confirm the pardon which he had proclaimed. Lastly, God having thought fit( for divers weighty reasons, as might justly be imagined) or rather for no reason Rectum enim& aequum est ut si nostra scelera à Deo nobis condonari volumus aliquam obedientiam praestemus: Cum igitur Deus Sacrificiorum istam obedientiam à populo, si is à peccatis illis liberari velvet, omnino requireret,& cuicunque eam obedientiam praestanti eorum peccatorum veniam largiretur: sacrificia ipsa, ita Deo pro benignitate sua statuente, peccata expiasse dici non injuria possunt. Socin. de Ch. serve. p. 2. cap. 11.& cap. 20. Idem. Prae. Th. cap. 22, 23. Sanguinis fusio sub veteri testamento non movebat Deum ad peccata remittenda, said fuit causa media, seu causa sine qua non remissionis. Crell. at all, if you believe the Socinians, but only for his own pleasure, to institute certain Sacrifices among the Jews, for the expiation of Sin,( for of this practise among other nations, tho it had in a manner universally prevailed from the first Ages of the world, the Socinians take no notice) he at length grew weary of his own Institution, chiefly because he found it extremely deficient, and unable to accomplish several noble ends and purposes, which were highly requisite, and indeed necessary to be obtained. And these were especially three, in which the weakness and imbecility of the Jewish Sacrifices, as they tell us, was very remarkable. For first, Quod ad ipsum Sacrificium attinet, quod in eo solenni festo fiebat, dico illud graviora peccata quae ex animi malitia perpetrata essent, non expiasse, neque pro illis oblatum fuisse, said pro iis tantum quae ignorantiae appellari possunt. Manifestum est, pontificem non pro omnibus peccatis, said pro ignorantiis& erroribus ex infirmitate admissis sacrificasse. Socin. Lib. citat. cap. 12. they could only procure or rather declare pardon, for Sins of ignorance and infirmity, but could make no expiation for greater Sins of presumption and against knowledge. 2dly, They could only expiate the legal pollution, but could not purge the Conscience, or take away the inward Guilt, which did slain and defile the Soul. And therefore were only available to save the Criminal from a temporal punishment, but could not preserve him from Ab aeternae mortis paena victimae illae sub lege adeo neminem liberarunt, ut ne temporariae quidem morti, seu capitis supplicio quenquam eximere potuerint; alias quasdam leniores hujus vitae p●nas aut incommoda tollebant. Crell. Comment. in Heb. cap. 9. v. 14. eternal death. which was the punishment due to greater Crimes. 3dly, Tho they were Vetus foedus non vacavit culpa, utpote quod vim non haberet populi in officie continendi, ut posterius habuit, ex quo factum est, ut merito abolitum sit,& in ejus locum suffectum aliud, quod mentibus humanis divinas leges indat,& cordibus eas scribat, Socin. de Ch. serve. p. 2. cap. 16. Hostiae illae quae offerebantur non ut quis peccare desineret, said ut à peccatorum poena liberaretur. Quas sublatas fuisse Apostolus dicit,& in eorum locum Christi sacrificium substitutum. Ibid. vid. Crell. Comment. in Heb. cap. 8. v. 9. Ab earum victimarum imperfectione colligit author eas Deo non placuisse,& aliquando abrogari debuisse, adeoque per Sacrificium Christi abrogatas esse, Id. in cap. 9. v. 25. effectual to make an atonement for past Sins, yet they had no force or efficacy to free men from the Guilt, and much less to deliver them from the dominion of Sin for the future, being utterly unable to withdraw them from their evil courses, and prevent their sinning for the time to come. Therefore to supply all these defects, and once for all to have one general expiation for the sins of all mankind; he thought fit to abrogate the Jewish Sacrifices, and to substitute that of Christ in their room, who by one oblation of himself, might purchase eternal redemption for us. Now in reference to these several Socinian hypotheses, we must aclowledge that they are very artificially contrived by them, in order to impose upon weak and unwary Readers, who may be apt at the same time to swallow down truth and falsehood, which are here( in order to amuse men and divert them from the consideration of the true ends of our Saviour's coming into the World) very speciously and with great cunning, twisted and joined together. And tho they all deserve and must have a particular consideration, yet at present I shall only make my remarks upon the first of them, and wave the consideration of the other two, till I come to discourse of the Death and Sufferings of Christ, at which time they will more conveniently be considered. As to the first therefore of these Hypotheses, tho we must with infinite satisfaction and thankfulness aclowledge the Mediation of our blessed saviour now in Heaven, who is sat down at the right hand of his Father, where he ever lives to make intercession for us, yet we can by no means admit of this Socinian Account of it, and that chiefly for these 3 Reasons. 1. Because it seems to be a great disparagement to the Christian institution, to derive the admirable contrivance for the Salvation of Mankind, from the foolish and absurd apprehensions of men, and the wicked and superstitious customs consequent upon them; we cannot but with all due reverence reflect upon the infinite condescension of God in his dealings with men; whereby he is pleased to pass by their weaknesses, to excuse their follies, to accommodate himself to their weak and shallow conceptions, in the discoveries which he is pleased to make of himself. But I doubt whether it may be warrantably affirmed, that in any of his Religious Institutions he hath accommodated himself to their foolish and wicked Imaginations. Perhaps against this it may be objected, that many of the Ceremonies and Rites prescribed to the Jews by Gods own appointment, were such, as for some Ages before had been practised in the Heathen World; several of which in compliance with the weakness and passions of that perverse people, he thought fit to adopt into his own service and worship. To which I Ans. That admitting this to be true,( which yet most Learned men will not allow to be so,) it will not come up to the point; unless it can be farther proved, that those ancient rites practised by the Heathens were in themselves unlawful and impious, and that God in compliance with the Apprehensions of the Jews about such profane practices, prescribed something of the like nature to be performed by them; This being the case of the mediation of Hero's and Demi-Gods among the Heathens; which was a profane and Idolatrous practise, highly dishonourable to God, repugnant to Piety, and such as had almost banished all just notions of God, and all the right way of worshipping him out of the World. No doubt God might have made choice of any innocent, and much more any ancient and laudable rites and usages,( tho they had been abused to superstitious purposes) and have incorporated them into his own Religion and Worship. But to say that he instituted any thing as a part of his own service, in compliance with any custom in its own nature Impious, I think cannot be affirmed, without a great and dangerous reflection upon the holiness and righteousness of God And this is acknowledged by Dr. Spencer, who is the great promoter of this Opinion, viz. That many of the mosaic Laws and Rites, were derived from the like institutions and practices of the Heathens. Cum Deus gentem sanctam condere& collapsum numinis sui cultum ad nitorem& puritatem pristinam restituere statuisset, ritus omnes aut sua natura corruptos; aut impuris Daemonis Orgiis ita conjunctos ut lustrari non poterant, penitus abolevit; quicquid erat in cultu olim recepto {αβγδ}, Deus è medio sustulit; ritus autem innocuos, nullo vitio notatos,& gentium( forsan& patrum) antiquorum usu cohonestatos, ipse toleravit& legis suae sanctione cohonestavit. Spen. De Leg. Hebr. Lib. 1. Cap. 10. Add to this, that it seems to be no ordinary disparagement to his wisdom; which, as the Scriptures assure us, hath been so admirably displayed in the methods found out for our Salvation, that Men and Angels are justly astonished, and stand amazed in the Contemplation of it. But according to this Socinian Hypothesis, it amounts to no more than this, that God having resolved to put an end to a foolish and superstitious custom which had too long been practised, instead of those Demi Gods which the fancy and fears of superstitious men had consecrated, he did substitute another eminently good and virtuous person in their room, to whom they might lawfully make their addresses, and whom for the future they might look upon to be their great Patron and Advocate. What is there in all this which may be thought to exceed the invention of a finite, or even an human understanding. We know what things of this nature have been invented, and practised in the Church of Rome; and yet there is none of us, I think, that stands in any great admiration either of the wisdom, or piety of the contrivance. 2dly, Let it be granted, that God in condescension to the weakness of men, should think fit to gratify them in some of their absurd and impious apprehensions,( which yet I think can hardly be allowed, without derogating from the purity and perfection of the Christian Institution, which is admirably calculated for the extirpation of all foolish, and superstitious notions, and desires out of the minds of men, but by no means designed to cherish and comply with them) yet we cannot without great impiety affirm, that God would encourage them in any sinful practices: but rather would divert their inclinations upon fit and proper objects. Since they must have a mediator, he would substitute a lawful one, to whom they might safely and warrantably make their addresses and supplications; and so by his mighty power overrule the desires of men, and bring good out of their evil Intentions. But so he hath not done in this case, according to the Socinians; but by placing one man in the room of others, hath only exchanged the Idolatry, but hath not prevented the practise of it: for to give divine worship to a creature, according to the Scriptures, is downright Idolatry. To say that Christ was an extraordinary, or if you please a divine man, will not alter the case. This may make it a more refined and excusable Idolatry; but Idolatry it is still. For tho Christ hath, as the Socinians tell us, Infinitely the advantage of other men; yet being but a man, he must come infinitely short of the divine perfections: and therefore divine worship and adoration cannot be paid to him, without a bold and Sacrilegious Invasion of that right, which God claims as his sole prerogative; and which he hath said, nay which he hath sworn, he will not give to another. Lastly, admit these desires in men were innocent, and the practise consequent to it, not only blameless but commendable, yet this account of Sclichtingius were not to be admitted, because it stints and limits the efficacy of Christs death and intercession, to certain times and persons; which yet the Scripture assures us was of that extent, as to reach all Ages, and all Men that have been in the World. If therefore Christ was sent into the world in condescension to the weakness, and in compliance with the apprehensions and practices of men, in the worship and mediation of Heroes and Demi-Gods: it must from hence follow, that these apprehensions, and these practices, were Antecedent to the purpose and decree of God, to sand his son into the world; it being an undoubted truth, that whatever is the cause, or the occasion of any purpose or institution, must in order of nature be Antecedent to that institution. And if so, then all those who lived before these Idolatrous practices, grew common and universal, forasmuch as they lived before the coming of Christ was decreed, or perhaps so much as thought of, neither were, nor indeed could be regarded by God in that Decree; and consequently had no share in the benefits of Christs coming, nor did partake in any of those ends which were accomplished by it. Now how many Years, or perhaps Ages past, and consequently how many thousands, or myriades of men lived and dyed, before this Idolatrous practise began, and much more before it prevailed in the world, is impossible to determine. But be the number of the men what it will, this is certain; that none of them were, or could be regarded by God the Father, when he took the resolution of sending his son into the world, if this were the occasion or cause of it. Now this plainly contradicts the Scriptures, which assure us( as was said before) that God gave his son, for the sake of the whole World, and every individual member of the same. I know that this inference which I have made, with relation to those persons who lived and dyed before this practise of Idolatry prevailed, is esteemed a matter of no ill consequence in the opinion of a Socinian, and therefore that they will not be afraid to own it: but on the other hand they earnestly contend for it, as for an undoubted; and important truth; that the virtue of Christs sacrifice had no Socin. de Christo serve. cap. 26. retrospect; that it did affect no sinners who lived before him, because it neither could, nor was designed to expiate any sins, but those that were committed after his appearance among men. But I hope others will have more honourable apprehensions of the virtue and dignity of Christs sacrifice, in which their own particular safety and that of the whole world is wrapped up. Perhaps it will be said, that the Socinians were indeed mistaken, in making the end of Christs coming to be in compliance with one or two foolish apprehensions of men, and to prevent the ill practices that were occasioned thereby: But that the Causa vel occasio bujus redemptionis fuit miseria, in quam humanum genus totum, liberima& ultronea Legum divinarum transgressione, semetipsum praecipitaverat. Episcop. Lib. 4. Sect. 5. cap. 1. de Redemptione. Limb. Th. Christ. Lib. 3. cap. 1. Remonst. have hit the mark, when they tell us, that the true reason of Christs taking our nature upon him, and in it dying for us, was to make a reconciliation for all the actual sins of men; to purchase pardon both for the personal sin and disobedience of Adam, and likewise for all the sins that should afterwards be committed by his posterity to the end of the world; To which I Ans. That the Rem. by excluding Original Guilt, highly derogate from the perfection and dignity of that redemption wrought by our blessed saviour; and fall in with that dangerous error of the Socinians now mentioned, viz. of stinting the efficacy of Christs death, not indeed to certain times;( for to give them their due, they do not with the Socinians, make the doctrine of our Salvation by Christ a novel institution, but aclowledge it to be as old as the world, and that the promise of a saviour was made to our first Parents immediately after the fall) but however they limit the efficacy of it to certain persons; and thereby overthrow the universality of that redemption, which at other times they would be thought earnestly to contend for. For first, all Adult persons who in any Age of the world, lived without the commission of actual Sin, had no need of this redemption. You will say there were none such, all having sinned and come short of the Glory of God. I know the Scriptures say so, and give us the reason of that assertion. The Quilihet homo, ubi ad eam aetatem pervenerit ut rationis usum habeat, si nulla mala institutione aut usu corruptus fuerit, posset si plane velvet, nullum ex iis peccatis committere, quae cum ipsa ratione pugnant, eique per se omnino adversantur, Socin. ad Object. Cuteni Resp. Socinians are of another Opinion, and so were the Apud Aug. Lib. de Natura Cap. 37. Et apud Hieron. Lib. 1. Dialog. contra Pelag. Pelagians of old; and some of them have instanced in Abel and Enoch in the old world, who were perfect men, having never contracted any Guilt, by the commission of any one actual sin. It will be said the Rem. forsake them in this Opinion. They do so indeed, but in this they seem not to act so agreeably to their own principles. For overthrowing the reason of the Scripture affirmation, which concludes all under sin; they make it a contingent truth; such as depends upon the spontaneous, and therefore uncertain motions of mens Free will: and consequently when they say all men are Sinners, it amounts to no more than this; it hath been so, and may be so; but it might, and may be otherwise. For what is it according to them that should be the certain and necessary cause of sin in Adult persons; whereby being inevitably involved in Guilt, they stand in any absolute need of the redemption of Christ? First, is the decree of God the cause of sin, which thereby becomes necessary? {αβγδ}; God forbid: they and we abhor the thoughts of any such thing. 2dly, Is it the corruption of their natures, transmitted from Adam, whereby men are born into the world with such necessary propensions to evil, and such a disability to perform any saving good, that they cannot by their own natural strength avoid falling into many, and those grievous sins? No such matter: Adam by his first disobedience did not contract a disability to perform his own duty, neither did he transmit any such impotence and depravation of nature to his posterity. 3dly Then, The cause of this misery and guilt which hath overtaken the whole world, is mens own Free will. Ex his patet fontem sieve causam unde miseria haec in universum Genus humanum profluit, esse suam propriam cujusque hoins culpam, sieve potius liberrimam hoins voluntatem, quia impossibile est ut homo aut peccati reus fiat absque propria voluntate sua libera, aut poenae sieve miseriae proprie dictae absque culpa sua, eaque vincibili aut evitabili, Episcop. Lib. supra cit. Cap. 2. If so, then men had even as good be without this freedom, as make all this stir and bustle in vindication of it: for it seems it doth as effectually, and inevitably involve men in guilt and misery, as if their natures had really been depraved. Perhaps it will be said, that all men, even since the Fall, are still left possessed of a natural power and dominion over their own actions; which is so necessary to the will in all its operations, as being an essential property of it, that it cannot be separated from it: and therefore, that tho all men do actually sin, yet they are not necessary and unavoidably liable to it; it is purely a contingent matter, as being the result and consequence of their own freedom and choice. I Ans. if so, then the redemption purchased by Christ, was not absolutely necessary for mankind; but only Hypothetically, upon supposition that men would sin; which must not necessary be supposed, it being as was said before but an arbitrary and contingent matter. It is true Christ de facto is the saviour of all men; but there was no necessity that it should be so. They might have saved themselves the trouble of making application to Christ, and have gone to Heaven without him. I confess this was the case of Adam, if he had preserved his Innocence, he would have stood in no need of a Redeemer. But to say the like of any of his posterity since the the Fall, is boldly to contradict the plain declarations of the Gospel, and to alter the whole economy of mans Salvation as it is laid down there; whereby we are assured, that there is no way now of coming to Heaven, but by the Merits and Mediation of Christ; all the passages to happiness being now shut up, except that, by and thro our blessed saviour, who is the way, the Truth, and the Life. If it shall be farther said, that tho men are possessed of such a natural power as we have hitherto been discoursing of, yet that in this state of things, all circumstances considered, it is Impossible for men to avoid sinning; Then I Reply, that this can amount to no less than a plain contradiction; viz. that no man could avoid doing of that, which yet he had a natural power to forbear doing. On the other hand, to say that tho every man could, yet that no man ever did, or ever will avoid sinning; besides, that it leaves the Salvation of men by the mediation of Christ, an arbitrary matter, as was said before; It leads us into that great absurdity( as some men would account it) of asserting a power planted in the nature of man by God himself to no purpose; a power to do that which every man is obliged to do, and which no man ever did, or ever will do to the end of the World. But let the case of Adult persons be what it will, This is certain, that as this matter is stated by Episcop. and his followers, all Infants, Hanc miseriam universalem facit scriptura, sic ut totum Genus humanum involvat, id est, omnes omnino ac singulos homines, suppling, in quibus miseria ista tanquam justa poena locum habere potest. Infantes ergo, qua tales, u●●& satuos, amentes, insanos, aut rati●nis& voluntatis liberae us● destitutos, sub iis comprehensos nolumus, Id. Ibid. who die before they arrive at the use of Reason, and therefore, before they are capable of committing Actual sin, are thereby excluded from having any share in the Redemption purchased by Christ, because they stood in no need of it. And hereby they effectually destroy that universal Redemption,( of which at other times they would be esteemed the great Patrons and Champions) in excluding by a modest computation, at least a tenth part of mankind from partaking in the benefits of it: besides all Fools, who never had the use of Reason, which must increase the number. It may therefore be asked, what becomes of all those Infants who die before the commission of actual Sin? Are they all damned? That were an Impious and uncharitable imagination; it being not only inconsistent with the Mercy of God, but repugnant to his Justice, so severely, and without any reason, to punish those, who were absolutely pure and innocent. On the other hand, may we be so charitable as to say they are all saved? if so, then here we have a new Gospel, a new method of Salvation found out, without respect to Christ, which the Scriptures have given us no account of; but have declared the quiter contrary, viz. That there is no Salvation in any other, or by any other way and means; that there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby they may be saved, Act. 4. 12. but only his, who is the resurrection and the life, Jo. 11. 25. The door by whom we must enter in, if we expect to be saved, Jo. 10. 9. and in short, That none can come to the Father but by him, Jo. 14. 6. But it may be said, men may be partakers of the benefits of Christs death, and be saved by him, tho they are not Sinners. For Christ by dying for us purchased not only pardon of Sin, but likewise eternal Life. The former benefit Infants stand in no need of, and therefore are not partakers of it, forasmuch as they are neither born with Original Guilt, nor have committed any Actual Sin. But the Latter they obtain by Christ, who therefore in that sense may be said to be their saviour, and Redeemer. For tho their own innocence exempts them from punishment, and therefore places them beyond the need of pardon and reconciliation; yet it gives them no title to the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the sole fruit and purchase of Christs death. So Scripsit dudum vir sanctus& eloquens, Episcopus Augustinus, ad Marcellinum duos libros de Infantibus baptizandis, contra haeresin vestram, per quam vultis asserere, babtizari Infantes, non in remissionem peccatorum, said in regnum coelorum; juxta illud quod Scriptum est in Evangelio, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua& spiritu sancto, non potest intrare in regnum coelorum, Hieron. Lib. 3. Advers. Pelag. prope finem. Secundum Pelagium Haereticum ista dicitis, parvulis baptismum necessarium, non propter remissionem peccatorum, said tantummodo propter regnum coelorum. Datis enim eis extra regnum Dei locum salutis& vitae eternae, etiansi non fuerint baptizati, Aug. Lib. 1. contra duas Pelagii Epist. Cap. 22. Pelagius and his Disciples stated this matter of old, followed herein Infantium qui in aetate Infantili moriuntur alia est ratio: nullius enim peccati proprie▪ dicti rei sunt. Morte tamen quam à primo parent Adamo haereditariam trahunt, detinentur; è qua non nisi per Christum redemptorem liberari possunt, sine cujus interventu aeternum in morte ut maneant necessum foret, ut ita conste● omnes homines, nemine excepto, indigere Redemptore, Limb. Lib. 3. Cap. 1. Sect. 14. Episcop. Lib. 4. de Redemp. Cap. 1. by Episcopius and Limburg; only with this difference, that whereas the Pelagians thought that there was a kind of middle state between Heaven and Hell, in which Infants who dyed without baptism were lodged, and that others to whom the benefit of Christs Death by that Sacrament was applied, were thereby made capable, and after death actually translated into the kingdom of Heaven: The Rem. are of opinion, that Infants dying before the use of Reason, must have continued for ever under the dominion of Death, had not Christ delivered them from it, and thereby made them capable of eternal life. So that in short, tho it should be acknowledged that all Adult persons are actually sinners, and therefore want pardon and reconciliation; yet according to them, Infants stand in no need of a saviour upon that account, there being in this sense, no Minors, no Babes in Christ. Now this Opinion of the Pelagians and Rem. is plainly repugnant to the express words, and to the whole Tenor, and design of the Gospel; which informs us that Christ is the saviour of none but sinners. This being the reason of his name, why he was called Jesus a saviour, as we have it assigned by the Angel that appeared to Joseph 1 Math. 21. For he shall save his people from their Sins. They who were whole had no need of this divine Physician, who came for the sake of the Sick and Infirm; and was sent not to call the Righteous but sinners to Repentance, Math. 9. 13. for this reason he was made flesh, Jo. 1. 14. Or, was made partaker of flesh and blood, as other men are, that in it he might dy for us, and thro death destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil, Heb. 2. 14. And that we may not think that any were partakers of this benefit, that is, rescued from the dominion of Death and the Empire of the Devil, who were not first redeemed from the Guilt of Sin: In the 16 and 17 ver. the Apostle tells us, that he took upon him an human nature,( styled there the seed of Abraham, because he had it by propagation from Abraham, from whom as to the flesh he was descended,) that in it he might be capable of executing the Office of a Priest, and thereby make reconciliation for the sins of the People. And what he saith here, he repeats again( tho in other words, yet to the same purpose) Heb. 9. 26. That Christ now in the end of the world hath appeared, and the end of this apppearance was, that he might put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself. For the same reason, when God designed to supply the defects of the Jewish Sacrifices, and to put an end to them, by a more noble one which was typifyed and represented by them; he sent his son into the world, clothing him in our nature, having prepared and fitted a Body for him, to this very purpose, that in it he might be capable of being a Sacrifice; and by this oblation of himself once for all, make one general atonement and expiation for the sins of the whole world, Heb. 10. 5. 10. For having made one complete sufficient Sacrifice for sins, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. Having obtained eternal Redemption for us, Heb. 9. 12. Thus if you inquire why this Lamb of God came into the world; Jo. Baptist will tell us that it was to take away the sins of it, Jo. 1. 29. If you put the question, why he shed his blood; he himself will return the Answer, that it was for the remission of sins, Mat. 27 28. It is true indeed, he has by his death purchased for us more than pardon, viz. eternal life. But then I say none shall be finally saved by Christ, in the next world, who were not first pardonned by him in this, this being the first step to that great Salvation, and the first degree of it. In short, I suppose it will be granted by all, that none can be admitted into Heaven, but those who are in favour with God; but according to the tenor of the Gospel, none can be admitted to his favour but those for whom Christ dyed; Christ dyed for none but sinners, who was manifested to take away our sins, 1 Jo. 3. 5. He came into the world to save sinners, 1 Tim. 1. 15. None else wanted his coming, or were regarded by him when he undertook this errand, any more then the Angels; for as he himself assures us( and he sure best knew the reason of his own undertakings) He came to seek and save only that which was lost, Luke 19. 10. Therefore to bring both parts of the Argument together, those who are no sinners, either must not be admitted into Heaven, or, they must come thither some other way than by the assistance and mediation of Christ; which is plainly to give us a New Gospel, a New method of Salvation, different from that which the Old Gospel of Christ hath revealed to us. And so I come to consider, the second thing proposed to be inquired into, viz. the way and means, whereby Christ procured that Reconciliation which was the end of his coming into the world; and this we are informed was by his death and sufferings. That we may understand this matter aright, we must know that the Scripture every where sets forth the anger and displeasure of God against sin and sinners, as in very plain, so likewise in very emphatical terms: representing him as their Enemy, as one highly provoked and incensed by their iniquities, and therefore resolved to punish them, and thereby to vindicate his authority, and to rescue it from the contempt cast upon it by the violation of his Laws. Thus we are told, that sin occasions a separation and division between God and us; and that not only on mans part, as the Socinians state this matter, as if the aversion were only on that side; but that it creates an aversation on Gods part against the sinner. For before man offended he was in favour with God, but now sin makes the breach. Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hide his face from you, Esay. 59. 2. This is an Argument of his high displeasure, he will not look upon the sinner, but turns his face from him, as men use to do from an object that creates loathing and detestation. And another Prophet assigns the reason of this aversion on Gods part, because He is a God of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, Heb. 1. 13. Hence he is said not only to hate the evil ways and doings of wicked men, but to abhor their persons, and with high disdain to reject even their services, for the sake of their Sins, Esay. 1. 10. &c. And that we may not think, that this denotes only the opposition that is between the righteousness of God, and the impieties of men, which as the Socin. aclowledge are contrary indeed to his holiness, and therefore do create a displeasure in him, but yet without any intention to punish men for them; the Scriptures frequently put us in mind of another Attribute in God, viz. his Justice, whose proper business and office is to revenge the wrongs and injuries done to his holiness, by them who live in opposition to it; which as we have elsewhere shewed( part 1. p. 28.) puts him into a state of hostility against sinners, and naturally inclines and moves him to punish them; tho the Egress of this justice in the actual infliction of punishment, may be subject to the determinations of his own will and pleasure. But to preclude all hopes of impunity from sinners, God hath in his word, made a public and solemn declaration of his pleasure in this ●ase; by annexing threatenings to the violation of his Laws, so that the Justice of God bespeaks his In●lination, and his Law his Intention to punish sinners. Indeed the Law of nature did so far inform men of the judgement of God, that they were convinced in their minds, that they who did things contrary to it were worthy of Death, Rom. 1. 31. But the revealed Law hath expressly and positively denounced death to the transgressors of it. In the day thou eatest thou shalt surely die, Gen. 2. 17. And that we may not think that this threatening concerned only the transgression of the first Law given to Adam in Paradise, we find the same penalty annexed to the violation of all other Laws, Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of the Law to do them, Deut. 27. 26. or as the Apost. expresses it, that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. Hence it is that all wicked men are said to be obnoxious to the wrath of God, as soon as they are born, for by being born sinners, and bringing defiled natures along with them into the world, they become by nature Children of wrath, Eph. 2. 3. And are much more so by their actual sins; for while they go on in their hardness and impenitence, they treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath, Rom. 2. 5. and what is thus revealed from Heaven against all unrighteousness, Rom. 1. 18. is particularly denounced as the doom of Infidelity: He that believeth not on the Son hath not Life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, Jo. 3. 36. Against which the sinner can have no reason to complain, because he hath but the just fruits of his own doings, The wages of sin being Death, Rom. 6. 23. It being a most equal and righteous thing with God to render tribulation to sinners, 2 Thes. 1. 6. Or as the same Apost. expresses this more fully in another place; Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every Soul of man that doth Evil,( without any exception, or hopes of escape) of the Jew first, and also of the gentle, Rom. 2. 8, 9. From all which it is evident, that if we consider God with relation to sinners( and are willing to govern our apprehensions of him by the plain declarations▪ of the Scripture, and the discovery which he hath made of himself there, and not by our own foolish and absurd imaginations) we must look upon him as one highly angry and displeased with wicked men, provoked to that degree as to be resolved upon punishment; and every thing standing in the way of the sinner, to obstruct the passages to favour and pardon, viz. The holiness of God, his Justice, his Laws, his Authority, his Honor, his Veracity: so that let him look which way he will, there remains nothing for him, but a fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation to devour him as an adversary to his maker, Heb. 10. 27. And they that are Gods adversaries, he will be sure to be theirs with a witness,( the enmity being reciprocal) who claims vengeance as his prerogative; it belongeth to me, I will recompense saith the Lord, Heb. 10. 30. It must therefore undoubtedly be a fearful thing to fall into his hands▪ but how can the sinner possibly avoid it? the Law hath peremptorily threatened death to the transgressors of it, thou shalt surely die; and we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God; there being none righteous, no not one, Rom. 3. 10. What method now can be thought of to secure the sinner from that condemnation, which the Law hath threatened, and his sins have deserved. We are all become guilty before God, and guilt is an obligation to punishment, and punished we must be, except we can think of some way to cancel that obligation. In short God is Angry, his Justice is provoked, and we shall certainly feel the terrible effects of his displeasure, except we can find out some expedient, to pacify his wrath, to satisfy his justice, and thereby to purchase his favour, and reconcile God and us together. But neither men nor Angels could have contrived any such method, as the wisdom of God hath found out, and which the Scriptures have revealed to us; which inform us that Gods anger is appeased, reconciliation and pardon purchased, but purchased at a dear rate, viz. by the death and sufferings of the son of God. So saith the Apost. we are reconciled to God by the death of his son, Rom. 5. 10. And because Christ by dying shed his blood for us, we find the Scriptures ascribing a peculiar efficacy to this blood, in order to procure the favour of God, and remission of sins for us. This is called the Blood of the New Testament which was shed for the remission of sins, Math. 26. 28. We have redemption through his Blood, the forgiveness of Sins, Eph. 1. 7. God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation, but it is through Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3. 25. We are justified by his Blood, Rom. 5. 9. Which cleanseth us from all Sins, 1 Jo. 1. 7. We have redemption through his Blood, Col. 1. 14. The Church of God is said to be the purchase of his Blood, Act. 20. 28. And in one word, He hath washed us from our Sins in his own Blood, Rev. 1. 5. Quae toties repetita manifeste ostendunt, proprium aliquem at peculiarem effectum huic morti ac sanguini tribuendum, as Grot. rightly observes, de Satisf. p. 13. All which being so often repeated, evidently shows, that some more than ordinary virtue and energy belongs to the Death of Christ, whereby it hath a peculiar influence in order to procure the pardon of our Sins, and the Justification of our Persons: and withal being so frequently inculcated by the Apostles upon all occasions, again and again, it must farther be an evident argument, that it is a matter of great and high importance, forasmuch as our present peace, and our future happiness absolutely depend upon it. But now if it shall be farther asked, how the blood of Christ comes to be of that peculiar force, as thus to purchase pardon and reconciliation for Mankind; I Ans. the reason of it is, because our blessed saviour, by dying and shedding his blood, underwent that I do not mean exactly Idem, the very same punishment, but that which was equivalent. punishment, and submitted to that condemnation, which our sins had otherwise rendered us inevitably obnoxious to: and this being in itself a sufficient compensation made to the justice of God, for the affronts and injuries offered to his Authority by the violation of his Laws; and likewise being accepted of by him as such; it must from hence necessary and naturally be effectual, to procure for us pardon and impunity. Now this being a matter of great consequence, upon which the whole stress of the controversy between us and our Adversaries leans and rests; I shall a little farther enlarge upon it, and endeavour to make out these two things. 1st, That Christ dyed for our sakes, and that not only as it signifies, for our benefit and advantage, but in our room and stead. 2dly, That his Death, was in itself a sufficient compensation to the Justice of God, and accepted of by him for such. First, That Christ dyed for us are the plain words of Scripture, he gave himself for us, Gal. 2. 20. Eph. 5. 25. he dyed for us, 1 Thes. 5. 10, he dyed for all, 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. And this not only in general for our good, but he was delivered up for our offences, Rom. 4. 25. he dyed for our Sins, 1 Cor. 15. 3. So to the same purpose, and for the same reason, he is said to die for the ungodly, Rom. 5. 6. And it is mentioned as the great instance of Gods love to us, that whilst we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us, ver. 10. of the same Chap. All which phrases of dying for sins, and sinners, plainly denote to us, that sin in those places is not to be considered as the final, but as the impulsive and meritorious cause of Christs death. And this is so evident, that even Socinus himself and his followers, notwithstanding the many shifts and cavils used by them to avoid the conviction of this truth, are yet, whether they will or no forced to aclowledge, viz. That the death of Christ was necessary, not only for the destruction of the dominion of sin, but likewise for removal of the guilt of it: upon which account, they are willing to call it an Mortem Christi sacrificium& quidem expiatorium esse fatemur, Crell. contra Grot. de Satisf. cap. 10. vid. Socin. de Chr. serve. lib 2. cap. 13. expiatory Sacrifice, and allow that Christ by his death did expiate our sins, not only as expiation signifies the withdrawing men from the practise, but likewise as it denotes the pardon of sin. And now one would think that we were pretty near an agreement, and that a fair and calm debating of these matters in dispute, might bring us to such a right understanding of one another, that in a short time we might hope to see that happy hour in which Christians and Socinians shall be united both in judgement and affection: a blessed Harmony, which many wise and moderate men, have both earnestly desired, and long since projected. But I am sorry that I must be forced to inform the Reader, that he cannot safely rely upon the good words and seemingly orthodox expressions of a Socinian: for notwithstanding that openness and freedom, which sometimes this sort of men, when it is for their purpose, will seem to use; yet for the most part it is joined with that obstinate reservedness, that unmovable adherence to their old and beloved errors; that when an innocent well meaning man lays hold on their concessions, and thinks he may safely rely upon them, all upon a sudden he finds himself disappointed: for by the help of a distinction, or some new, and never before heard of explication, they presently disengage themselves, and leave the person who depends upon them under confusion and surprise: like a man who catches at a handful of smoke, the faster he closes his hand, the sooner it slides thro his fingers, and when he thinks he holds it, he holds it not. Let the Reader peruse what follows, and then let him judge whether this be so or no. The Learned Grot▪ in that often mentioned, but never sufficiently commended Treatise de Satisf. ch. 10. p. 182. gives us this state of the difference between Socinus and the Church of Christ, concerning the virtue and efficacy of the death of Christ▪ viz. Dissensus breviter explicabitur, si dicamus, juxta Socinum expiationis effectum primo ac proprie versari circa peccata futura, quia fidem ingenerando mors Christi nos à peccatis abstrahit: quoad peccata praeterita non nisi secundario;& eatenus quoque omnem hanc actionem circa nos versari, non circa Deum, hoc est, Deum non moveri ad remittendum, said nos parari ad accipiendam remissionem, per vitae scil. emendationem, Grot. That according to Socin. the expiation made by Christ, primarily and properly respects future sins: because his death, which is the great confirmation of the new Covenant, by begetting faith in us,( viz. that God will be as good as his word in granting pardon to the penitent, according to the tenor of that▪ Covenant) doth thereby help to withdraw us from the practise of Sin: but as to Sins past, it respects them only secondarily and remotely; for as much as this expiation is not properly conversant about God, but about our selves: that is, in few words, God is not moved by the death of Christ to bestow pardon of sin, but we by repentance and amendment of life, which in some remote sense is the effect of that death, are thereby fitted and made capable of receiving it. Resp. ad cap 10. lib. H. Gr. de Satisf. Sacrificii Christi vis ad peccatorum nostrorum expiationem pertinens, duplex est; altera, eaque potior& sacrificiorum magis propria, quam Grotius in Socini sententia explicanda omisit, est, qua peccatorum omnium, non tantum futurorum, said& praeteritorum, qualiacunque& quantacunque sint, reatum ac poenas tollit; idque partim declarando,& jus ad eam rem nobis concedendo, partim actu ipso divina supplicia tollendo. Altera ea est, quam Grotius attingit, quod fidem nobis ingenerat,& nos in futurum à peccatis arcet ac revocat. Crellius comes not long after, and in an artificial and elaborate discourse undertakes the defence of his master, and therein tells the Reader, that Grotius doth not rightly represent the Opinion of Socinus, nor consequently fairly state the question between them. For Socinus acknowledges, and so do his followers, if you believe him, that the Sacrifice of Christ hath a peculiar force, not only to withdraw men from the practise of future, but likewise to procure pardon for past sins. And this it doth three ways. First, by declaring pardon for past Sins. Secondly, By giving us a right and title to it, and thereby moving and obliging God to grant it. Lastly, by an actual application, our blessed saviour conferring and bestowing pardon upon Sinners, by virtue of that power and authority with which he is now invested in Heaven, and which was given him as the reward of his obedience and sufferings. All this at first view,( as one might be apt to think) would amount to a pretty handsome acknowledgement of this great truth; they seeming to express themselves roundly and fully, and to come up to the point: but when we come more narrowly to examine particulars, and to make those deductions and defalcations, which these men by explaining and limiting their own assertions, think reasonable to be allowed; the sum total of these particulars, when they come to be cast up, will be found to amount to one large, round, empty insignificant cipher. For first the declaration of pardon, is not the procuring of it, neither is it of any force to do so. If Christs death did no more, then it is certain that remission of sins was purchased or procured some other way, as being antecedent to that declaration, which for that reason renders it impossible, that either it should be the occasion, or the cause of the pardon of sin. But 2dly, Christs death doth more, it gives us a title to pardon, and thereby moves God to bestow it. But how is God moved by the death of Christ? was he thereby prevailed upon to do that, which otherwise he was absolutely averse to, or at least what he had no inclination▪ to do? no, Animadvertendum est cum Socinus negat Christum Deum movisse morte sua ad peccatorum veniam nobis concedendam, eum, movendi vocem in magis propria& perfecta significatione accipere; ita ut notet, eum, cujus voluntas vel in contrarium propendeat, vel saltem ad rem aliquam per seipsam non est prona, nec eam sua sponte desideret, impellere ut aliquid velit, decernat ac faciat, Crell. contra Grot. cap. 8. God was most willing and ready to grant pardon to all mankind. He was very far from being angry with sinners; and as in this sense he was not moved to displeasure by their impietys, so he wanted no other motive, but his own mercy and compassion to render him propitious to them. Well, but tho his own goodness might incline him to grant, yet there might be something still wanting to induce him to promise pardon, and thereby to bring the sinner as within a nearer view, so likewise to give him greater hopes of it. No such matter, He that looks for any Cause of Deus nostri amore impulsus remissionem peccatorum jam olim decreverit,& per Christum sponte sua nobis obtulerit,& Christum ad illius spem in animis nostris defigendam,& eam reipsa implendam▪ in mortem tradiderit, atque ingenti praem●o ad eam suscipiendam impulerit; ita ut res haec ipsi Deo maxima ex parte sit adscribenda;& multo magis ipse Christum ad eam praestandam moverit, quam Christus conditionis ullius praestatione ipsum, ad peccatorum remissionem nobis largiendam, Id. Ibid. Causam impulsivam in salute nostra nullam excogitare poteris pra●ter puram Dei liberalitatem& clementiam, Socin. de Ch. serve. p. 2. cap. 25. this purpose and decree of God to be gracious and kind to sinners, besides the mere bounty and liberality of God himself; employs his time and his inquiries to no purpose, and in the conclusion will find himself deceived. But however, the death of Christ is the great Christus primo laetissimum nuncium de remissione omnium peccatorum attulit, ac novum foedus cum humano genere pepigit, in quo se Deus his verbis obligavit, ●ro propitius iniquitatibus eorum, &c. quod foedus ut esset tanto validius, proprii filii sui sanguine obsignavit, Wolzog. Comment. in 1. cap. Math. v. 21. vid. Crell. de causis Mortis Chr. confirmation of the new Covenant, which was ratified in his blood, and thereby it gives us a greater and stronger title to pardon then we had before. I Ans. If we may suppose that God can tie himself by promise, then we must affirm, that he lay under an obligation to make it good, and this antecedently to Christs death. For the Gospel, or the glad tidings of pardon and salvation was published by Christ in his life time. So that we can receive no new or stronger right to it by Christs dying, then we had before his death; all this being sufficiently secured to us by the promise of God in the new Covenant; except we should imagine( which sure must be a very impious imagination) either that God had not goodness and truth enough to make good his promise, or that for some great and weighty reasons, which he could not foresee, he might be induced to alter and change his purpose. So sometimes the Socinians will state this matter, as we have formerly shown. But Veruntamen fieri poterat ut efficacia illa respectu Dei revera opus non esset, quia nim. Deus ipse illo amore, gratia ac misericordia qua impulsus fuerat ad remissionem peccatorum nobis decernendam, satis moveatur ad eam nobis reipsa praestandam, nec unquam istius vel decreti vel promissi sui ipsum poeniteat. Opus nihilominus fuit, ut istam efficaciam mors Christi haberet; quia nimirum spei nostrae multum intererat, eam vim morti Christi inesse. Et paulo post, Deus revera eo spectavit, non ut▪ sibi ipsi quoddle obstaculum poneret, quo minus aliquando voluntatem mutaret,& promissa sua rescindere prohiberetur; said ut nos firmum spei nostrae de remissione peccatorum obtinendae fundamentum haberemus. Crell. ibid.& Comment. in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 9. v. 14. Crellius, who chiefly insists on this way, being sensible that it casts too great and scandalous a reflection on the wisdom and veracity of God; to mollify this matter tells us, that this ratification of the new Covenant by the death of Christ, doth not make the promise of God more sure in itself, but only gives us the greater assurance of the performance of it: as the Council of God tho immutable in itself, yet may be confirmed by his Oath, that thereby the heirs of promise might have more abundant consolation, and lay the faster hold upon the hope set before them, Heb. 6. 17, 18. Be it so; then from hence it necessary follows, that the death of Christ is of no force in itself to prevail with God to grant the pardon of sin, only it gives us the greater hopes that he will grant it, and therefore the efficacy of it, non versatur circa Deum, as Grotius before rightly stated this matter, said circa homines; doth not properly respect God, but ourselves. But still I do not know how to get over this point; the death of Christ according to the Socinians was a necessary condition of pardon, Neque enim mors Christi ad remissionem peccatorum intervenit, tanquam nuda quaedam conditio, aut res ad alterum tantum qui remissionem reipsa praestet, aliqua ratione ad id impellendum comparata: said potissimum tanquam vera causa efficiens, quae vi sua remissionem peccatorum nobis à Deo decretam praestat,& Efficacia sua eorum vim, quam ad nos damnandos,& divinis suppliciis obnoxios reddendos habent, extinguit ac delet, Crell. Contra Grot. cap. 10. Ad hoc obtinendum sanguis à Christo fusus, non qualiscunque condi●●o fuit, said cum tam ard●um virtutis ac obedientiae, Deoque gratum contineat opus, ex natura qu●que sua vim habuit ad pariendam nobis conscientiae Emundationem, Id. Comment. in Epist. ad Hebr. cap. 9. v. 14. nay it was not, qualiscunque conditio, an ordinary trivial condition, such as were the sin offerings under the Law, but it was an instance of so profound an obedience and submission to his fathers will, and thereby so grateful and acceptable to God, that he was thereby prevailed upon, to part with all that right which he had to punish sinners: nay the death of Christ, ex natura sua, in its own nature, is of that virtue as to purge the Conscience from the guilt of sin; and at the same time that it confirms and strengtheners the new Covenant, it so weakens and enervates the force of sin, that it leaves it no power to Condemn us; and thereby disarms it of all its strength, and consequently of all its Terrors. These things are so often mentioned, and so much insisted upon by these men, that one would think it were impossible, but that they must believe the death of Christ to have some extraordinary force and efficacy, in order to procure the remission of sins. And yet it is as plain and certain as words can make it; that they do not believe it to have any virtue at all, either to purchase for us the favour of God, or to work in us any of those conditions, viz. Faith and Repentance, which are necessary to entitle us to it. It neither moves God to promise forgiveness, nor obliges him to perform his promise; it cannot either withdraw us from the practise, nor secure us from the punishment of sin; It neither procures pardon, nor confers it; and is onely a bare condition antecedent to his Exaltation into Heaven, where they say he is endowed with all power to forgive sins. In a word, the death of Christ, nakedly considered in itself, is but a dead insignificant thing, of no force nor efficacy, till it be, as it were animated and enlivened by his Resurrection. For first, as to what concerns God, Expiatio non ante facta fuerit expiatio, quam Christus in Coelis assumptus sit. Ex parte Dei nihil nobis expiationem comparare potest, nisi ipsius pura misericordia& beneficentia:& quae pro peccatis expiandis fiunt, non Deum, said nos respiciunt: vel quia ad divinam liberalitatem amplectendam nos movent, vel quia ipsius divinae liberalitatis effectus ind ad nos manat. Socin. de Chr. serve. p. 2. cap. 21. Socinus tells us, that nothing can procure from him the expiation of sin, but onely his own mercy and beneficence. That whatever else is done towards this expiation, non Deum said nos respiciunt, the very words of Grotius as he stated this matter out of Socin. who one would think should best know his own meaning. Then as to the blood of Christ, notwithstanding the high eulogies and commendations which they sometimes give us of it: viz. that it is the blood of the Covenant, and the great Confirmation of the promises of pardon contained there. Non est ut dicas Deum morte ac Janguine filii obstringi ac ob●●gari,& consequenter moveri Deum ad remittenda peccata, obstringitur enim& movetur, quia ipse obstringi& moveri volvit, Slicht. Comment. in Rom. Cap. 5. v. 10. Slicht. will inform us, that it will not become us to say, that God is bound or obliged, and consequently moved to forgive sins by the blood and death of his Son: He is obliged, because he is pleased to oblige himself, and no otherwise. 3dly. As to the Conditions requisite to entitle us to pardon: tho' Crell▪ will confidently assure us, that the Expiation of sin is justly to be ascribed to the death of Christ, because it produces and effects in us those qualifications, viz. Faith and Repentance, upon which the pardon of sin is necessary entailed; yet, when you come to inquire, what efficacy the death of Christ hath, in order to work in us those beforementioned Graces; Why truly then it must be acknowledged, that it hath onely a remote and an occasional virtue; viz. as it is Liquet sanguinem Christi hactenus peccata nostra vim expiandi habere, quatenus ejus fufionem consecuta est ipsius Christi in Coelis oblatio▪ quae consequi haud quaquam potuisset, nisi Christ●s sanguinem suum prius fudisset▪ Et quatenus sanguis foederis est, maximam vim a consecuta resurrectione& gloria accepit: mors enim Christ● resurrectione& ejus gloria quasi animatur▪ ac tu● demum quod ingentes sunt illius vires agnoscimus. Crell. in cap. 9. ad Hebr. v. 14. Mors quamvis sine ea expiatio contingere non posset, minus tamen quam utrumvis eorum( de resurrectione& ad dextram Dei sessione loquitur) in expiandis peccatis per se revera pollet, tantum abest, ut▪ per eam expiatio plene p●racta fuerit. Socin. de Chr. serve. lib.& cap. supra citat. vid. Catech. Rac. de proph. Ch. Munere cap. 8. antecedent to his exaltation into Heaven, and the glory which he hath received there; which do contain very weighty and powerful motives to persuade us to repent and believe the Gospel: but as for the death of Christ, according to them it helps to produce those good effects, not by any proper direct influence, but as a condition, requisitite indeed, quoad ordinis antecessum, but not otherwise; forasmuch as Christ must first die, before he could rise from the dead, and ascend into Heaven. At this rate the Redemption of the world might as truly and properly be ascribed to the Birth of Christ, as it is to his death: it being as absolutely necessary that he should be born before he could die, as that he should die before he could rise and ascend into Heaven, and present himself to his Father there. But how comes it then to pass, that the Scripture speaks in such lofty and magnificent terms, of the dignity and energy of Christs blood? viz. that we are Justified, Redeemed, Purified, Saved by his blood. How comes it to lay so great a stress upon the across of Christ, as that the Gospel should from thence be styled the doctrine of the across, 1 Cor. 1. 18. and that the knowledge and belief of it, should be of that excellence and usefulness, that St. Paul should desire to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified? 1 Cor. 2. 2. Why, all this you must know is not true in strictness and propriety of speaking, and therefore must be taken sano sensu, and interpnted to a sound and warrantable meaning by Trope and Metaphor: and so at length, by perverting the plain, obvious, natural construction of the words of Scripture, and accommodating them to their own meaning, by their forced and figurative explications, these men have( as much as in them lies) turned the Gospel of Christ into a mere fable; and for such, they have not been afraid to reproach and brand most of the Mysteriet of our Religion, and particularly those two important Articles of it, treated of in these papers, concerning Original sin, and the Redemption of the world by the death and sufferings of our Saviour; which they have had the impudence to style human inventions, absurd and senseless, nay, not only so, but improus and pernicious fables, such as are repugnant to the honor of God, and destructive of the salvation of mens Souls. But to return, perhaps it will be farther said, whatever mistakes the Socinians might be guilty of about the virtue and efficacy of Christ's death: yet so far at least they are Orthodox, in that they ascribe a mighty virtue to his Sacrifice, which according to them, doth not consist in Christ's offering up of himself upon the across; but in his oblation and presentation of himself to his Father in Heaven, where now he is endowed with all, power to forgive sins, and doth actually bestow that forgiveness upon Sinners. Well, be it so; Christ's Sacrifice now in Heaven is very powerful and operative; but how doth it exert its operations? in moving or prevailing with God to forgive men? No, there was no need of that, viz. of inclining or persuading God to do that which he was of himself disposed, nay, had long since decreed to do: so that there is nothing that Christ suffered or performed, either on Earth or in Heaven, that properly respects God. Nay, Christ was so far from moving his Father, Apparet Deum gratia sua impulsum ad justificationem nobis concedendam, adeo ut quicquid Christus in ha● parte fecit, id Deo auctore ac impulsore fecerit, non vero contra, Deus Christo auctore ac impulsore. Crell. cont. Grot. de Satisf. cap. 1. that God rather moved and directed him to do all that he did for the good and benefit of mankind. However, tho' this sacrifice be not conversant about God, yet it shows its efficacy, by having a real proper influence upon the pardon of sin, I mean past sins. But how doth this appear? hath it an immediate influence? doth pardon of sin immediately follow upon this oblation? so one would think it did, as they sometimes Certum est Antiquum Pontisicem, non alia ratione peccata populi expiasse, quam ea peragendo, quibus peractis, populus veniam peccatorum svorum jam a Deo sponte decret am& promissam consequebatur. Sic dicendum est, Christum peccata nostra expiasse; quia peregerit, quibus peractis, veniam delictorum nostrorum jam a Deo sponte decretam& promissam consecuti sumus. Socin. ejusd. lib. cap. 20.& prael. Th. c. 22. express themselves. For as the high Priest of old, procured expiation of sin, by the means of those Sacrifices prescribed under the Law, so that as soon as he had finished his oblation, the people without any more ado, were acquitted and absolved from their iniquities: so Christ by performing what God the Father required of him, viz. by shedding his blood, and then entering into the holy place, and presenting that blood to his Father; thereby procures, and we likewise thereby obtain forgiveness and redemption. But when you come farther to inquire into this matter, then it amounts only to this; Christus ex mortuis resurgens, in Coelum ingressus est,& ibi pro nobis seipsum Deo obtulit,& ex eo expiationis modus perfectus fuit, id est, id factum est, ut nos ad oblatam a Deo delictorum Condonationem amplectendam movemur;& Christus nobis eam Condonationem reipsa largiendi potestatem habet. Ex quibus deinde ipsa expiatio,& a peccatorum paenis vera liberatio perpetuo manat. Idem cap. 21. that Christ is endowed with power to forgive sins; but that he doth not presently and immediately confer this forgiveness, but first moves us to accept of, and to perform the conditions which are requisite to entitle us to it;( which, as we said before, were Faith and Repentance;) and then that absolution and pardon succeeds thereupon. And if so, then as Grotius first stated this matter, the Expiation wrought by Christ, doth primarily and properly respect future sins, and is but mediately and secondarily conversant about past sins: for by begetting in us repentance and amendment, it first helps to withdraw us from the practise of sin, and then confers upon us the pardon of it. And thus after many windings and turnings, when these men have sufficiently tired, and perhaps have made you giddy, with following them backward and forward, they at length bring you back to the very same place from whence you first started, and leave you just as wise and as well satisfied as they found you. But whatever the Socinians say, or gainsay in this matter; it will become us to believe as the Church of God hitherto hath done; that the Death of Christ was a proper and efficacious motive to prevail with his Father, to pardon sinners, who otherwise was resolved to punish them: And this will plainly appear, from the consideration of Christs death under those two great notions, under which it is represented to us in the Scriptures, viz. as a Sacrifice, and as a Punishment. First as a Sacrifice; for being a Priest he must have a Sacrifice, the nature of that Office requiring it. For every High-priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining unto God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for Sins, Heb. 5. 1. Repeated again Heb. 8. 3. Wherefore it is of necessity that this man also have somewhat to offer: and that which he offered was himself, his whole human nature, consisting of Soul and Body. His body was given him for this purpose: for when God designed to abolish the Legal Sacrifices, he substituted his Son in the room of them, and fitted and prepared for him a body, that in it he might be capable of dying, and therein to resemble all other expiatory Sacrifices which were to be slain, Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a Body hast thou prepared me, Heb, 10. 5. Hereby, saith the Apostle, He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second, v. 9. That is, in the room of Bulls and Goats he substituted the body of Christ, We being to be sanctified thro the offering of this body once for all, v. 10. Again, his Soul is said to be made an offering for sin, Isa. 53. 10. And in short, his whole human nature, as composed of Soul and Body was this Sacrifice, and therefore he is said to give himself for us, Eph. 5. 2. Thro the eternal Spirit he offered up himself to God, Heb. 9. 14. And he hath appeared to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself, v. 26. He offered up a Sacrifice, when he offered up himself, Heb. 7. 27. And in one word, having by himself purged our fins, That is, having finished that part of the Priestly Office, which consisted in offering sacrifice, and having thereby made an expiation for Sin, and procured pardon for it;( for this purging of sins is in Scripture ascribed to the blood of Christ which was shed on the across, as was shewed before) He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High, Heb. 1. 3. So that the purging of Sins, or the expiation of them which is the same thing, was first performed, before Christ ascended into Heaven: which single text will sufficiently confute that Impious tenet of Socin. who makes Christ to be no Priest, nor consequently to have offered any Sacrifice, till he came into Heaven, and there presented or made an oblation of himself to his father: which was so new and strange an Opinion, as being never before heard of in the world, that some of his Perlecto scripto tuo contra Volanum animadverti argumenta ejus satis accurate à te refutata, locaque scripturae pleraque examinata ac elucidata: verum non sine moerore( ne quid gravius dicam) incidi inter legendum in quoddam paradoxon, scripturae sacrae contrarium, ac plane horrendum, dum Christum in morte sua sieve in cruce, sacrificium obtulisse pernegas: miror quid tibi in mentem venerit ut tam confidenter,( ne quid aliud dicam) contra manifesta sacrae Scripturae testimonia pugnare, contrariamque sententiam tueri non timeas, Epist. 1. Joh. Niemojov. ad Faust. Socin. friends were both surprised and highly offended with him for broaching it; tho since, this with the rest of his Errors is greedily swallowed, and stiffly maintained by his followers. Thus Christ by dying for us was made a Sacrifice; and if we would know what the effect and consequence of it was, this we cannot better do, then by considering the nature of those Legal Sacrifices in use among the Jews, and the end of their institution: and this we shall find was for the expiation of sin; thereby to move God to bestow pardon, by accepting of the life of the Beast, instead of that of the sinner, which was forfeited to his Justice. The Sin-offering which the Priest offered, made an atonement, that is, pacified the Anger, and appeased the justice of God, and then the sin was forgiven, see 5. Lev. 13. 16. 18. Numb. 15. 28. By which it appears that the life of the beast was offered in Compensation, and as such was accepted of by God, for the life of the man. And that here was a plain surrogation of one in the room of the other, is from hence further evident, because for some sins God would not accept of any Sacrifice; as in the case of Murder, Adultery, Idolatry, &c. The reason of which was, because having for such crimes resolved to have the life of the offender himself, he would admit of no commutation; nothing less than the death of the Malefactor himself, could, or should satisfy offended justice. Thus tho the shedding the blood of the Sacrifice could not in all cases purchase remission, yet in no case was remission to be had without it, Heb. 9. 21. And when it was prescribed, there the life of the Beast went for the life of the criminal, God putting one in the room, and accepting it in the place of the other. Thus saith God, the blood is the life, or the life is in the blood, I have given it to you upon the Altar, to make an atonement for your Souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the Soul, Lev. 17. 11. Why is the blood so particularly appointed to this purpose? why might not the Heart or Head do as well? we see God gives the reason; the life is the blood; and therefore that is the most proper to be given in exchange for the Life of the offender. Thus we see what was the direct and proper effect of these legal Sacrifices, they made a proper and true atonement or expiation for sin. They did not only declare pardon, and were so said to expiate sin, as Socin. sometimes would have it; for it is plain that forgiveness was consequent to the expiation, as in the places before mentioned, Lev. 5. The Priest shall make an atonement, and then the sin shall be forgiven. 2dly, They could not expiate sin, by withdrawing men from the practise of it: it being impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should in this sense take away sin; as is acknowledged by these men. Therefore it remains that they did it by moving God to grant forgiveness; not indeed by their own innate virtue and efficacy, but by Gods prescription and appointment; nor yet so by his appointment, as if they were only bare conditions, without any respect in the nature of the things themselves, or tendency in them to procure pardon; no, they did it properly by way of commutation, not such an one indeed as was an equivalent to the life of the man, yet however, such as made an inferior sort of compensation, and was accepted of by God to that purpose. Now what the Sacrifices of the old Law did but imperfectly, that the great Sacrifice of Christ upon the across, did in a more noble and eminent manner accomplish; of which all the other Sacrifices were but types and shadows. And therefore herein they must agree, viz. That as the Sin-offerings under the Law made an atonement, and thereby moved God to grant remission of sin; so must the Sacrifice of Christ, appease the displeasure of his Father, ex irato placatum reddere, and thereby prevail with him to pardon sinners: but it must do this in a more noble and eminent manner, as we said before, than did those other sin-offerings. For first, whereas the Sacrifices under the Law could only take off the Legal or carnal pollution; the blood of Bulls and Goats by sprinkling the unclean, could only sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, Heb. 9. 13. But the blood of Christ could and did remove the inward guilt, and purge even the conscience, v. 14. where the word {αβγδ}, when applied to {αβγδ}, the Conscience, must be interpnted in the same sense, as are the words {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, the sanctifying and purifying of the flesh, in the foregoing verse; which plainly denote the taking away the outward guilt or pollution;( all guilt necessary defiling men) even so the blood of Christ washes and cleanses us from the inward and spiritual guilt of sin. And therefore 2dly, Whereas the Legal Sacrifices could only free the Criminal, from a temporal; the Sacrifice of Christ secures us from eternal punishment. Not but that the devout worshippers under the Law, accident fide& poenitentia, if they brought faith and repentance along with them, when atonement was made, were likewise absolved from the inward guilt, in the sight of God, and from eternal death; but this, these Sacrifices did not effect sua vi, nor per se; but only accidentally, in the virtue, and by the efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ, which was represented by them. 3dly, The Sacrifices under the Law, could only make expiation for past sins, but not for future: the reason of which was, that the life of the beast being by way of commutation given for the life of the man,( which was forfeited by some particular sin which he had committed;) it was only accepted by God in that particular case; it not being in itself, of equal value to the single life of the man, which the Law then demanded for that single sin; and much less could it be an equal compensation for all future violations of the Law, and the many forfeitures of the Criminals life, which must thereby be made. And therefore as men sinned, the Sacrifices were to be repeated toties quoties: by new sins, men contracted new guilt, and a new obligation to punishment, and that must be taken away by a fresh Sacrifice: but Christ by the Sacrifice of himself, hath made one perfect expiation for all sins past, and to come, and thereby hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. Therefore, when the Socinians say that the Jewish Sacrifices were imperfect, and that God substituted a more noble one, viz. That of his Son, in the room of them, for the accomplishment of many excellent ends and purposes, which these other Sacrifices could not by reason of their imbecility accomplish; we aclowledge that they are so far in the right; but that which we find fault with them for, is, First, that they limit the efficacy of Christs death, and make it thereby to have its effect in the Expiation only of some sins, and at some times. For by making the decree of sending Christ into the world subsequent to the legal Sacrifices, and founded in the weakness and imperfection of them: they thereby necessary confine the virtue and benefit of it, to those onely who lived after his coming into the world. But we say, that Christ hath obtained eternal Redemption for all mankind, who were all saved by virtue of his meritorious sufferings. By means of his death Redemption was purchased for the transgressions which were under the first Testament, 9. Heb. 15. And the Apostle doth irrefragably evince, that the virtue of his Sacrifice was not Temporary, as was that of the High Priest under the Law, but extended to all ages past, and to come; otherwise saith he, He must have often suffered since the foundation of the world, 9. Heb. 26. which way of arguing would have been of no force, had those who lived before his coming, not wanted the benefit of his Sacrifice. But now in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin, to remove the guilt of it, by virtue of that atonement which he hath made by the sacrifice of himself, who was manifested indeed in these last times, but fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. 1. 20. And what he undertook, to do so long since, was looked upon by God the Father as if it had really been done, and therefore exerted its force, and obtained its effect, before the actual oblation of himself upon the across. Whosoever were saved before, or under the Law, were saved by him, who was the Lamb of God that took away the sins of the world, 1. Joh. 29. And was slain from the foundation of it, 13. Rev. 8. both in the acceptance of God, and his own voluntary undertaking; as also in all those Sacrifices, which were types and figures of him, and in whom Jesus Christ was set forth, and his death represented as it were to the eyes of the spectators. Secondly, We find fault with the Socinians that they charge the Jewish Sacrifices with a weakness, of which they were not guilty; viz. as if they made atonement onely for some lesser sins, viz. of ignorance and infirmity; but could make no expiation for any greater crimes of wilfulness, and against knowledge. The contrary to which will appear to any one who hath leisure to peruse the sixth Chapter of Lev. except we can think, that lying and cheating, and stealing, and false swearing, are Peccadillo●s, sins of lesser consequence; or that what is done with premeditation and design, may be called a sin of ignorance. It is true indeed, that he who sinned presumptuously, and with a high hand, who went on boldly affronting the authority of God, and showing no tokens of repentance, was to be cut off from among his people, 15. Numb. 30. but every sin against knowledge is not to be accounted such. Besides, it must be acknowledged indeed, that there are some sins for which God would admit of no Sacrifice, such were Murder, Adultery, Idolatry, &c. as was said formerly; but the ground of this refusal was not to be taken barely from the heinousness of the crimes themselves, but from other, and those political reasons: God dealing with the Jews whose immediate sovereign he then was, as other Legislators and Governors do with their subjects; who sometimes think fit to assign capital punishments to certain offences, and to accept of smaller for other crimes, in themselves not less heinous, tho perhaps adjudged not to be so prejudicial to the peace and welfare of the Civil Government, as the former. This is certain, in the first and original intention of the Law, all open violations of it, were to be punished with death; but God thought fit for divers reasons to relax the strictness and severity of his laws; and in some cases to admit of a Commutation, and in others to refuse it. Thus false swearing, tho' in itself Non impunem vel impunitum dimitt●t, Tirin. Castalio, &c. est {αβγδ} plus intelligitur quam exprimitur. Non habebit insontem, i.e. grav ssime punietur. Riv. Tenoch. Grot. non Innocentem habebit in die Judicii magni, targe. Jonath. vid. Pol. Synop. a capital crime that deserved death, as appears by the sanction annexed to the third Commandment, The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain; yet in some cases God was willing to admit of an expiation for it by Sacrifice, Lev. 6. but Adultery was to be punished without mercy; and so was Idolatry, which among the Jews was High treason against the Majesty of God: whereas in several Christian states, the like punishment of death is not assigned to those crimes, tho' not less heinous in themselves, nor less displeasing to God now than formerly. Lastly, That which we find fault with in the Socinians, and for which we have reason to conceive a high, as well as just displeasure against them, is, that they mention the word expiation, when they speak of the Sacrifice of Christ, but they mention it fraudulently and insidiously, retaining the word, but denying and overthrowing the thing meant and intended by it. They, thereby meaning only our Sanctification, We, that Atonement whereby God is appeased, and made willing to pardon, and to be reconciled to Sinners. Nay, that very virtue which they ascribe to the Sacrifice of Christ, to sanctify, by begetting Faith and Repentance in us, and thereby to render us capable of pardon, and which they seem so much to magnify, when you come narrowly to examine it, will be found to be onely a remote and an occasional virtue. For let us consider this Sacrifice in its largest notion, as it comprehends both the death of Christ,( which as they say) was onely preparatory to his Sacrifice; and his actual oblation or presentation of himself to God the Father after his ascent into Heaven: and let it likewise include, if you please, that large power and authority with which he is now invested, as the reward of his sufferings; yet none of these, nor all of them put together, have any proper direct efficacy, to withdraw men from the practise of sin, and thereby to expiate it in this sense, as expiation denotes the destruction of the power of sin. They onely furnish us with good motives and external arguments, to persuade and encourage us to repent and believe the Gospel; but all this is done without any internal operation on the minds of men; and the whole is left to their own prudence and choice, without any Nonne ad Credendum Evangelio, Spiritus sancti interiore dono opus est? Resp. Nullo modo. Nec enim in scriptures sacris legimus, cvique id conferri donum, nisi credenti Evangelio, Catech Rac. de Proph. Chr. Munere. cap. 6. Respondeo me in sacris literis scriptum non invenire, Deum ex gratia sua peccatorem ita vocare, ut debt illi vivae fidei spiritum: said invenio, Deum per verbum suum, omnes quibus id annunciatur, aut qu●vis alia ratione patefit, ad credendum Evangelio invitare,& consequenter nemincm ex iis esse qui credere nequeat. Socin. de Fide& operibus p. 623. the least assistance from the power or grace of Christ, either exciting or disposing, or any other ways enabling them to repent, and thereby to render them capable of pardon. Christ by rising from the dead, and ascending into Heaven, did that, unde Socin. de Christ. serve. p. 2. cap. 21. Catech. Racov. de Munere Chr. Sacerd. nos ad oblatam a Deo delictorum condonationem amplectendam movemur, by which we are moved to embrace the pardon of sin, as Socinus words it; but that we actually embrace it, this is owing to our own inclinations, and the voluntary determinations of our own will, without any assistance from the Grace or Spirit of Christ. From all which it must necessary follow, that the expiation of sin, is primarily and immediately to be ascribed to a mans own will, and but secondarily and remotely; nay, but contingently, to Christ: for whatever he did or suffered, did but furnish us with good motives,( as was said before) but such, as every man is left to his own liberty to accept or refuse at his pleasure. But 2dly. As the consideration of Christs death under the notion of a Sacrifice, plainly makes it appear, that he did thereby move God to pardon sinners, by appeasing and reconciling him to them; so it will be farther evident, if we consider it as a punishment, under which notion the Scriptures represent it to us. I cannot now insist upon all those places and passages of Scripture, by which this may be made out, and much less have I time to vindicate them from the forced interpretations and cavils of the Socinians, for this, I must refer the Reader to our Writers who have been engaged in this controversy, and particularly to the excellent Grotius, in his Learned Book De Satisfactione: Tho' I am sorry to say it, that he hath in his Comments upon the Epistles, given up in a manner into the hands of the Socinians, all those places which he had so nobly vindicated in that Treatise. That Christs death was a punishment, will plainly appear to any unprejudiced Reader, from those expressions in which his sufferings are described by the Evangelical Prophet, in the 53. of his prophesy, where he is said to be strike, smitten of God, and afflicted, ver. 4. The following words will inform us of the cause and reason of this severe usage of God towards him; he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, &c. all we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all, ver. 5, 6. If our iniquities were laid upon, or imputed to him, it is no wonder if he felt the weight and burden of them. But the Socinians will say, 'tis true, he was afflicted for our sins, that is, the end of his sufferings was to subdue the power, and to withdraw us from the practise of sin. I Ans. the following words ver. 11. evince the contrary; viz. that our sins were not the final, but Impulsive and meritorious cause of those afflictions, and that chastisement; for there it is said, my righteous servant shall justify many, because he shall bear their iniquities; now to bear their iniquity is nothing else but to bear the punishment of their iniquity; so Lam. 5. 7. our fathers have sinned, and we have born their iniquities, That is, were punished for them. And this is plain from the effect and consequence of that bearing mens sins; viz. that thereby they are justified, and acquitted from the guilt of them. Now Justification and Absolution from sin, is the proper and natural effect, of one mans bearing the punishment of another mans Sin. This will farther appear by other places of Scripture, where the sufferings of Christ are mentioned with relation to the justice of God, which irrefragably evince that they must be undergone by him, as a punishment: there being a necessary and an essential relation betwixt Justice and punishment. Thus God is said to set forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins, thro faith in his blood, that he might declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, that he might be just, and the justifyer of him that believes, 3. Rom. 25, 26. He hath now found out a way for the remission of sins, whereby at the same time that he exercises mercy, he may manifest his justice; and without any prejudice to that, he may now safely and honourably justify them who believe in his Son. Thus that text of old was interpnted by Origen. But however, if it may not be thought clear and plain enough to make out this truth; we have others which cannot easily be eluded; in which we find the sufferings of Christ mentioned as a judicial act of God, showing his displeasure against sin, and condemning it thereby. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, Rom. 8. 3. That is, God sent his Son into the world, clothed in our flesh, united to a mortal body, liable to death,( styled therefore sinful, because sin is the wages of death) that in it he might be capable of dying for our sins: or as others would have it, he was in the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, stood in the room and place of sinners, their sins were imputed to him, and therefore he was to be made a Sacrifice for them; and hereby God condemned sin in that flesh, showing thereby his high displeasure against it, by punishing it so severely in the person of his Son. God would not spare him, ver. 33. tho' his own Son, when he appeared in our likeness and with our sins. But at the same time that he hath given us an example of his great indignation against sin; he hath likewise for our comfort, weakened the force, and abated the power of it so far, that we need not now stand in fear of it,( I mean, if we will repent and amend our lives) for as a malefactor after he is condemned must die, so sin is now dead; God by condemning it in the body of his Son, hath destroyed the condemning power of it, there being now no condemnation to them who are in Christ. For what he did, he did as their Surety and Sponsor, and therefore it shall be imputed to them: the same sentence that condemned sin in him, absolved them; he was punished, and they for ever freed from any obligation to punishment: I mean still, if they perform the conditions required on their parts to give them a title to this Absolution; which must always be understood when we speak of these matters. Lastly, Christ is said to have Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, by being made a Curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. Now the malediction of the Law, was nothing else but the punishment which the Law threatened to the transgressors of it; and Christ freed us from that punishment, by undergoing it himself. He was Condemned, Sentence passed upon him, and he afterwards was Executed accordingly. For he was Hanged upon a three, which was particularly accounted an Infamous and an accursed Death among the Jews. And therefore those who were to be punished in the room of others, and to be made as it were Sacrificia piacularia, to make an expiation, and to avert the anger of God from a multitude or community, were to undergo that death. Thus God commanded Moses to hang up the heads of those that committed whoredom with the daughters of Moah, and joined themselves to Baal-peor, Num. 25. 4. And this was done, not only to punish them for their own sins, but that thereby the fierce anger of the Lord might be turned from Israel. So David delivered up seven of the Sons of Saul into the hands of the Gibeonites, Who hanged them up unto the Lord in Gibeah, and thereby made an atonement for the Inheritance of the Lord, 2. Sam. 21. And thus Christ made an atonement, by undergoing the penalty of the Law, and by being made a Curse {αβγδ}, for us, that is, in our room and stead. He could not be punished for his own sins, being pure, and spotless, and innocent: but he was punished for us, by a proper surrogation; He gave his life a ransom for many, Math. 20. 28. his blood went for our blood, his life for our life; he underwent the Curse, and we thereby were freed or redeemed from it. All which sufficiently overthrow that notion of the Socinians which I formerly mentioned, viz. That Christs Death was only an external sign, or rite, whereby God the Father rati 〈…〉 the new Covenant which he made with mankind. Now that which we have reason to dislike in this Account is, first, that they affirm that God never entred into any Covenant of Grace and Mercy with mankind, before the appearance of our blessed saviour, who first published the glad tidings of it to the world. We on the contrary declare, that the promise of pardon and eternal life, was made and granted to the Pious under the Old Testament; which is not indeed in such Clear, Full, and Ample terms expressed there, as it is under the New; but however plainly revealed there: nay indeed, it is in a manner as old as the World; having been first given to Adam in Paradise, after his fall; confirmed afterwards to the patriarches, proclaimed by the Prophets, expected by the faithful under the Old Testament, as is evident in the Scriptures, and might easily be made appear from thence, if it were the business of this discourse. 2dly, That which we have reason to dislike, and indeed to detest in this account is, that they make the death of Christ only a bare rite of confirmation of this new Covenant, when we say, and I think have great reason to say it,( as may appear from what went before) that our blessed saviour by dying for us, hath not only ratified, but purchased pardon of sin, and eternal life, and all other benefits contained in that Covenant: His blood was the price of our redemption, his life that {αβγδ}, that ransom which was paid for many, and laid down in exchange for the lives of all mankind, which( as we said before,) were forfeited to Justice. And this leads me to the last thing to be made out; viz. that the death of Christ was a true and proper satisfaction made to the justice of God, for the sins of the whole world, that is, for all that ever were, or ever shall be committed to the end of it. For first, if we consider this death as a price paid to God the Father for the redemption of mankind, then I say this was a sufficient or satisfactory payment; and this appears from that {αβγδ}, that deliverance which is consequent hereupon; viz. from the Empire of Death, Sin, and the Devil; for over all these we have now obtained the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Who hath delivered us from the powers of darkness, Col. 1. 13. From death and him that had the power of it, that is, the Devil, Heb. 2. 14. And in short, hath delivered us from the wrath to come, 1 Thess. 1. 10. 2dly, If we consider it as a Sacrifice, we shall find that God smelled a sweet savour in it; it was acceptable to him, and accepted of by him in the behalf of the sinner. Christ offered up his own life, which he gave for the life of us Criminals and his blood crieth for better things than that of Abel; crying for pardon and obtaining it: for hereby atonement is made, pardon and forgiveness procured, God and Man reconciled. Lastly, Consider it as a punishment, and then we shall find it such as gave God abundant satisfaction: for as much as it was an equivalent commutation for the punishment due to all mankind, and as such it was accepted of by God. And this appears from the effect of it, which was our impunity and absolution: for pardon of sin is the immediate and necessary result and consequence of his dying for us; he suffered, and we were absolved and discharged from all obligation to sufferings. And indeed if these sufferings had not been of an equal value for the sufferings of all mankind, they would not have answered one of the main ends and reasons of inflicting them; which was to make a compensation to the justice of God, for the wrongs and injuries done to his authority by the violation of his Laws; in which consists the formal notion of punishment, as it is {αβγδ}; which is to be distinguished from that sort of punishment, which we call castigation, as Arist. Rhetor. Lib. 1. Cap. 10. {αβγδ}. Vid. awl. Gell. Lib. 6. Cap. 14. Aristotle hath well observed, forasmuch as chastisement is for the sake and for the good of him that suffers; but vindicta, vengeance, which is the most proper sort of punishment, is for the sake of him that inflicts the sufferings. That we may understand this aright; we must know that this latter sort of punishment, which we call {αβγδ}, or vindicta noxae; when inflicted by God, may have a double aspect; one, as it looks forward, and as such it is both designed, and is likewise in itself, a very proper method to deter men from the practise of sin, who may red their own doom in the punishment of others: and thus it proves a good fence and security to the authority of God, by preventing the contempt and violation of it for the future. And when this is the chief and principal intendment of it, then it is properly called {αβγδ}, punitio propter exemplum; punishment for example sake; upon which account, the word Example, both in our own and the learned Languages is taken for punishment: to make a man an Example being the same thing as to punish him for Example, and to deter others. But 2dly, It looks backward likewise, and then it is inflicted by way of compensation for the wrongs done to his Authority; the injury which he sustained by the disobedience and contempt, being in some measure recompensed by the punishment. It hath been reasonably doubted, whether men in inflicting punishment, may aim at any such personal reparation, abstracted from the public good; but there can be no doubt made of this, with relation to God, by any that believe the eternity of Hell torments( as I have elsewhere shewed part. I. p. 33.) which can have no other end but the satisfaction of divine justice. They are not inflicted for the good of the partys punished, and so are not to be reputed▪ {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, Chastisements or Monitions, to them who are placed out of the reach of pardon, and all possibility of amendment. They are not inflicted for example, and to deter others from the like practices: they who are in Heaven stand in no need of such warnings: and they who are in Hell, are absolutely incapable of receiving any benefit by them: and I know no middle place in which any are lodged who may be advantaged by them. Now let us consider the sufferings of Christ( which we have already proved to be a punishment) under either of those two former notions, of {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, and then we shall find that they were, and must be satisfactory to the Justice of God. First, if Christ was punished for example, and thereby to de●er men from the commission of sin; that thereby they might be thoroughly convinced of the heinous nature of sin, and Gods high displeasure against it, in punishing it so severely in the person of his own beloved Son; then in this sense it must bear a proportion to the crimes to be remitted, otherwise it would not have answered the ends of inflicting it: a slight punishment would have been next to impunity, and would rather have encouraged, then deterred men from sinning for the future. 2dly. If his punishment was {αβγδ} vindicta noxae, then, as Aristotle before acquainted us, it must be inflicted for the sake of the offended party, and not only so, but in such a manner, {αβγδ}; ut ei satisfiat, ut ejus animus expleatur; that he may be satisfied; and therefore it must bear a just proportion to the offence, and be full as much as Justice can claim, otherwise it will not be completely satisfactory. If it doth but satisfy in part, then that justice in God,( which as we have formerly shewed was {αβγδ}, the attribute that demands punishment) will still be demanding it, and never cease to do so, till it be fully satisfied. Neither can we here fly to the pleasure of God, and say, any thing is satisfactory which he will accept of as such: for here we are to consider the reason and end of the infliction. Indeed, if we consider things only in themselves, perhaps God might have found out a way for the salvation of Sinners, without demanding perfect satisfaction; or, as some may think, without any punishment at all: but when we consider, that now he hath declared his pleasure, that he will not pardon sin, nor show his mercy to the sinner, except in such a way as may satisfy his justice; in this case we must consider now, not only the pleasure of God considered abstractedly in itself; but his pleasure with relation to his justice; and then the nature of the punishment at the same time comes under consideration, which must be such as may satisfy the demands of that justice; which it cannot do except it be proportioned to the offence, and of an equal value to the punishment remitted. And such was the punishment of Christ, a thing of Infinite value, which was derived to it from the dignity of his person; who was the Son of God, equal to his Father, and therefore was able to make him a sufficient compensation, and did so by dying for us. And this the Apostle admirably and irrefragably makes out in several places of his Epistle to the Hebrews, where he discourses of the perfection and dignity of the Sacrifice of Christ, and its pre-eminence above all the Sacrifices of the Law; and particularly in this, that whereas the blood of bulls and goats, &c. could sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, the blood of Christ could purge the Conscience from dead works, Heb. 9▪ 13, 14. Here, first I suppose it will be granted, that the purging of the Conscience in this place, denotes the removal of the guilt of sin. This is owned by the Socinians themselves, and therefore need not be proved. 2dly. That guilt is nothing but an obligation to punishment. 3dly. That the death of Christ was properly a punishment. I know this is denied both by the Socinians, and the followers of Episcopius, but is owned by all other Christians; and therefore I shall here take it for granted, having in some measure proved it to be so before. Now if the death of Christ be a punishment, then his blood must remove the guilt of sin, by satisfying Justice which is that attribute in God that demands punishment, there being a necessary and essential relation between them. 4thly. That the blood of Christ purges the Conscience, sua vi& efficacia, by its own proper virtue and efficacy; which efficacy can consist in nothing but this, that the death of Christ was of equal value to that punishment which the Law threatened, and Justice therefore demanded. For when a man hath fully undergone all that the Law requires; then all obligation to further punishment, naturally and necessary ceaseth. Now from all this it must unavoidably follow, that the death of Christ was a just and equal Compensation made to the Justice of God, and therefore a true and proper Satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Neither ought we here to have recourse to the divine Pretium quod Christus persolvit, juxta Dei patris aestimationem persolutum est. Limb. Lib. 3. cap. 21. Sect. 3. pleasure and estimation; as if the sufferings of Christ were therefore only Satisfactory, because God the Father was pleased to esteem them such: for tho' in this case the Consent of God was absolutely necessary, to render the punishment of Christ available for the impunity of others; for God might have demanded the life of the Criminal, and have refused any Compensation, tho' often times a greater value than it, if he had so pleased: but supposing this consent, then I say, that the virtue and efficacy of Christs death, is not to be taken only from the approbation and appointment of God, but from the intrinsic value of that death itself; otherwise the Apostles arguing would be of no force. The Sacrifices under the Law could not take away sins, Heb. 10. 11. The blood of bulls and goats could only sanctify to the purifying of the flesh; that is, the blood of those Sacrifices could only wash off the legal uncleanness, and remove the political and temporal guilt; but still the Criminal might stand guilty before God, and be obnoxious to his vengeance. But the blood of Christ can purge even the Conscience, Heb. 9. 13, 14. that is, can absolutely extinguish the whole obligation to punishment both Temporal and Eternal, and set the man right in the esteem of God, and restore him entirely to his favour, Now if in interpreting these words we must have recourse only to the pleasure of God; then it amounts to no more than this: That under the Law God did not think fit to appoint the blood of bulls and goats, to make expiation for the inward guilt of sin; but now he hath been pleased to accept of the blood of Christ to that purpose; tho' it be not of equal value nor bears a just proportion to the offences which are remitted by it. How doth this show us the superlative virtue and excellence of the blood of Christ, above that of the legal Sacrifices. All the difference at this rate, is in the divine acceptation, not in the things themselves. Nay, saith the Apostle, it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin. How not possible? Could not God Almighty who had the power of pardoning▪ have granted it( I mean a full remission of all sins past and to come) upon what terms he pleased? I suppose the Socinians and Deo jus absolutum est declarandi, quo pretio sibi satisfieri velit. merely si ex voluntate Dei, veteris Testamenti victimae sufficere potuerunt ad expianda minora populi delicta, &c. Quid ni& ex eadem illa voluntate Dei, sanguis Jesus Christi sufficiat omnibus totius inundi peccatis expiandis? Id. cap. 22. Sect. 5. Rem. will not deny but he might. How then was it impossible? why truly it was so, if ye consider these Sacrifices in themselves; they were not of equal value to the lives of men, which were forfeited, and therefore they could not, sua vi, nay, it was absolutely impossible that they should by their own force and worth, make a full compensation to the Justice of God, and thereby expiate the inward guilt of sin. But what they could not do, the blood of Christ hath done sufficiently and effectually; it hath thoroughly purged the Conscience both from guilt and terror; having removed all the obligation to punishment, and all the fears and expectation of it: for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. He hath laid down his life, the life of him that was God, which was worth the whole world, and consequently his death was an equal exchange for the punishment due to all mankind: wherefore it need not be repeated, as were the legal Sacrifices by reason of their imperfection; for now once for all he hath entirely put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself, Heb. 9. 26. and all his devout worshippers, being once thoroughly purged, have no more conscience of Sin, and consequently have no need of a new Atonement and Expiation to be made. Add to all this, that the Church of God in all Ages, hath accounted the sufferings of Christ to be truly and properly Meritorious of pardon, and therefore the devout members of it have always recommended themselves to the favour of God, thro the Mediation and by the merits of his Son. For tho pardon of sin, with respect to us sinners, be an act of pure Grace and mercy, of undeserved kindness and compassion in God; yet with respect to Christ it hath the notion of a debt, which he hath a right and title to in point of strict Justice; and therefore claims it as the purchase of his blood; which was a price of equal value to all the benefits of the new Covenant, which were thereby obtained. And therefore now in his glorious Intercession at the right hand of his Father, we must not imagine or represent him to ourselves in the posture of an humble Supplicant, entreating and begging mercy and pardon for his faithful servants, as matter of Grace and Favour; but claiming and demanding it; and saying, Father, I will that they who repent and believe in me,( for he who hath purchased the blessings of the new Covenant for us, having the free disposal of them, may with the consent of his Father, bestow them upon whom, and upon what conditions he thinks fit) should be absolved and pardonned; I will that they whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, and partake of it; for thou hast loved me; and I would have thee to love them as thou hast loved me, Joh. 17. 23. 24. From which words it seems to be plain, as our See Dr. Scots Christian Life. p. 2. vol. 2. Sect. 5. Writers have observed; that the sufferings of Christ are not only an equivalent commutation for the punishment due to men, so that now, neither the honor of God, nor his justice can stand in the way of the Sinners pardon; but indeed are more than a compensation, preponderating our guilt, and purchasing for us, not only remission of sins, but likewise Eternal life; which is not necessary included in pardon and forgiveness. This is the catholic Faith and Doctrine, concerning this great and fundamental Article of the Christian Religion, which is plainly revealed in the holy Scriptures, embraced by the Church of God in all ages since the first planting of one: and the substance of what they have believed and delivered down to us, is briefly and comprehensively summed up by our Church in the Prayer of Consecration, in the Office for the Communion; That Christ by suffering death upon the across for our redemption, made there a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, Or as we have it in our thirty first Article, The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. But this which hath been so plainly delivered in the Scriptures, and taught by the catholic Church, hath been, and is as plainly and boldly denied by the Socinians, who tell us, that this whole account of the redemption of the world by the death and sufferings of Christ, as it is stated by us, is Et si nunc vulgo Christiani sentiunt, Christum morte sua nobis salutem meruisse,& pro peccatis nostris satisfecisse, quae sententia fallax est, erronea& admodum perniciosa. Cat. Racov. de Proph. Chri. Munere cap. 8. false, deceitful, absurd, pernicious, and I know not what. First, they say it is Erroneous, as being against both reason and Scripture. Against reason, which informs us that it is repugnant to the known rules of Justice to punish an innocent person: and such by our own confession our blessed Saviour was. And what is thus the dictate of reason, is likewise the voice of God in Scripture, who hath declared his pleasure, that the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin, Deut. 24. 16. But yet when we come to examine this matter, we find that the Socinians Deus, non ut sibi satisfieret, said ut nos ipsius ingente peccatorum remissionis beneficio frui possemus, filio suo non pepercit;& quamvis ab omni prorsus scelere immunem tanquam Scelestissimum hominem, deteslabili. imprimis& atroci morti eum tradi volvit. Socin. de Chr. serve. p. 30. cap. 2. are forced to aclowledge that God did very grievously afflict his Son, delivering him up to a painful, infamous, accursed death, for our sakes, and for our sins; that is, to deliver us from the dominion, and guilt of them: But this must by no means be accounted a punishment. Now I durst refer this matter to any indifferent person, and let him judge, whether is most agreeable to the dictates of plain natural reason, to afflict and torment an innocent person without any demerit; or to punish a person who stands in the room and place of Sinners, having voluntarily taken upon himself all their guilt, and being willing to undergo their punishment, that thereby he may purchase for them indemnity and pardon. If we appeal to the suffrage and voice of mankind speaking in the Laws enacted by them, then we shall find that it is not repugnant to Justice to punish a Sponsor or proxy for the crimes, and in the room of the offending party; this having been the practise in some cases, and for some weighty reasons, of the most civilized Nations of the world; especially where there was the consent of the suffering person. But we have no examples of innocent persons among them, whom they have afflicted and tortured, and delivered up to execution, without any such reasons and considerations. And then for the Scriptures; the sufferings of Christ are mentioned there in such a manner, as that the Merito dici potest, Christum qui peccatum non fecit, peccata nostra sustinuisse,& si placet, poenas quoque aliorum dedisse, Id. Prael. Th. cap. 21. Ita in Christum ideo iniquitatem omnium nostrum incurrisse, adeoque ipsam iniquitatis poenam a Deo in Christum conjectam fuisse scriptum est, &c. Id. Ibid. Socinians themselves are forced to aclowledge, that they may in some sense be called punishments. And if this be so, then one would think that tho' our opinion concerning the Redemption of the world by the death of Christ were a mistake; yet it might be accounted a pardonable mistake; and such as wise and considering men might fall into. No, say these men; it is a vain, absurd, ridiculous error. Nullum Christi meritum agnoscimus,& pro nugatoria fabula id totum habemus, small. Disp. 2. contra Franz. Haec praedicta evertunt funditus istam de Dei irae placatione,& satisfactione, non minus p●riculosam, quam absurdam vulgi fabulam, Idem. Refut. Smigl. cap. 28. It is nugatoria fabula, absurda vulgi fabula, a mere trifling fable, an ill contrived story, fit only to be imposed upon vulgar and illiterate persons. It is Id. Hom. 4. supper 1 Cap. 1. Joh. Commentum ex curiosorum hominum cerebro natum, the contrivance of some idle persons, who had nothing else to do but to please and make themselves sport with the errors and mistakes of silly people. Nay it is Ostorod apud Pelt. vanum somnium, an idle dream, in which so many incoherent and extravagant things are put together, that a man who was awake and had his eyes open, could scarce ever have thought on them. In short, that Covenant which we say was entered into between the Father and the Son for the Redemption and Salvation of mankind, was not a real transaction, but only transacted upon the theatre of some vain mens imaginations, who first invented, and then imposed this story upon the world: there was nothing in it but fancy and fiction, and the whole project is purely dramatical: so that at best it is but a Fable, and a Fable very ill contrived too, which doth not look like the result of a judicious and deliberate composure; but seems to be the work rather of a roving wandring fancy, scarce fit to be represented upon a theatre: and therefore Cum Demonstratum sit Christum non esse verum Deum, quid aliud expectes, quam ut Smiglecius cum sua monstrosa de satisfactione Christi sententia exsibilatus& explosus ex hac scena dimittatur. Smalc. Refut. Nov. Monstr. Nov. Arr. Cap. 33. Smalcius is not without reasonable hopes, that both the Play and the Actors will be chased off of the stage, and dismissed thence with the contempt and scorn and hisses of the Spectators. Nay if we believe these men, it were much better that this whole matter were a Fable, than that it should be true in point of reality and fact. For if there were any such agreement between the Father and Son as we say and believe, it could be nothing else Cum potuerit Deus sine ulla solutione debitum universum remittere, quid circuitu isto inutili opus fuit,& collusione quadam? Socin. Prael. Th. cap. 17. say they, but a plain contrivance between them to guile and impose upon the World. For since God was not angry with mankind, what need was there that his Son should endeavour to pacify him? what need was there, that Christ should suffer so much to move God to do that, which he was of himself inclined, nay indeed resolved to do beforehand? In short, since God could have forgiven men their Trespasses without any satisfaction, which would have been an act of true bounty and liberality, and as such it is every where proclaimed in the Scriptures; why should he desire Christ first to pay him the debt, and then that he might liberally remit it? What is this but to take a needless Circuit, to go a great way about to compass that, which might have been effected more compendiously; and indeed can be nothing less than downright collusion and imposture? Gracious God? can any Christian ear bear these reproaches tamely and without a just indignation? I dare appeal to any the most moderate and indifferent Christian among us; if with all zeal and concern for the Christian Religion, he hath not likewise shaken of all true sense and belief of it; whether it be fit for any man to hear the great and adorable mysteries of our Religion thus scouted and ridiculed, and treated with so barbarous, and such unsufferable insolence and scorn, and not to show a just resentment. What? hath it in all ages been accounted a piece of justice which we owe to our friends, to vindicate their memory or reputations from injury and defamation; and hath not the warmth which hath been shown upon such occasions been accounted, not only a just but a generous indignation? And can we sit down like persons unconcerned, when we see and hear the wise and admirable contrivance for the Salvation of mankind, together with the great cootrivers of it thus derided and defamed, and thereby exposed to the contempt and laughter of Buffoons and Atheists? Certainly whatever excuses we may make, or with whatsoever specious names and titles we may think fit to varnish over our silence and reservedness in this affair; yet all unprejudiced standards by will account it, not the effect of Christian moderation, but of unchristian lukewarmness if not perfidiousness, in the cause of God and his Holy Religion. But to proceed, this Opinion which hath prevailed among Christians concerning the Redemption of the world by Christ, is not only an absurd, but likewise( as the Socin. tell us) a very pernicious error: it is not an idle fancy which may do no great harm, but a very dangerous mistake; such as is first, Cedo qui haec opinio est perniciosa? R. ad eum modum quod hominibus fenestram ad peccandi licentiam aperiat, aut certe ad socordiam in pietate colenda eos invitet. Catech. Racov. de Proph. Chr. Mun. cap. 8. vid. Socin. Lib. Suas. cap. 2. harmful to the Souls of men; as being one of the great hindrances of their Salvation, tho hither to it hath been looked upon as the best,& indeed the only means of obtaining it. So that we had need look carefully about us, least we mistake our way to happiness, and think that to be the road to Heaven, which will directly led us to the chambers of darkness and eternal death. And this is like to be our Et certe nisi aliam salutis nostrae rationem ineamus, quemadmodum, &c. verho tenus tantum divinae justitiae id, quod nos illi debemus persolutum est, re autem ipsa nihil solutum fuit: sic verbo tenus tantum servabimur; re autem ipsa in aeternum condemnabimur. Id. de Chr. serve. p. 3. cap. 4. case, if we believe these men, for this doctrine concerning the reconciliation and satisfaction of God by the sufferings and death of Christ, totally overthrows( say they) the whole method of our Justification and Salvation: for as this {αβγδ}, this ransom that we have talked of, and which we say was paid to the justice of God as the price of our redemption, was no real but only a fictitious imaginary payment; so the deliverance which we expect thereby from the dominion of Death and the Devil, will prove in the conclusion to be but an imaginary deliverance: verbo tenus tantum servabimur, re autem ipsa in aeternum condemnabimur, saith Socin. So that we had best examine matters thoroughly, and consider what is fit to be done, before we adventure too rashly to rely upon the merits and satisfaction of Christ; for they who do so are like to find them but a broken reede; too weak to support the weight that is laid upon it: or rather like a broken staff, which will not only fail, but enter into the side of him that leans on it, and pierce him thorough with many sorrows. How may some Christian say? are not the merits of Christ of strength and force enough to bear the weight laid upon them? was not he God as well as man, and did not his divine nature communicate an extraordinary value to his sufferings; whereby they become, as was said before, a full, and perfect satisfaction for the sins of the whole world? No, no, people have indeed for many years past, been imposed upon and gulled with such idle stories; but really there is no such matter. For first of all, supposing Christ to be such an extraordinary person as we imagine, yet the dignity of his nature will add no worth to his sufferings; Id. ibid. for with God there is no respect of persons. But 2dly, suppose there were, yet there was nothing singular or extraordinary either in the person or sufferings of Christ, which should induce us to imagine, that any satisfaction either was, or could thereby be given to God for the sins of men. And therefore in short, as there is no communication of idioms or propertys from one nature to another; so there is as little communication of value and dignity from the nature to the punishment. Therefore tho Christ was strike, smitten of God and afflicted; yet this really signifies no more Quocirca, si plaga, puta hoins corpori inflicta, nullam per se vim majorem habere potest, quam si eadem bestiae alicui inflicta fuisset; multo magis quicquid passus est Christus nullam majorem vim per se habere potest, quam si quilibet purus homo idem passus esset, Ibid. than if the same were done to any ordinary man; nay these strokes are of no more virtue, then if they were laid upon the body of a Beast, or upon the back of an ass, or a Mule which have no understanding. Thus do these wretched men, in the heat of their opposition to our blessed saviour, rise up to the highest pitch of wickedness and fury; like the Jews of old, being full of all envy and mischief, they speak against the things revealed by the spirit of God, contradicting and blaspheming. And now I must again address myself to the Christian Reader, and beseech him by the mercies of God, and the bowels of Christ; nay, I must conjure him by the remembrance of his Agonies and sweat in the Garden, of his bitter death and passion, that he would not suffer the blood of his Saviour( that precious blood that was their shed for his sake) to be thus slighted and undervalued, and esteemed but as a common or a profane thing. For what will be the issue and consequence of this, but, when these men have brought down the price of it so low, that others should trample it under their feet. But to proceed, as our Doctrine concerning Salvation by Christ is prejudicial to the Souls of men, so it is, if we believe the Socinians, highly injurious to the honor of God; Quid vel absurdius, vel iniquius, ob eamque rem, cum de Deo loquimur, magis impium ac detestandum excogitari potuit? Is qui omnis aequitatis ac rectitudinis fons est, tam iniquum& pravum facinus contra suum ipsius decretum admiserit? Cujus si rationem diligentissime inquiras, nullam profecto reperies, ut hic non summae iniquitatis tantum& pravitatis, suprema cum impietate, Deus accusetur; said extremae quoque inscitiae ac fatuitatis, per turpissimam atque indignissimam blasphemiam& contumeliam insimuletur. Id. cap. 3. ejusd. lib. Quid enim causae fuit, ut in istum finem filium suum innocentissimum Deus tam dira& execrabili morte affici volverit. cum satisfactione ista nile opus esset; ita& liberalitas perit,& pro beneficentissimo& munificentissimo Deo, immanem& sordidum, suprema cum impietate nefandoque sacrilegio, nobis confingimus. Id. cap. 2. for hereby we rob God of the honor of his Justice, equity, liberality, and beneficence, which the Scriptures every where do so highly magnify: nay, instead of a benign and munificent Deity, we form to ourselves the notion of a mean, cruel, sordid, illiberal Being, and thus to represent God is the highest Impiety and Sacrilege. Add to all this, that since God could pardon the sins of men out of mere Grace and Bounty, now to make him require strict payment and satisfaction to his Justice before he would do so; is, say they, an argument of barbarous and savage cruelty, rather than of kindness and liberality. Therefore to conclude this point, and to sum up all that they have said against this great Article of our Religion; in few words it amounts to this, that the Doctrine concerning the satisfaction of Christ, and the Salvation of the World by that means; is a false, erroneous, foolish, absurd, whymsical, pernicious, impious, monstrous, blasphemous Opinion Satanas per anile Commentum de praeaeterno Dei filio obscuravit doctrinam de Christo:& salutarem de ipsius munere doctrinam, per obsurdum, perniciosum, blasphemum dogma de Christi satisfactione foede conspurcavit. small. Refut. Nov. Monstr. Nov. Arr. cap. 27. Would not any man think, that these wretches were censuring some position taken out of the Alcoran, which hath thus fallen under so great and heavy a Condemnation. No, it is no less than one of the most important and capital Articles of our Religion, embraced by all good Christians, not only as the object of their Faith, but likewise as the foundation of their Hopes, which are entirely subverted when this Doctrine is once overthrown. And yet I will be bold to say, that there is not one, no not the worst passage in all that impious bundle of lies, errors and absurdities before mentioned, that equals,( at least doth not exceed) the best part of our Gospel, in point of folly, falsehood and impiety, if what these men affirm of it be true. The Church of God hath now for many ages laboured under some strange and unaccountable infatuation, in mistaking such a gross, senseless, Opinion, for one of the main and principal parts of their Faith. But it is high time to rectify this mistake; and whatsoever Religion we may think fit to make choice of, we cannot( at this rate) choose a worse than the Christian, if this doctrine makes up( as most think it doth) a main part of it. And therefore I cannot much wonder at the story that is told, of a certain Socinian or Socinians, who applied themselves to Ben Hamet, late ambassador here from the Emperor of Fez▪ and proposed in behalf of themselves and their brethren, that a good correspondence might be settled, and a close League entered into, between the English▪ Unitarians, and the Orthodox Churches of Algiers and Morocco. And if such passages as these shall be published, and permitted to pass uncontrolled among us; the minds of many may in good time be disposed, to exchange the Bible for the Alcoran, as they say, some Paulus Alciatus, Adamus Nauserus, &c. of the most eminent Unitarians in the last Age did. Upon the whole, we may hence be convinced, what great reason we all have to contend for our holy Faith, and to vindicate it from the calumnies and slanders cast upon it by these ungodly men, who thus openly, with unparalleled insolence and malice, reproach and vilify our doctrine; and who( as it is to be feared) would show no great tenderness to our persons, if they had us in their clutches; God keep us out of them. And this, as it is a duty incumbent upon all Christians, according to their circumstances and abilities; so is it in a more particular manner upon us, who are dedicated more immediately to the service of Religion; and who most not only give an account of our own actions, but are likewise accountable for the Souls of others committed to our charge. It is true indeed, that they who are engaged in this service, must look for many( and those not small) discouragements: they must expect, that their labours in this kind shall be undervalued, their writings( if they have leisure and inclinations to commit any thing to writing) censured, nay, their intentions misconstrued; and it is well if they escape so, and have not likewise their persons defamed into the bargain. But none of all these, should prove a discouragement to any good-man, and hinder him from doing his duty. And indeed he deserves not the name, and much less the blessedness of a true Christian, who cannot be content to suffer more than all this comes to, for the sake, and in the defence of his blessed Lord and Master, who hath done and suffered so much for him. Nay, not only the consideration of our duty, but that of our truest interest, should make us willing to be engaged in this holy warfare: for in the conclusion, it will appear to be much better, that we be found( if the will of God be so) among such who suffer for the truth, than in the number of them who persecute, or those who betray it. Tho' indeed, a notable pretence hath been found out, wherewithal to palliate and varnish over this treachery; and that is, the pretence of moderation and tenderness towards these dissenters from us, I mean in our doctrine, nay, in the fundamental doctrines of our holy Religion, if there be any such. By this we may see, that the Devil is become wiser now in this last Age, than he was formerly. And it is no wonder, that the older he is, the craftier he should likewise grow. In former times he set himself with all his might to overthrow the Christian Religion, by methods of his own contriving; by inhuman and bloody persecutions, by Racks and Gibbets, Grid-Irons and Fiery furnaces, Crusadoes and Inquisitions. But all these proved ineffectual: for tho hereby he destroyed the persons of Believers, yet their Faith survived the malice of their Enemies, and like the Phoenix rose more gloriously out of the ashes of the Martyrs. Now he is resolved to▪ try a new method, and to fight against God with his own weapons▪ For Reason, which is the great gift ●● God, must now be made use of to overturn Religion; and the Graces of Gods Spirit, among which meekness and moderation● do not mean the hypocritical and designing pretences to the● which are none of the least; must help to under 〈…〉 e the 〈…〉ctrines which he hath revealed. Many things might be said upon this subject, which ought ● to be crowded together into too narrow a compass, as very w● deserving a larger room; Therefore I shall say no more of ● matter at present: only I shall crave leave to renew my addres● my Brethren of the Clergy, and desire them not to be discou●ed or affrighted from contending for their holy Faith, by reaso● any charge, or imputation that may be laid on them▪ of ● turbulent or contentious persons for so doing● If we ● names given us, we cannot help it, we must go on in the dis● of our duty. We are by a second Consecration, besides that a● Baptism, devoted to the service of our great Lord▪ and Ma● we are not only Souldiers, but Officers in those Companies of ● who are listed under Christs Banner, and therefore are ob● to fight under it▪ against all the Spiritual Enemies of his ●dom. And we may rest assured, that when our great ● and the Captain of our Salvation comes to take an accoun● our behaviour, we cannot desire to be found in any better po● than▪ standing up in defence of his Honor, and the holy ● which he hath published to the World: Happy are those S●r● who shall be found so doing when their Master comes. And if in o● things they are found likewise performing their duty( for ● must not think to make the doing of one part, commute for ● neglect of the rest) they shall receive approbation and prais● from the mouth of their once crucified, but now glorified Redeemer; who when their Souls are dismissed from the E●braces of their Bodies, will stand ready to receive them into ● own arms, and will welcome each of them with that bles● Sentence, Euge bone serve, well done good and faithful servant, th● hast been faithful in the discharge of thy trust, enter thou into th● joy of thy Lord. The End of the Second part. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST SOCINIANISM. THE THIRD PART. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST SOCINIANISM: showing The necessity of Faith, and that Socinus and his Followers on the contrary, by making the persuasion of the mind concerning divine Truths, a useless or at best an indifferent matter, plainly undermine all Revealed, and more especially the Christian Religion. THE THIRD PART. By JONATHAN EDWARDS D. D. OXON. Printed at the theatre for H. Clements. MDCXDVII. A PRESERVATIVE AGAINST Socinianism. IN pursuance of the method laid down in the first part of the Preservative, the Reader might expect that I should proceed to show the opposition between the Impious opinions of Socinus, and the other Articles of our Holy Faith not mentioned in the two former Treatises, and which remain yet to be discoursed of. But omitting at present to handle those matters in that order as was then proposed, I have at this time rather made choice, to lay before the Reader several of those loose and irreligious positions, which are to be found in the Books of the forenamed Socinus and his followers, whereby they have plainly struck not only at the Christian Religion, the overthrow of which seems to have been their first and principal aim; but likewise at all Religion whether natural or revealed, against which they have advanced sundry pernicious assertions, some of which are plainly expressed, others more covertly insinuated in their Writings, whereby they have laid the foundations of that Infidelity and atheism, which under several shapes, and divers disguises, doth at this time too far prevail in these parts of the World. And hereby, tho I shall not exactly observe the method, I may yet, I hope, in some measure answer, and perhaps more effectually compass the design, which I chiefly proposed to myself when I first undertook this work; which was to fortify the minds of men, and guard them from the infection of those errors, which have so hastily, and I am sorry to say, so largely diffused themselves among divers persons of different ranks and orders, to the great trouble and amazement of all such, who have not shaken off all fear of God, and regard for his holy Religion as yet preserved and established among us. There are none who are any ways conversant in these matters, but very well know, that many of the Socinians, especially heretofore, were such who put on the outward shape and semblance of a more than ordinary piety, and in their writings have advanced the precepts of Morality to a very great height, in which they have been very copious and pathetical, in declaiming against 'vice, recommending virtue, and with great vehemence pressing the necessity of a good life; which we must all acknowledge is one of the principal, and as they tell us the only end of all Religion. How far they have been in good earnest in all this, is not so easy nor so safe for any of us to determine; it will therefore become us to leave them to the judgement of almighty God, by whose most righteous sentence, they and we must in the conclusion either stand or fall. Only thus much I cannot forbear to say upon this occasion, that by advancing Morality upon the ruins of the Christian Religion, and at the same time that they enforce obedience to the Laws of Christ, by undermining those motives which are, tho not the only, yet the chief and principal causes which produce and support it, they take effectual care to render all their exhortations, as far as in them lies, useless and insignificant, and thereby give too great occasion to suspect their sincerity in this whole affair. But let their intentions be what they will, it is certain that by these means, they have very notably gained these two, and those no inconsiderable advantages: Ist, hereby they have prevailed with many, who otherwise seem to be of a different opinion from them, to entertain very favourable thoughts, nay a very high esteem of their persons and writings, for the sake of their Piety: and this esteem, by degrees helps to extenuate their errors, and covers the malignity of them, which in time come to be accounted but small and very pardonable mistakes. 2ly, Which is a necessary consequence of the former, they hereby,( I mean among them who entertain those favourable thoughts of them) take off the keenness and edge of those resentments, which are absolutely needful to engage men in a warm and vigorous opposition of their pernicious tenets: for while you extenuate an error, at the same time and for the same reason, you weaken the opposite truth; and by the same degrees that your zeal against the one abates, your concern for the other must grow cool, and in time perhaps be extinguished. It is therefore certain and beyond all doubt, that it cannot be worth any mans time of pains, to be engaged in the vindication of a truth, where the opposite error is so harmless and inoffensive, that it scarce deserves our notice and much less a confutation. And this seems to be the apprehension which many now adays have of the bold and dangerous opinions of Socin. as they formerly were accounted. For some there are who pretending to more than ordinary degrees of moderation, I mean in the affairs of Religion, in which a greater scope and latitude is thought fit and reasonable to be allowed,( for in their own private concerns they do not think themselves under the same strict obligation to practise it) who tell us, that there is indeed some difference between us and the Socinians, but it is only about some points of high speculation, which are placed out of the reach of human reason; and what is not the object of our knowledge, need not be the subject of our care, neither is it fit that any man should be concerned for what he cannot fully and plainly comprehend. It is true our adversaries despise the mysteries of the Gospel, but at the same time they retain a due regard for the precepts of it, and and are at perfect agreement with us, in promoting the true end of all Religion which is holiness and a good life. All other matters in dispute between us are but Metaphysical notions, and niceties of the schools, about which men may argue pro and con, and wrangle eternally; but never make either themselves or others in the least either wiser or better; but rather on the other hand, they hereby do a great deal of mischief; by engaging men in warm and senseless disputes about trifling and inconsiderable matters; dividing their judgments, and alienating their affections from each other, and by that means, disturb the peace and quiet of the world, which is of greater consequence, and ought therefore to be more valued by us, than these curious but useless speculations. Others there are who, tho they cannot think so mildly and gently of these errors, yet retain a great respect for the Authors of them, and therefore to hid their nakedness, in great compassion, and out of Christian charity to be sure, they fling a mantle of justice and probity over them: by which means they do at the same time adorn their persons, and conceal the deformity of their opinions, which in their own proper and native dress, would be apt to create a just horror and detestation in the minds of all sincere and serious Christians. Now to take of the mask and disguise under which these impious opinions walk, not only with impunity, but with confidence, and some sort of reputation and credit among us, is the design of this present undertaking, and to represent them in their own true colours, stripped of all that paint and varnish wherewith they usually are disguised; and to place them in a true light, in which they may be viewed in their just deformity and danger, and with that numerous train of evil consequences which inevitably attend them: whereby it will appear, that under what softening terms soever some persons may think fit to represent them, yet that truly and really they are highly dishonourable to God, destructive to the souls of men, and tend plainly to the overthrowing of all, and particularly the Christian Religion; the ruin of which, I mean if these principles and opinions should universally prevail, they will more effectually accomplish, than any, or than all the other methods that ever yet have been made use of to destroy it. This is really a heavy charge, and therefore by some may be thought an uncharitable one; wherefore I must now proceed to make it good; and in order thereunto I shall first begin with Revealed Religion, which is comprehended in the writings of the Old and New Testament, which contain a discovery of all those things which we are obliged either to believe or practise in order to obtain Eternal life. Now the truth and credit of these holy writings are more ways then one assaulted by these men; some whereof are more remote and at a greater distance, whereby they do not so much directly oppose, as insidiously attack the holy Scriptures, and thereby secretly undermine that Authority, which they pretend openly to acknowledge. Others are more plainly and directly leveled against their authority and inspiration. Among those more obliqne and remote methods, the principal which are made use of by them, and which I shall more largely insist upon are these two; The first is that whereby they speak slightly and contemptibly of Faith, in comparison of Morality, to which they do not only give the pference, but place in a kind of opposition to it: The second way is by advancing Reason above Revelation, and making it the supreme judge of all those discoveries which are made by this latter, and its dictates the adequate Rule both of our Faith and practise. I begin with the first, viz. That whereby they speak contemptibly of Faith, and consequently, must at the same time endeavour to bring into contempt that part of the revelation which concerns the Articles of Faith; for if faith be unnecessary, it can be for no other reason but because the objects about which it is conversant are so; and if those objects are trifling and inconsiderable, the discovery and revelation of them must be equally useless and insignificant; so that there being a necessary connexion between these three, their Credit and Reputation must stand or fall together: He that is not a friend to each, is a friend to none of them and he that opposes one, is an enemy to them all. Now that I may proceed clearly and orderly in this matter; according to the method made use of in the two former Treatises, I shall show, first what the Scriptures inform us concerning Faith and the Articles and mysteries of our Faith; and then what the Socinians and their friends say of these matters; which upon examination will be found to be directly repugnant to what the holy writings affirm, tending plainly to disparaged the Revelation, and thereby to bring into contempt the Religion which is discovered by it. If we look into the Scriptures, and especially those of the New Testament, we shall find that they pretend to give us an information of some things concerning God both as to his Nature, Counsels, and Decrees, which no human understanding ever conceived, none the most piercing judgement that ever mortal man was possessed of could ever penetrate; and therefore they are styled by our saviour the Mysterys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were hide from the wise and prudent, but by the distinguishing mercy of God revealed unto babes, mat. 11. 25. Such was that great truth that Christ was the son of the living God, which was a truth of so great importance, that our saviour tells Peter who made that acknowledgement of him, that he would build his Church upon it, as on a rock against which the Gates of Hell should not prevail; and withall that it was of that sublime and mysterious nature, that flesh and blood could not reveal it unto him, but his Father which was in Heaven, Math. 16. 17. Again, as no man could know the son, who he really was, as to his nature, descent, and original, which was all Heavenly and Divine, but by the revelation of the Father; so could no man know the Father but the Son, and he to whom the son would reveal him, Math. 11. 27. Now as to what concerns the unity and essential perfections of the Godhead, which as the Socinians and Remonstrants tell us was all that was necessary to be known of him, this was discovered long before: so likewise what relates to matters of mere morality and the practise of virtue, was in great measure made known before Christ's coming; and in that sense God might be said to be seen by the light of nature: but there were some other things, concerning his person and subsistence, as he stands in relation to the two other glorious persons in the Trinity, the Son and Holy Ghost, which no human reason could possibly discover; as also concerning his Counsel and Will, in reference to those great transactions which concern the Salvation of mankind, which no wit of man could ever find out, as lying hide in the secret and eternal Counsel of his mind, which therefore no finite wisdom or understanding could ever fathom or draw out, only he who lay in the bosom of the Father, either did, or could discover. To the same purpose St. Paul assures us that there were several deep things of God, which were the results of his mere pleasure, which none could know or be conscious to, but the Spirit of God, who searcheth all things, and which things God hath revealed to mankind by his Spirit, 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. or otherwise they must for ever have been ignorant of them. Hence the doctrine of the Gospel which contains the discovery of these secrets, is styled the mystery of the Gospel, Eph. 6. 19. The mystery of Christ Col. 4. 3. The mystery of Faith, 1 Tim. 3. 9. And the great mystery of godliness, verse 16. of that Chap. Nay the same Apostle, when he mentions these things thus revealed, speaks of them in very lofty and magnificent terms, that they were such as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entred into the heart of man, i.e. the heart of man could not conceive and find them out, 1 Cor. 2. 9. And therefore we find him very copious in the magnifying his office and ministry, upon this very score, that he published the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom of God, ordained before the world unto our Glory, v. 7. That he and the other Apostles were Stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. From all which these two things seem to be very plain, and as one might reasonably think beyond all dispute. First, as was said before, that the Gospel contains a revelation of certain matters which no wit or invention of man could ever discover, no reason can comprehend: why else should they be styled mysteries, such as were hide from the wise and prudent, and known only by revelation? How could it otherwise with truth or decency be said, that flesh and blood could not discover them? and that the Love of God, and his merciful intentions for the Redemption of mankind, which were discovered in the Gospel, did surpass all knowledge? Eph. 3. 19. Lastly, it could not otherwise be agreeable to truth, what yet is roundly and without any hesitation delivered by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. 14. That the natural man, who is guided only by the light of nature, or human reason, doth not perceive the things of the Spirit of God, those spiritual and sublime mysteries which are revealed by the spirit of God: {αβγδ}, non capit, percipit, intelligit, so this word is rendered by several Interpreters; the word {αβγδ}, being the same with {αβγδ} which is used in the same verse; he neither doth understand, nor indeed can he know them: or let it be rendered as we do in our translation, non accipit, recipit, he doth not receive them, non ita admittit ut approbet, he doth not admit them so as to approve of them, it will amount to the same purpose. And indeed both these things seem to be very evident from the words: viz. that the things of God, which are discovered by the spirit of God in the Gospel, are such, as transcend the power of the most exalted reason to find out and comprehend; nay not only so, some of them do not only surpass, but seem opposite to the understandings of men guided only by the light of nature; they are foolishness unto him,: i.e. absurd and repugnant to reason. So that in short, this {αβγδ}, this natural man, qui non alia quam naturali animi luke praeditus est, qui humana ratione omnia metitur, who measures all things by the standard of human reason, cannot discover these sublime truths by his own natural abilities; and after they are discovered, he is so far from admitting and embracing them, that he rather rejects them as absurd and foolish, and quiter contrary to those rules {αβγδ}, of human wisdom, of bare reason, whereby he judges of the truth or falsehood of things. 2dly, That which follows farther from hence, is that these truths thus Revealed, are matters of great importance and high consequence; otherwise the Gospel were not to be so highly valued, nor ought the Ministers of it so mightily to magnify themselves and their Ministry upon this account. Sure the Son of God would never have come out of the bosom of the Father, and discovered what lay hide there; nor the spirit of God have preached for these deep things, except they had been matters of great weight and moment, and the revelation of them of great and high importance to the world. And therefore we find the Scriptures laying a great stress upon these matters, representing them under such Characters, and with such high eulogies, that it is plain, they expected we should entertain these sublime truths, with great reverence, attention, and esteem, that they should be received with all thankfulness, and accounted by us worthy of all acceptation: or in one word which will comprehend all this, that we should believe them. Which leads me to consider what these holy writings say of the Act of Faith, as well as what we have already heard, they have said of the Object and Articles of it. And here we shall find that they lay a great stress upon the Grace of Faith, and especially as it hath Christ for its object, which is the great duty of the Gospel; recommended to us so often and so earnestly by our blessed saviour, that one would think, there should be no room left for doubt in this affair, by any who own the name of Christ, and are therefore willing to govern their judgement, and regulate their apprehensions concerning the usefulness or necessity of things, by the sentence of their saviour. Now he hath assured us more than once, that our happiness or ruin depends upon our having or wanting this Grace. He that believeth on the Son of God, hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, Jo. 3. 36. In imitation of the Serpent which Moses lift up in the wilderness, our saviour tells us that he was to be lifted up upon the across, that whosoever looks up to him by the eye of Faith, whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life, verse 15. God sent his son into the world for the salvation of it, but that the end of his coming may be accomplished in us, this Grace is absolutely requisite, that thereby we may be entitled to those benefits which he has purchased for us by his coming. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life, v. 16. and again in the 18. verse, He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already. Thus our saviour delivered himself when he preached to men in his own person while he was in the world; and when he was to leave it, the like commission he gave to his Apostles, and required them to publish the same doctrine: Go into all the World, and preach the Gospel to every Creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark 16. 15, 16. They were to proclaim the glad tidings of Salvation to all mankind, and were withal to inform them of the great condition required on their parts to make them capable of it, which was Faith. And in pursuance of this Commission, we find Them still inculcating the necessity of this Grace, as antecedently requisite to give men a right and title to pardon of sin, and all the other blessings of the new Covenant. This was that which Philip required of the Eunuch, Acts 8. 37. To believe with all his heart, what he immediately afterwards tells him he did, viz. that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To that important question of the jailor, Sirs what must I do to be saved? St. Paul returns this answer, believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, Acts 16. 31. And in short, that we are acquitted from guilt, reconciled to God, levied, pardonned, saved, they tell us is owing to faith in the son of God. Hitherto we have only spoken of faith in Christ, as it hath him for its object; but forasmuch as this faith respects the person, natures, offices, actions, and sufferings of our blessed saviour, it doth by consequence infer the necessity of believing the other Articles of our Holy Religion, which are either directly included in, or have some necessary relation to, this great and fundamental doctrine. And thus we see what the Scriptures inform us of the doctrines of our faith, and of the faith of those doctrines; both which are put together by St. John in the 20th Chapter of his Gospel verse 31. These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that believing ye might have life thro his name. Which words give us an account of the principal reason that moved our Evangelist and Apostle to writ and publish his Gospel, which was to assert and vindicate this great truth, then and since vehemently opposed, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 2dly, They farther inform us of the importance of that discovery; that hereby is revealed to us, not only a certain, but likewise a necessary and fundamental truth, upon the knowledge and belief of which depends our happiness and eternal life. In short, from hence it appears, that both the doctrine here recommended to our faith is of high consequence, a necessary and essential part of the Christian Religion, that Jesus is the son of God: and also that the belief of this doctrine is of equal importance, of necessary and indispensible obligation, our happiness absolutely depending upon it, That believing ye might have life thro his name. It is time now we should inquire what the Socinians affirm of both these matters. And first what they say of the doctrines or objects of our faith. And here in general, they tell us that there are no doctrines delivered in the Scriptures, and proposed to our belief, which surpass Nihil credi potest, quod â ratione capi& intelligi non potest;& qaicquid nobis revelatum est, quicquid à nobis credi debet, id nequaquam rationis captum excedit. Ea quae nobis ad credendum vere sunt proposita, negamus esse mysteria, quae scil. captum rationis superent,& communem naturae cursum,& ordinariam rerum indolem superent, Schlichting. contra Meisn. p. 124. the reach and comprehension of human reason: and therefore that those Articles of faith which have been embraced by the Christian Church, and received under the notion of sublime and mysterious truths, are all of them false, erroneous, foolish and absurd, and many of them pernicious and impious fables. Let us consider them under each of these characters. First, they say they are false, as being opposite to the plain dictates of reason, whereby we ought to judge of the truth or falsehood of things. And such are the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and satisfaction of our blessed saviour; which are, say they, not only above the conceptions of men, but directly contrary to them; and indeed are not only repugnant to reason, Socin. libel. Suas. cap. 4. Jam quod attinet ad communem sensum, nemo est tam stolidus, qui non videat pugnare haec inter se, illum Deum nostrum esse unum numer●,& tamen trees esse, quorum unusquisque sit ille Deus noster. but likewise to the common sense of mankind. So that in short, what we call a mysterious truth, is nothing else but mystical nonsense; and what we magnify in these matters as the result of divine wisdom, is really and truly the product of ignorance and mistake. From hence it must follow, that they are not only false, but likewise in the second place foolish and absurd: scarce any thing can be invented that is more ridiculous than these doctrines, which are only the wild and extravagant notions of some fantastic persons, which equal all the fictions of poetry; none of which are more exorbitant, but most of them far less harmful than these absurd and monstrous opinions. In short, those hard words above mentioned, of Trinity Incarnation, Sacrament, which are introduced into our Religion are a barbarous and unknown language, Metaphysical gibberish Impartial account of the word Mystery, p. 13. perfect Cant, fit only for Gypsies and Fortune-tellers. We love, it seems, as these men tell the world, to amuse our Disciples with terms as mystical as the Egyptian hieroglyphics, yet couch but a very mean and despicable sense The Trinitarian Scheme of Religion, p. 7. under mysterious and surprising terms, affecting a fantastical way of speaking, when we might speak soberly and plainly. Thus they find fault with our words, and the manner of expressing ourselves. At other times, when we come to explain▪ ourselves, and in that explication make choice of very easy and intelligible terms, then they quarrel with our meaning; upon which account, they say the modern Christianity,( so they are pleased to style our Religion) is no better, nor other than a sort of Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarn. p. 16. Paganism and Heathenism. It is all enigmatical and or acular, but Impartial account of the word Mystery, p. 18, 19. the Devils Oracles are to be preferred: for they represented plain truths under doubtful and ambiguous expressions; we in plain words express unintelligible, mystical, sublime contradictions: which makes our Religion, at least our way of expressing it, a perfect Gaulemaufrey Idem. . So that in our dealing with these Gentlemen we are reduced to very great, and indeed inextricable streights. Let us express ourselves which way we please, still they are resolved to quarrel with us. If we make choice of plain words in which to express the mysteries of our Faith, then 'tis all riddle and paradox. If their perverseness and importunity oblige us to use any new words not found in Scripture, then we are Oracular and Hieroglyphical; and our language is Egyptian all over. What therefore is left for us to do? why truly nothing that I know of but to bear our misfortunes as wisely and as well as we can: and since it is so difficult to procure their good opinion, we must as far as I can perceive, together with the hopes, lay aside likewise all endeavours of recommending ourselves to their favour. Lastly our doctrines they say, are highly pernicious and mischievous: for hereby, if we believe one of our adversaries Letter of Resolution, p. 5. 7. 11. 17. , the purity of the Gospel is corrupted, which consists in the plainness and simplicity of it; and the beauty of it is concealed by this disguise of mystery which is put upon it. Secondly, They give Encouragement to a wicked life, and are directly inconsistent with piety towards G●d, as they are with reason and natural knowledge. Thirdly, They are the great incendiaries of the world, disturbing the peace of the Christian Church which hereby hath been crumbled into innumerable parties and factions▪ Forthly, They are partly the necessary causes, and partly the unhappy occasions of divers hurtful errors and heresies, and particularly of those which compose the body of Popery. Lastly, By their absurdity and impossibility, they have given a check to the progress of the Gospel, have hindered the conversion of Jews and Mahometans, and serve only to propagate Deism and Atheism with which the age is infected, and which is in great measure owing to the absurd corruptions of the true religion, by these additions which have been made to it by injudicious and fanciful men. Thus doth this great champion of infidelity come forth like another goliath, bidding defiance to our religion, railing at it and the professors of it, in the most reviling and contumelious language, and thereby endeavouring to expose both the one and the other, to the contempt and laughter of Buffoons and Atheists. Now if we farther inquire into the Reasons and Causes of these errors, and by what means such opinions, so dishonourable to God, so repugnant to common sense and reason, so pernicious and absurd, in which folly and impiety seem to strive for the pre-eminence, should universally prevail in the Christian Church, they instance in these following. And first, they tell us this is owing to ignorance, and the mistakes of unskilful and injudicious men; but these mistakes have yet received a wonderful improvement by that curiosity and wantonness of fancy which is to be observed in some persons; but above all, by that regard and fondness which men have had for mysteries. All the world, I know not by what fate overruling them, and in all ages So sacred and dangerous was the discovery of Mysteries to Ecclesiastical men of that time,( he speaks of the Statue of Harpocrates in the Temple of Isis) as well as of ours, and such is the love of superstitious people, of what religion soever they be, for Cabal and Mystery; because they take delight in admiring what they do not understand, and in reverencing the very silence of any thing that goes under the name of Mystery. Discourse of the word Mystery p. 3. , have been in love with mysteries, and have doted on them. This dotage was remarkable in the Pagans of old, and it attended those who in the first ages of Christianity The Trinity is not a Theology of divine Tradition, but marely of Paganick and Heathen extraction, and brought into the Christian Church by the platonic Philosophers when they came over to Christianity, Letter of Resolution p. 16. This Author( speaking of the Author of the History of Oracles) clearly discovers to us the source of Mysteries springing out of the wonderful and incomprehensible language of Plato, and at the same time the holy reverence paid to Mysteries arising from a blind respect paid to false Antiquity. Discourse of mist. p. 19. were converted to the Christian faith; who brought this humour along with them into the Church. This doting on mystery, which they tell us was the great mystery of Iniquity, began,( as some of them state this matter) very early, even as early as the days of the Apostles▪ Herb. de Rel. gentle. p 230. Others say, that the Christians at first extracted out of the Heathen writers what was excellent in Paganism, the virtuous and moral part, and left the fabulous behind like a caput mortuum. But in process of time the Fathers of the Church introduced new Mysteries and Articles in the room of the former, which in time universally prevailed. But tho they do not exactly agree upon the date, yet they all agree in the thing; that our Religion, as it is at present established in the Christian Church, is of infamous extraction, being purely Heathenish, and of Pagan descent, and original. But tho this humour, and affectation of mysteries, hath had, as our adversaries tell us, too great and fatal an influence upon our Religion, yet that alone could never have been able to have done all this mischief. For tho the foundations of that folly and superstition which at first was brought into the Church, might hereby be laid; yet these could never have been perpetuated, and propagated among so many men, and thro so many ages, without the help of some other more lasting, and more culpable causes, than either ignorance, curiosity, wantonness of fancy, or the like. And therefore in the 2d place they tell us, that this ignorance of divine truths, and the dangerous errors which succeeded thereupon, were owing to a general wickedness& corruption of manners, which, it seems, overspread the face of the Church, and Nec Christus virtute caret, nec Christiana fides incertis scriptures nixa est, said ipsorum hominum culpa fit, quo minus, ea quae clarissime& constantissime scripta sunt, illi intelligant. Qui si tales fuerint quails esse debeant, profecto omnia intelligent in sacris voluminibus contenta, quae eos intelligere necesse est: sin minus, aequum est ut suae malitiae han●●tiam poenam sub●ant, ut salutaris dogmata divinis literis comprehensa mini●e percipiant, aut olim percepta non amplius teneant. Fausti Socin. Resp and Scrupul●s, ab excellenti quodam viro propositos, p. 329. Malos plerosque omne● post Apost●lorum tempora fuisse, nihil prohibet: quod tamen ego non assero, quamvis Apostoli& Christus ipse tale quippiani praedixisse videantur, ibid Resp ad 3. Scrup. overtook the professors of it very early; it should seem in, or very near the Apostles times: and then it is no wonder if this wickedness, by its own natural force should pervert the understandings of men, and by degrees help to corrupt their principles. To which we may add▪ if this were so, that God, as a just reward of an universal impiety, might give men up to these frantic delusions; to believe a lie, and then to publish it to the world. The Q●od autem adjungitur de scriptures vafre& contorte à Deo de sui cognitione proditis, si sententia nostra priscis illis incognita fuisset, supra refutatur. Hic tantum addo▪ quamvis sacrae Scripturae in hac ipsa parte de qua quaeritur, ita apertae atque expeditae sint, ut nemo qui eas non intelligat plane stupidus non videatur; tamen eorum verborum meminisse nos debere quae scripta sunt ad finem libri Oseae Prophetae, quis sapiens& intelliget ista, intelligens& sciet haec▪ quia rectae viae Domini,& justi ambulabunt in eis, praevaricato●es vero corruent▪ Quae verba ejusmodi sunt; ut ad ipsam verborum Dei intelligentiam omnino accommodari queant, quae videlice● obvia sit piis, impiis non item. Id. Resp. ad 6. Scrup. Gospel and the words of it could not possibly led men into such mistakes, because it is most evident, plain and intelligible to every man: and the Scriptures are so open and clear in these matters, ut nemo qui eas non intelligat, non plane stupidus esse videatur, saith Socin. Therefore it must follow that it must be owing, partly to mens ignorance and stupidity, but chiefly to their wickedness, and in particular to the love of the world, which is the root ●f almost all that evil that is in it. But that you may not make a wrong judgement in this affair, and the innocent thereby be mistaken for the criminals; you must know that this immoderate love of wealth and riches, first seized the Priests; who in all ages( as these our worthy friends tell the world) have been a company of crafty and designing men: By the means of Mystery Divines have made Religion a very difficult thing, 'tis an Art which Christians are not able to understand. Thereby they have raised themselves above common Christians, and are made necessary to the people, improving that art to their own benefit, Discourse of mist. p. 13. and in order to procure a reputation to their persons and functions, and then to compass the ends of their ambition and covetousness; first contrived these mysterious doctrines, which they published in a barbarous and an unknown language, thereby keeping the people in awe; and then taking advantage of those fears and that superstition, which by these means they wrought in their minds, they led them where they would, and managed both their Consciences and Estates just as they pleased. The Learned, if you speak of such as are Priests or Ministers and Beneficed men, have such a bias given to their minds by the awe of their Superiors to whom they are accountable, by the fears of deprivation, by their Subscriptions to the Articles of their several Churches, that it may be said their Learning gives no authority to their Opinions. 'tis plain enough that their Opinions are such, as the conditions and terms of Preferment do require of them. While men are Shackled by early Subscriptions, hopes of Preferment, fears of Punishment, and the like restraints, they are fitter to support the Kingdom of darkness and error, than to receive the true light and genuine Gospel of Christ. An Exhort. to a Free and Impartial enquiry into the Doctrines of Rel. p. 3▪ Neither is L. M. alone, but there are many others who believe their Paradoxes no more than we, but they subdue first their Consciences, and afterwards their minds to the Sophistries usually alleged to prove them, so long as Holy Mother( which can dispose of their fortunes in the World,) recommends this belief as the condition of holding a Parsonage or a Vicarage, or of getting a Deanery or Prebend. But after all that R●verence which any pretend to have for this Holy Mother, tis certain there is nothing really meant by our Holy Mother the Church, but only the strongest side, or the prevailing party. And all the mighty compliments men use to this blessed Mother, are nothing else but their wit or their fears. They find themselves the slaves of an usurping faction in the Church, which is able to constrain them to do any thing, tho never so contradictory or absurd: therefore the witty presently list themselves of the party, and call themselves Sons and Children, and subscribe and swear to all that she propounds. In others their dread and awe turns into real reverence, or rather superstition: but they do not reflect on the causes that first biased their minds to this obedience; but those causes were originally nothing else but the power and wealth of the Holy Mother, that is as was said, of the strongest side. Answer to Mr. L. Milburne. And as at first these were the persons who introduced these mysterious doctrines into our Religion, for their own advantage; so the same secular motives prevail with most now adays to retain them. They are our preferments which help to keep up the belief of these mysteries, and if it were not for the bias which is given to our minds by the awe of our Superiors, and the fears of losing our promotions which keep us in order, we should soon discover our true sentiments, and all presently turn Socinians. For if men quit their opinions, they must at the same time lose their preferments, which are, say they, the main support of all this superstructure, which otherwise of itself would soon fall to the ground. So that at this rate, the Superior and Inferior orders of Priests are a company of proffigate and irreligious wretches; who have lost all honor and all honesty; the one Imposing, and the other Submitting to their Impositions, against their Consciences, and contrary to their judgments, only to compass their designs, and to secure their preferments. Upon this account, Author of the Trinitarian Scheme p. 8. one of them plainly tells the world, that he knows no reason why we may not be reputed Atheists: for our Religion as to what concerns the Priests and Learned men among us, is all contrivance and imposture, a cheat as gross and palpable as was that carried on of old by the Augurs and Aruspices; and therefore he wonders how we can be such stark fools, or errand knaves, that when we meet we can carry a grave look, and not laugh at one another. Tho by the by, if a man might be allowed to guess at this Gentleman's modesty by his writings, if one of his friends, for some particular reason, should smile in his face, I am apt to think he would scarce put him out of countenance. Lastly, it may yet reasonably be imagined, that the causes above mentioned, tho they might go a great way in order to corrupt our Religion: yet could not be so universally prevalent and for so many Ages: were it not for some higher and greater force. The awe of Superiors, the fears of deprivation, the hopes of preferment, may be great restraints: but one would think the evidence of truth, and the importance of it, should likewise have some influence on the minds of men, and have enabled them long before this, to have broken thro those restraints, had not some more potent, but invisible chains, fettered their understandings, and totally deprived them of their liberty. This mighty force then that prevails above sense and reason, revelation and Scriptures, can be nothing less than magic and Enchantment, whereby the eyes of the simplo are dazzled, being bewitched, as they tell us, into a belief of the most odd things with a charm of words Mystery is a supplement ready at hand, when we fall short of reason. In a word, Mystery is a salue for all diseases, it dazzles the eyes of simplo people, or rather bewitches them in so great a measure, that by seeing they perceive not the ridiculousness of those opinions imposed on their belief; and it makes wise men willing to shut them▪ for they do not love to be disturbed in the enjoyment of their temporal advantages, and they are afraid of Socrates his fate. Discourse of the word Mystery p. 19. In Religion men take care to adorn the most monstrous opinions, they look upon them as the beloved part and the chief of their Religion: and lest they should be attackod in that weak place, they fence it with the name of Mystery. They will allow no body to touch them; nor to cast their eyes upon them. He that undertakes to attack an Orthodox that way, is looked upon as one who designs the utter ruin of Religion. They are so far in the right, seeing they cannot otherwise defend their Opinions, than by frighting Children with the Wolfs skin. Ibid. p. 4. The word and Sacraments are a sort of means that act not by any natural energy of their own, nor by any harmony, suitableness or agreeableness to our powers faculties or natures; but by a Theurgical, Telestick and Mystical operation, which is to say they work on our minds as Spells, Charms and Incantations. Let a man in black sprinkle you with some of the Churches water, or give you a bit of bread, or sup of wine, over which he hath pronounced the wonder-working words prescribed in Mother Churches Ritual, tho by nature you are as bad as the Devil, ●ou shall be qualified for Heaven. And this no less certainly th●● 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 magic, you may cause hatred, raise winds, and do a thousand other feats. Therefore when St. Austin defined a Sacrament to be the Outward visible sign of an Inward Spiritual grace; the good Father should have considered, that this is the definition of a Charm, not of a Gospel Sacrament. Trinitarian Scheme of Rel. p. 24. . So that like men in a trance, they shall have their eyes open, and yet not be able to discern the ridiculousness of those opinions which are imposed on their understandings. The Devil was the first, as they tell us, who invented sundry of those Doctrines: and sure one would think, he was the person likewise who first invented the word Mystery, which is an affrighting, astonishing word, the mention of it is enough to make men start. It is as bad as Abraxas or Abracadabra: it carries along with it charm and incantation: and the generality of Christians sure must have some sorcery and witchcraft practised upon their understandings, or else they could never be so unaccountably infatuated, as with this word, and by the help of it, to embrace so many wild and such frantic opinions. By this time I am afraid I have surfeited the Reader, I am sure I have tired myself, with the repetition of this nauseous and unsavoury stuff, which these our adversaries with equal falsehood and impudence, disgorge against our holy Religion and the professors of it. But I have done it for the sake of such who wanting time and leisure to peruse their writings, may here at one view inform themselves of those calumnies which ly dispersed and scattered in their writings, which with great assurance are almost every day published by them. And there are two reasons which have principally induced me to it, which I think are of some consideration in this affair. The first is, that I may undeceive the Reader, and rectify those mistakes which otherwise he may, or perhaps hath been led into, by that unwary and indeed unjust account which hath been given of our Adversaries and their polemical performances; which sometimes have been recommended to the world, under the highest characters of prudence, temper, modesty, gravity, together with I know not how many other goodly epithets which have been but too liberally bestowed on them. They are said, to have kept within the bounds of decency, to have argued closely and clearly without heat and passion, to have confuted their Adversaries opinions, without railing at their persons. They stand closely upon their guard, warily defend themselves, without giving advantage to their enemies by any loose and unwarrantable expressions, which passion is apt to suggest when reason and sound Argument is wanting; and in one word, they are said to have set a pattern of writing Controversies to the world. If this be so, and that we can reconcile this character with those expressions which have now been cited out of their books; then I think we have lost all distinction between modesty and arrogance, rudeness and decency, truth and calumny. For I will defy any man of the greatest wit, in conjunction with the greatest malice, to forge and utter any thing against us and our Religion, nay tho the Devil himself were at the elbow of the writer, which can exceed what these men charge us with, in point of falsehood and virulence. One of the heavyest charges which was of old drawn up against the Christians, and laid at their doors, was, that in their assemblies they were wont to murder an Infant, and out of sport and wantonnels to drink up his blood; so that their Love-feasts, as they called them, were indeed nothing else but so many Thyestean banquets. But if what our adversaries affirm of us and our Religion be true, we do much worse: for what those men might be supposed to do out of frenzy and distraction,( for who but frantic and wild people would be guilty of such lewd pranks?) the Guides of the Church have done out of contrivance and design; who have been engaged in a wicked combination for about sixteen ages, to delude and cheat the world, and that in a matter of highest consequence, relating to the honor of God, and the Salvation of mens Souls, which they have disregarded in comparison of their own interest, and secular designs. For what proportion do the lives of a few Infants bear to the Souls of so many millions, whom the Christian Doctors, by infusing so many loose and impious opinions into the minds of their followers, have, as far as in them lay, lead to eternal perdition? For tho these opinions in themselves, should not absolutely and inevitably occasion the ruin of those who embrace them; yet they bring them, as our adversaries tell the world, into great hazard, being mighty obstacles to mens happiness, and do very naturally and easily turn them out of the way which leads to eternal life. And if so, then we cannot but conclude, Praeterea errores quidam in ea( Religione scil. Evangelica dicta) sunt, qui li●es per se ipsi ●ternam salutem non adimant, tamen, vel quia circa res maximi momenti versantur, vel aliam quampiam ob causam, facile impediunt, quo minus quis aeternae salutis viam recte aut norit, aut certe teneat, Socin. Lib. Suas. proem. Vid●mus non p●●ces errores circa istorum trium sententiam, non necessario impedire, quo minus quis Deo ac Christo confidat. Ex altera parte non dubitamus, quin id facile efficer possint: obscurata videlicet per errores ipsos& in aliam formam versa ratione, qua ●obis divinitus ●terna salus contingit, Idem ibid. cap. 4. Sect. 3. that the Guides and Nos Christo ejusque discipulis majorem fidem adjungimus, quam vanis at queen impiis fanaticorum hominum commentis( de patribus loquitur) qui humanarum scientiarum cognitions inflati ac tumentes, ea excogitarunt, quae totum salutis nostrae fundamentum, quantum in ipsis quidem fuit, funditus everterunt. Andr. Dudith. Epist. ad Theod. Bezam. inter opera Socin. p. 525. His merely astutum Satanae inventum liceat admirari, qui quum animadverteret, non posse consistere regnum suum, si debitus sacris scriptures honos relinquatur, persuasit hominibus sacram scripturam ita esse difficilem, ut ex ea salutis cognitio constare nobis non posset. Sic perfecit, ut verbo Dei seposito, aut penitus abjecto, mayor jam Patrum Commentis& additamentis, qui tamen mali vitrici verius dici possint, quam ipsis veritatis magistris autoritas à servis Antichristi tribuatur, Id. ibid. Fathers of the Church( as they have hitherto been accounted) having shaken off all paternal care, and indeed natural affection, have turned worse than Scythians and cannibals; by how much it is a greater and more barbarous piece of cruelty to destroy mens Souls, than it is to prey upon, and devour their bodies. Perhaps it will be said, that this charge, and those scandalous epithets before mentioned, are chiefly managed, and made use of by the English Unitarians, who being a rout of profligate and irreligious wretches, together with all regard for Religion, have shaken off all reverence and respect for men. Ans. Whether they deserve this severe censure, is more than I can tell. It is true, the Libertines and loser persons of the age, with great satisfaction peruse their books, and very greedily swallow the opinions contained in them. But as for the writers and managers of these controversies, they may, for ought I know, be persons of as strict morals, and of as great justice and probity as their forefathers, the ancient and foreign Socinians. But be that matter as it will, this I may make bold to aver, that the foreigners have spoken as hard words, and made as severe reflections upon us and our Religion, as most of the Moderns; who have but written after the Copy which the former have set them; and from whom they seem to have borrowed a great part of their language, as well as their Opinions. Thus, as hath formerly been observed, the Holy Trinity hath been styled by them Triceps Cerberus, monstrum triforme; a threeheaded Cerberus, and a three-faced misshapen Monster; the Incarnation of our Blessed saviour, is accounted an idle senseless fable; the Doctrine of Original Sin, such an other old wives tale, invented by the Jews, and imposed on the Church by Antichrist; the redemption of the world by the death and sufferings of our saviour, is reproached as a pernicious, monstrous, impious, blasphemous Opinion; the Divinity of Christ, and his eternal generation is accounted by Wolzogen. Hic vero non possumus praeterire, quin admirationi lectorum exponamus, Monstrosum quoddam commentum, quod veteres Patres primitus ex ethnica Platonis schola in religionem Christianam introduxerunt, &c. said ut modo dictum Somnium de essentiali verbo Dei melius percipiatur, &c. Wolzogen. Prolegom. in Evang. Johan. Cap. 6. Sana ratio judicat, magnum scil. illud mysterium de origine& essentia filii Dei, falsum esse& merum humani cerebri figmentum. Recto ratio dictat, eos qui fabulam istam credunt, vel nescire quid credant, vel in labyrintho inextricabili, cujus nullus sit exitus, versari. Id. ibid. an idle dream, a fable, a figment, nay monstrosum commentum, a monstrous figment of Heathenish extraction, which the ancient Fathers learnt in the school of Plato, and from thence introduced it into the Christian Religion. And yet that is a mildred reflection in comparison of what he saith upon the same occasion; viz. that it is one of those false doctrines which by the cunning Hoc loco tacito pede praetereundum non est sedpaucis delibandum, quomodo factum sit Satanae astutia ac stratagemate, ut falsa dogmata de persona Domini Jesu, in Christianis Ecclestis sensim,& quasi gradatim irrepserint, &c. Id. in Proleg. cap. 3. Atque haec nefanda& cum summa diminutione divinae gloriae domini Jesu conjuncts sententia, est illa ipsa quae hody in Christiano orb passim obtinuit ac regnat, qua si illius vim ac rem ipsam spectes, revera negat Jesum esse filium Dei. and contrivance of the Devil have crept into the Church. And indeed it is no wonder it should have such an infamous original, if what he tells us of it be true: for he saith, it is nefanda sententia, an execrable opinion, joined with the highest diminution of the glory of Christ, who is hereby denied to be the Messiah, and the true Son of God. You must know therefore, that this eternal Son of whom we dream, is only the fictitious Haec est doctrina per quam Satanas Hominem Jesum, de solio divinae majestatis ejus in animis hominum deturbavit, aliumque in eo reposuit, qui nunquam in rerumnatura extitit; secundam scil. Trinitatis personam,& fictum quendam Dei filium, qui ab aeterno( id est nunquam) exessentia Dei( qui neque gignere nec parere potest) gen●tus sit. Ibid. and imaginary off spring of mens brain: who never had any being in nature, only exists in the fancies and imaginations curiosorum hominum, of some conceited and whimsical persons. Nothing in nature, nothing in scriptures could possibly suggest any such notion to the minds of men. It is true, the first chapped. of St. John is quoted upon this occasion and to this purpose; but he ventures to assure us, that no man Verum quis homo sanae mentis tantam vim in his verbis, in principio, posset odorari,& rem tam gravem atque incomprehen sibilem ex iis elicere? Id. cap. 5. in his right wits, could possibly find out the Eternity and the Divinity of Christ in that place: And yet all the Christian Interpreters did find out, as they thought, these doctrines there. But these commentators before Socinus, delirabant omnes, raved and talked like mad men, or men in a fever, as an English Socinian words it. Farther, as this opinion concerning the Divinity of Christ, is detestable in its own nature, so is it extremely pernicious in its consequences: for by this stratagem, as the same Wolzogen. tells us, the Devil, who first invented it, hath very notably and effectually compassed his design, Haec est doctrina per quam Satanas at tigit scopum suum. Hacque ratione vera sides salvifica, quae vincit mundum, penitus sublata est; ac omne nostrum solatium ac spes in lubrico posita est. Id. cap. 3. and gained his point. For hereby he hath, if we believe this our adversary, banished all saving faith out of the world; and with it all the comfort of a Christian, and all our hopes of happiness which are hereby entirely subverted. In short, do the modern Unitarians, say that the Articles of our faith, corrupt the purity and simplicity of the Gospel, and give encouragement to a wicked life? so do the In Evangelicorum religione quaedam concedi, quae cum Christi praeceptis pugnant. Atque non paucos esse errores, qui facile veram salutis aeternae viam obscurant, at queen impediunt. Socin. Lib. Suas. Cap. 3.& 4. Ancient and foreign Socinians. Do the former say, that they retard the progress of the Gospel, and hinder the conversion of Jews and Mahometans? so do Vos tlli estis qui sine tropis,& praesertim sine illa vestra Idiomatum communicatione, nihil firm explicare potestis;& per ipsos tropos eas de Deo Christoque opiniones in Ecclesiam invexistis, quae sanctissimam religionem nostram& Judaeis,& Mahometanis omnibus deridendam exponunt. Socin. ad Paraenesin Volani Resp. p. 381. Itaque queen a vobis omnino, vestrisque non sanis verbi Dei interpretationibus, tantae in Dei Ecclesia vastitatis sieve causa sieve occasio profecta est. De o●tu& progressu Religionis Mahometicae Loquitur. Ibid. Quae omnia cum non solum sacris literis adversentur, verum etiam sibi ipsis non constent, immo cum ridicula magna ex parte appareant, efficitur proh dolor, ut Jesu Christi religio sacrosancta& divinissima,& Judaeis,& Turcis,& exteris denique omnib● maxim sit Ludibrio. Id. in Prolegom. ad Explic, Cap. 1. Johan. the latter. Do the former say, that the love of the world beguiles us, and that we are bewitched with a charm of words? so do the latter, who ascribe all our ignorance of divine truths, sometimes to an inordinate love of the world, and sometimes Nihil praeterea absurdius excogitari potest( cvi quidem tota reclamat nature) quam ut trees sint unus, &c. Ex qua opinione innumera portenta oriri nec●sse est l●ng● absurdissima, unde sacra Divinaque Oracula plane subvertantur; ita tamen n●scio qu● pacto Christianorum vulgus fascinatum fuit, vel ita stupidum est, ut omnia hae● non modo constanter credat, verum etiam ab hac fide salutem suam omnino pendere existimet,& sibi ipsis homines illudentes atque imponentes, quod vident, se non videre; quod a●tem non vident, se videre penitus sunt persuasi. Id. v. 14. ejusdem Cap. Tamen quia gustatum tuum ita depravatum, atque ut ita dicam, Papeis Opinionibus infatuatum esse video, ut nihil tibi jam propemodum sapiat, quod à Caenosis istis Lac 〈…〉 haustum non sit( de Patrum scriptis loquitur) tuum tibi Augustinum proferam, c●j●s tantam doctrinae& sanctitatis opinionem Satanas insevit in animos hominum, ut mayor ejus quam Christi doctrinae fides passim habeatur. Nam quum alia multa plane ab Evangelio abhorrentia, tum hanc de Triplici Deo extaticam phantasiam, ex ipsius potissimum commentariorum penu depromserunt, qui Scholastici Theologi nominantur. Ex hoc nimirum vino biberunt illi primi, deinde reliquas quoque gentes temulenti isti inebriarunt, ita quidem, ut jam, quod ebriis accidere solet, pro uno trees, ant etiam plures, perturbata visione aspiciant. And. Dudith. Epist. prius citata ad Theod. Bezam▪ inter opera Socini p. 525. If what Dudithius here affirms of St. Austin and the schoolmen be true, I cannot much wonder at the account which some of the modern Unitarians give of Athanasius, who tell us that he was Drunk when he composed his Creed. For thereby it might happen to him, as it doth to other Intoxicated persons, who behold all objects double or triple: so he, I say, while he was under this disorder might think he beholded pro uno, duos vel trees Deos, two or three Gods instead of one, and accordingly put them into the confession of his Faith. to stupidity and fascination. It being a very common expression with these men to say, that we are occaecati,& fascinati praejudicatis opinionibus; blinded and bewitched with prejudices. These, together with the imputations of stupidity, infatuation, madness, blasphemy, are the decent epithets▪ which they bestow upon the living, these the flowers with which they adorn the memories, and which they cast upon the graves of the dead. But to proceed: By what hath been said, it should seem that the imaginations of men tho never so roving and extravagant, could never have picked up such wild notions, as have prevailed among Christians, had no● the Et licet hoc ipse( Johannes scil.) apertissimis verbis utendo optime praestiterit, non destitit tamen nobis& veritati adversarius, Satan, quoad hominibus persuasit, vocem {αβγδ}, non fuit, said factum est hoc loco significare▪ atque effe●● ut quod validissimum semper Argumentum fu●sset ad errores hosce plate 〈…〉 cos ex Christi Ecclesia exterminandos, omnis fallac●ae potissimum fundamentum extiterit. Socin. Explic. 1. Cap. Johan. v. 14. By this it should seem, that as Hermolaus Barbarus was said to have consulted the Devil for the signification of the word {αβγδ}: so the Christian Interpreters either consulted him in interpreting and translating the word {αβγδ}; or else he of his own accord, over officiously lent them his assistance, and persuaded them to render the word above name, not was flesh, as they should have done, but was made flesh. ● Opinionem istam de uno& trin● Deo, non ●alum falsam, said& periculosam admodum esse censemus, quip▪ quae& de uno vero▪ Deo fidem labefactare posset,& totam salutis nostrae per Christum rationem pervertere; atque id●irco quam maxim possumus eam ex omnium mentibus evulsam ●upimus,& porro pro viribus curamus. Socin. Def. Animadvers. in assertiones Theol. Collegi● Posnan. de trino& uno Deo. p. 634. Dicimus nullum graviorem, contra fidem de uno vero Deo, ab Antichristi spiritu errorem in Christi Ecclesiam fuisse invectum, quam error Trinitatis personarum in una Dei essentia. Ibid. Devil come in to their assistance; who was at the elbow of the Learned and leading men when they wrote their Commentaries,( or their Comments rather, as these men would have it believed) on the Bible. Lastly do the Moderns say, that our opinions directly led men to Atheism? so say the elder and foreign ● Unitarians. I know not what can be said, or thought worse of any men or any opinions than this. But yet I must confess there is some difference still between our Ancient and modern Adversaries. For the latter have been more assuming and arrogant in their writings, whilst the others have put on the semblance of modesty and seriousness. The one have ridiculed our Religion, whilst the other have with great gravity blasphemed it. The one have been humour some and pleasant▪ endeavouring the diversion and entertainment of their Readers; whilst the others are more serious, and seem to be in good earnest in their reproaches of us. In short, the Moderns have endeavoured to expose our Religion to Contemt and derision, whilst the Foreigners labour to create in the minds of men, an abhor●●nce▪ and detestation of it. But tho they have taken different ways, yet they both agree in one common end, and have been but too successful in attaining it, viz. The weakening that esteem and reputation in which our Religion formerly was held, and which it always deserves, in the world. For the reproaches which these men have cast upon us, have been greedily picked up by the loose and the Libertines of the Age, and are with great satisfaction, indeed with a kind of triumph bandyed among them in their clubs and meetings. And the pernicious effects of this are every day too visible, insomuch that we find some ridiculing the mysteries of our Faith▪ others with great vehemence opposing them; and a strange indifference hath diffused itself among divers others; who tho they have not forsaken the profession of the Faith, yet have in great measure shaken off the reverence and concern which they should have for it: so that they are {αβγδ}( if I may be allowed to use that word in the sense as some have taken and rendered it,) do as it were in procinctu stare, being in a very good disposition and forwardness, ready to receive any Religion either with, or without Creeds, with or without Sacraments and a Ministry, if that can be called Religion, where these are wanting. Upon the whole, for my own part, I am of opinion, that Celsus, and porphyry, and Julian may as well be proposed for decent patterns of writing, as these our Adversaries: for there is no expression so rash, no calumnies so virulent, no language so rude and boisterous, which they do not make use of upon this occasion, in order to defame our Religion, and discredit the professors and maintainers of it. Neither is it enough to say, what sometimes is offered in excuse of them, viz. that they do not rail against persons, but opinions: that they show a respect to their Adversaries at the same time that they thus warmly condemn their errors. For first, though it should be allowed, which is not always true, that they do not revile their particular adversaries when they writ against them, yet they speak very opprobriously of Christians in general, and of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church; in which they have been but too much imitated by the Remonstrants. And this I think is more criminal; forasmuch as the reputation of bodies and communities of men, is more sacred, and ought therefore to be had in greater regard than that of particular persons. But 2dly,( which is a consideration of infinitely greater weight in this case) it ought to be remembered, and our Adversaries can never be too often charged with it: that tho they should really observe that good temper in their writings, as never to use the least disrespectful expression towards any man; yet they can never be excused for those blasphemous expressions, which with great boldness and impiety are uttered by them And among them hear what the wise Socinus saith,( that great pattern of Temper, Prudence, and Moderation) who passes this modest and decent Reflection upon those opinions which prevail in the Christian Church, concerning the Trinity and Incarnation, and which are accounted the main and fundamental Articles of our Religion. Verum sperandum est, ut non secus atque portentosa ista Sophist●rum de Eucharisti●●pinio, jam Deo auspice ita palam traducta▪ est, ut pueri▪ quoque eam merito derideant, atque explodant: ita monstrosa haec de Deo nostro,& Christo ejus figmenta; quaeque hoc tempore sacrosancta& omni veneratione dignissima, praecipuaque religionis nostrae arcana esse creduntur, aliquando tandem, Deo volente, ita cunctorum oculis retegantur,& unicuique tanto sint ludibrio, ut neminem non pudeat se hisce fabulis unquam non dicam fidem adhibuisse, said aurem accommodasse. Id. Ibid. against the blessed and adorable Trinity; which they call a false and portentous figment, and the belief of it, they say, hath been the unhappy occasion of many other most absurd and monstrous opinions, which have prevailed in the Christian Church. Against the eternal son of God, the great and blessed saviour of mankind, whom we and all the whole Christian world worship, they utter many contumelious expressions, with relation both to his person and his offices; denying his Divinity, undervaluing his sufferings; speaking of him in the most slight and contemptible manner, calling him fictus quidam Deus, qui nunquam in rerum natura extitit: an imaginary God, a more Idol, and an Idol we know is nothing in the world; to whom the Christian Church very foolishly, first ascribes a divine nature, and then with equal folly, pays divine honors to him. And then as to the spirit of God, the third person in the blessed Trinity, they speak of him with yet much greater contempt; not only degrading him from his divinity, but denying his subsistence and personality: sometimes accounting him only an accident, either a quality, or an operation; at other times in a most detestable manner, styling him a more vapour Vid. The first part of the Preservative p. 63, 64. and exhalation; and by that Blasphemous hypothesis, giving an account of the division and distribution of his gifts and graces: hereby sporting and dallying with him as Children do with bubbles, which may be driven hither or thither with the breath of their mouths. Now if in our discourses and writings, all undecent reflections upon our adversaries are esteemed blameworthy; how much more worthy, not only of blame, but of abborrence and detestation are those rude and scurrilous expressions, which are uttered by them against these two glorious persons in the ever blessed Trinity, whose honor should be infinitely dearer to us, not only than our own mean and inconsiderable reputations, but even than our very lives. Upon these considerations, I confess, I have not without some surprise and wonder, perused certain passages of late, and Vid. Episcop. contra Bodech Cap. 5. heretofore published in commendation of these men; and particularly of the strength and clearness of their reasoning, of their candour and fairness, in the managements of their disputes against us. What can any man think that compares those eulogies, and these expressions transcribed out of their writings? For my own part I must profess, I cannot imagine what good end can be served by such unseasonable and extravagant commendations. On the other hand, I am sure, they do but furnish people with occasion of suspicion that their admirers, out of love and fondness to their persons, without consulting their books, have overhastily ventured to represent them to the world, under these advantageous Characters: or else men may be apt to think much worse,( which yet charity I presume will forbid them to imagine;) that they have not that due regard for the Religion which they profess, or the blessed Author of it as becomes them: both which have been thus violently assaulted, with all the ill arts, and all the ill language which wit heightened with malice could suggest. The second reason which induced me so largely to insist upon those calumnies, and that charge which these men have drawn up against our Holy Faith, and the professors of it, was, that I might hereby justify the endeavours of all such who either by Preaching or writing, by Argument or Authority( and Gods blessing rest upon them who make use of their authority to so good a purpose) make it their business to oppose the attempts of these men, and to stop the growth of their pernicious errors, which have but too far spread themselves amongst us. For if we have any regard for the honor of God, the welfare of our Religion, or our own reputation, we have just reason to be engaged in this vindication; for all these suffer in those unjust aspersions which they in their writings perpetually cast upon us. Many things well deserve to be spoken on this subject, which I shall defer at present, and reserve them to be mentioned in the conclusion of this discourse: only there is one thing which is fit to be insisted upon here, as being pertinent to my present design, and will help to make good the charge which I drew up against them in the beginning of this discourse, viz. that hereby they do, tho not directly oppose, yet secretly undermine the authority of the Holy Scriptures; and give men just cause, if what they say be true, not only to suspect, but plainly to deny their truth and inspiration. For if the Articles and mysteries of our Faith are, as we say, revealed in the holy Scriptures; and if those very mysteries, are, as our adversaries say, such absurd, impious, monstrous, blasphemous opinions; it must by a direct and necessary consequence follow from hence, that the Scriptures are so far from having God for their Author, that no honest or wise man could be concerned in the composing and publishing of them. It will be said, that these Doctrines are not to be found in the holy Scriptures, but are rather the inventions and additions of fanciful and injudicious men, to say no worse of them. Now how shall this matter be cried? We have always affirmed, that our Religion is plainly revealed in the Bible; that we found it there, and took it thence. They say, it is not contained in the Holy writings, and can never be proved out of them. If we refer men to the plain and express words of Scripture, and bid them make use of their eyes, and peruse what is written there, and then upon a fair perusal, believe the report of their understandings in this affair: then our Adversaries tell us, that we ought not always to collect Articles of Faith, from the Words and Letter of the Scriptures, but from the sense and meaning of them; which may, and oftentimes is really very different, from what the words and letter at first view may seem to import. But how shall we be assured that this is so in this case, and that by forsaking the plain, obvious, natural construction of the words, we shall not deviate from the design and intention of the holy writers? In certain matters which are disputed between us, we say the words of Scripture are to be taken in the literal and natural sense: our Adversaries to avoid the evidence and conviction which arises hence, betake themselves to Tropes and Metaphors. How shall this matter I say be determined? Now one would think, that the fairest proposal that can possibly be made in this case, is, that it should be referred to the arbitration of those who lived in, or next to the Age in which the Apostles and other holy writers lived, who either upon their own knowledge, or by the writings and discourses of such who conversed with the holy Pen-men, might be informed of their true sense and meaning: and consequently we, who live at this great distance from the Apostolical age, by perusing the writings of the Ancients, and finding what was their sense in these controverted points, may be able to form a judgement concerning those Doctrines, which are now generally believed and embraced among Christians; whether they really are the same with those that were at first preached by the Apostles, and entertained by their Disciples and followers. Here we have brought this matter to a short issue, if our Adversaries would join with us upon this head. But they absolutely decline it, for this reason, Quod si statim post illa tempora( scil. Apostolica) aliter de Christo publice doceri caeptum est, ac nos doceamus, nihil permovemur: scientes ab apostles,& ab ipso Christo tenebras istas propediem in Ecclesia futuras praedictum fuisse;& ipsis apostles adhuc viventibus, multos Autichristos extitisse, atque multos falsos prophetas atque Impostores in mundum prodiisse, &c. Socin. ad paraenesim And. Volani Resp. p. 382. Propterea enim ne ista tam sublimia de Homine isto credantur, hominibus imperitis ab ipso ferme initio suggessit Satan, ut locis quibusdam divinarum literarum abutentes,& Sophistleis rationibus ac consecutionibus innixi,& sibi& aliis persuaderent, in Christo Jesu praeter humanam naturam, esse divinam essentiam, &c. Idem Resp. ad praefationem Wieki p. 532. that there was a general apostasy and desection presently after the Apostles times, from the doctrine of the Apostles, in the points which are disputed between us, and particularly in that which concerns the divinity of Christ. For this opinion, they say, was introduced into the Church by Antichrist, many false Prophets and Impostors, even in the Apostles days, going forth into the world, and seducing men into a belief of I know not what fictitious and imaginary divine nature in Christ. Many scandalous reflections upon this occasion are by our adversaries cast upon the first and best ages of the Church, and those great men who lived in them, whose names and writings are transmitted down to us,; whereby, not only the wisdom and integrity of the Fathers are called in question, but with them, the Authority and Inspiration of the holy Scriptures are dangerously shocked, and by these means brought into great doubt and uncertainty, as shall hereafter be made more largely to appear. Well: but tho the opinions of Fathers and Councils ought not much to be regarded, who are said to be parties, and therefore ought not to be judges in the case; yet I hope we may with some appearance of reason appeal to other more indifferent persons, I mean Jews and Pagans; who tho they are infinitely prejudiced against the truth of our Religion, yet may be presumed to be competent judges of the sense and meaning of the words of Scripture, in such matters, which are as our adversaries themselves aclowledge, so plain and obvious, that none who are masters of common sense and reason, if they are not otherwise biased, can possibly be led into mistakes about them. Now if we consult the writings of the Ancients, as far as we have any records left us of these matters; we shall find those above name enemies of Christianity, always {αβγδ}. Orig. contra cells. lib. 3. p. 135. Christianos Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, dicere solitos, testatur Plinius Epistola 97. Lib. 10. charging the Christians with the belief of those doctrines, viz. concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our saviour▪ which are now in dispute between us and the Socinians. It is true indeed, they accounted these Doctrines as the Socinians now do, absurd {αβγδ}. Tatianus Ora. contra graecoes. {αβγδ} &c. Orig. contra cells lib. 7. p. 338. and impossible, and for that very reason, defamed the Christian Religion, and rejected the holy Scriptures in which they found that these doctrines were evidently contained. But this confirms what we are saying, that these mysteries of our Faith are plainly delivered in the Scriptures, and that all unprejudiced Amelius the Platonist upon his reading the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel, understood the words as we Christians now do; and found those doctrines which we contend for, viz. the Divinity, and incarnation of the word, together with the creation of the material world by him; plainly delivered there. {αβγδ}. &c. Amelius apud Euseb. de praepar. Evang. Lib. 11. Cap. 19. And Julian the Apostate, tho he would have it believed that the Christians of after-times ascribed a divine nature to their saviour, without any warrant from the Apostles, and that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke ever called him God( which was a very false and impudent suggestion) yet from those clear and irrefragable testimonies which are to be found in St. John's Gospel, he is forced to aclowledge, that the Divinity of Christ is declared there. To which he hath nothing to reply; but being pinched with a Testimony which he could not elude▪ he falls a railing and blaspheming, as the Socinians use to do in the like cases. {αβγδ} &c. Apud cyril. Lib. 10. contra Julianum p. 333. Edit Paris. persons who do not look thro Socinian spectacles, did, and do still find them there. Neither can it be here pretended, that the enemies of our Religion, either thro ignorance mistook, or thro malice perverted the sense and meaning of the holy writings, in order to expose both them and our Religion to the hatred and contempt of the world. For tho they might, and very often did, very ignorantly and very maliciously object divers false things against the Faith and practise of Christians; yet no such thing ●an with any ground or colour be suggested in this case. The Bishops and Fathers of the Church, who were concerned in the vindication of their Religion, never made any such answer, viz. that these were calumnies and false imputations upon them and the Scriptures. No: they owned the charge; acknowledged {αβγδ}. Est objectio Tryph. Resp. Justinus: {αβγδ}. Just. Martyr contra Tryph. p. 292. Edit. Paris. indeed that these were Mysteries which reason could not comprehend, but however still that they ought to be believed, because God required our Faith, which in these matters ought to be conducted, not by the uncertain reports of bare reason, but a more sure word of prophesy, and the light of divine revelation. But of this more hereafter. To conclude this head: The Socinians sometimes tell us, as we heard before, that our doctrines concerning the Trinity and Incarnation, are the great hindrances of the propagation of the Gospel among Pagans and Mahometans; and therefore, that in order to gain Proselytes to our Religion, we ought to part with the Mysteries of our Faith, which are the great stumbling block in the way of these Infidels. But I say this alone will not be effectual to the purpose, as long as we retain the Scriptures, where these doctrines are very plainly contained; and where Jews and Mahometans will be sure to find them. Neither is it to be imagined, that in the interpretation of Scripture, they will ever be governed by the figurative and sophistical expositions of the Socinians, against the plain natural signification of the words. You may as soon prevail with them to part with their senses, and make them believe the words are not to be found in the Scriptures, as persuade them that the received sense and meaning is not there likewise. And therefore upon occasion, some of them have declared, that if they could but believe the truth of the writings of the New Testament; they would soon believe the Divinity of our saviour, and would adore and invocate him as God. In short, to gain the good opinion of Infidels, and to reconcile them to our Religion, we must not only part with our Articles, but likewise turn Traditors, and deliver up our Bibles. And then perhaps, in compliance wiht so great and extraordinary a compliment, they may receive us into their friendship. Having thus seen what opinion the Socinians have of the Doctrines and Mysteries of our Faith: I now proceed to show what it is that they say of the grace of Faith, and the act of believing. And here upon examination we shall find that they entertain as low, mean thoughts of the habit and grace of Faith, as they do of the objects of it. For they often tell us, that piety Vera pietas, vitaeque innocentia totam religionem comp●ectitur Socin. Praef. in Resp. contra Palaeologum. Ad Christi aspectabilem Ecclesiam constituendam nihil aliud requiritur quam vera cognitio praeceptotum Christi. Si quis cognoscere velit ad salutem aeternam ad piscendam nihil aliud requiri quam conservationem praeceptorum Christi, praeter multa ipsius Christi verba id apart significantia,& alia complura ipsius Apostolorum dicta, legal Johannis primam Epist. &c: Id. Epist. 2d. ad Matth. Radecium. Est quidem Deus& Christus fundamentum saluti● nostrae, said non quatenus eorum essentiam aut substantiam recte novimus; said quatenus Dei voluntatem per Christum patefactam tenemus. Vita aeterna est cognoscere patrem illum, qui est ille solus verus Deus& quem misit Jesum Christum. At in sacris literis Deum& Christum cog. noscere non significat utriusque essentiam vel substantiam novisse, said voluntatem 〈◇〉 queen se obedientem praestare. Ibid. Primum igitur interroge, quid censes de Christi natura sieve essentia nobis cognitu esse necessarium? Resp. Id ut antea dixi, sine cujus cognitione voluntas Dei erga nos per ipsum Christum patefacta â nobis vel sciri, vel servari nequeat. Interrog. Quid igitur ex iis quae ad Christi naturam vel essentiam pertinent ejusmodi esse censes? Resp. Vix quidquam. Id. Christ. Rel. Inst. breviss. p. 653. Inter plurimos looos. id apertissime, docet divina illa Christianae pietatis Epitome, quae est apud Paulum. Tit. 2. 11. ubi breviter habetur, quicquid Christus ejusque Apostoli nos Dei nomine docu●runt, nihil esse aliud quam vitae innocentiam cum spe beatae immortalitatis conjunctam. Id. de Fide& Operibus p. 624. and a good life is the sum and abridgement of all Religion; that no other knowledge of God is requisite, but that of his will and commands; that Faith, as it implies the assent of the understanding to the truths of the Gospel, is not of necessary obligation, but a kind of ornament at best, rather than a mat rof real use. Admit it brings some small advantages with it, yet the want or absence of it will be attended with no great inconvenience. You may say of it, as one did of the skill or art of Poetry, si adest, laudo, si abest, non multum vitupero. In short, what the Apostle affirms of meats 1 Cor. 8. v. 8. may be equally verified of Faith, It commendeth us not to God, for neither if we believe, are we the better, neither if we believe not, are we the worse: mode vitae sanctimonia salva sit, provided you preserve a due regard for holiness, and live a good life. Now any man that reads the New Testament, and particularly those passages above quoted out of it, wherein he will find the necessity of believing repeated so often, and mentioned so emphatically, may justly wonder, how it is possible for any one who owns the authority of the Gospel, to elude the force of them. And yet this is done by Socinus and his Disciples and Followers, who tell us, that by Faith in the forementioned places, is meant nothing else but obedience 2 to the precepts of the Gospel; so that Credere; with him is, obedire sub spe vitae eternae, to yield obedience to the Laws of Christ; Fide in ipsain Deum▪ id est▪ fiducia in ipso Deo collocanda, justificamur, Quest. des obedientiam praeteptorum Christi, non quidem ut effectum suum, said ut suam substantiam& formam continet& complectitur. Socin. Notae in Dial▪ de Justif. p. 610. Fidem nempe eam qua justificamur, nihil aliud esse quum Christo confidere, id quod executioni mandatur, suumq●e con 〈…〉 noum& quasi formam suscipit, cum pen spem vitae aeternae Christi praeceptis obedientia praestatur. Id. de Fide& Operibus. p. 626. Et alibi passim. being animated and encouraged so to do, by the hopes and expectation of eternal Life. Now this is contrary to the express declarations of the holy Scriptures, in which we find Faith and Obedience very often distinguished; as certainly they are, in all those places which make Faith the cause and principle of new obedience, as when it is said, that FAith purifieth the Heart, Acts 15. 9. that it worketh by Love, Gal. 5. 6. Now the cause and the effect, can never be one and the same thing; otherwise the greatest contradictions imaginable must from thence follow: As, that the same thing may be, and may not be at the same time; may be before, and after itself. In short, there is no ill consequence that can justly be charged upon Transubstantiation, which exceeds those, in point either of absurdity or danger, which are lodged in the bowels of this assertion, viz. that good works are the formal notion of Evangelical faith. This renders the Apostle trifling in his exhortation, and guilty of such weakness and vanity, as were not to be excused in the most trivial Writers. This is a faithful saying, saith he to Titus, and this I will that thou affirm constantly, that they who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works, Tit. 3. 8. Why should the Apostle make use of such a solemn preface, and urge in so emphatical a manner, that which when examined, amounts to so mean and empty a tautology: It being as if he should have said, I require thee to charge men solemnly, and often to put them in mind of this matter of great importance, viz. that they who obey the commandments of Christ, should be sure to be obedient to them. Indeed, if he had said, I require that they who already do good works, should be sure to persevere in them; there might be room and reason for such a command and admonition. Otherwise, if faith and obedience are not to be distinguished, there could be no ground in this place for this exhortation. I will show thee my faith by my works, saith St. James, 2 James 18. v. A very notable discovery indeed, if these two are but one and the same thing; viz. that a man should discover his works by his operations, and demonstrate his obedience by his conformity to the Laws of Christ. It is true indeed, a lively and a firm faith cannot be separated from good works: but however it may, and must be distinguished from them, as the cause and principle from the Effect, the root from the branches. Otherwise we shall turn things upside down; make no account whether the foundation or building be uppermost, and thereby occasion a strange and wild confusion in the order of Nature and Religion. I shall farther aclowledge, that faith, by a Synecdoche, or a metonymy rather, sometimes comprehends not only the persuasion of the mind concerning the truths of the Gospel, but likewise all that, which by a necessity either Natural or Moral flows from it: and so it may be allowed( as our Divines have rightly stated this matter) to take within its compass the consent of the understanding, together with the affections of the mind, and those actions likewise which are consequent to a firm persuasion. Yet so, that in the first place, in its primary and most natural signification, it denotes the assent of the understanding: and therefore by no means, without great injustice, as well as absurdity, can faith be taken to signify the latter, viz. obedience, so as to exclude the former, which is the cause and parent of it. For obedience is no otherwise to be styled faith, but because it flows from faith; that is, when the truths of the Gospel make such a deep and lasting impression on the mind, as thereby to influence the life and practise. Perhaps it will be said, that the Socinians will make no difficulty to aclowledge, that this faith or persuasion of the mind, is antecedent to obedience and the principle of it: but that they do not conceive it to be any otherwise useful or necessary, than as it respects the Arbitror autem ea quae hactenus a me dicta sunt, satis esse ad demonstrandum, tur, cum de Christi fide verba fiunt, siduciam potissimum intelligam quae in ipso Christo coilocetur, id est reipsa obedientiam praeceptorum ejus, sub spe eorum quae promisit atque affirmem hanc fidem esse illam Christi fidem qua revera justificamur, non autem persuasionem illam quod Jesus sit messiah. Id. Socin. De fide& Operibus, p. 61▪ Commands of Christ, as those commands are enforced by the promises thereunto annexed, and the hopes and expectations which are thereby conceived of Eternal life. All other faith relating to the Quod ad illas opiniones attinet quae ad Christi naturam vel essentiam p●rtinent, vixullae sunt ex quibus quantumvis falsis consequatur, eum qui illas tenet non credere Jesus esse Christum. Id. Comment. in 1 Epist. Johan cap. 5. v. 1. Person of Christ, and all other knowledge and inquiries after his Nature, they say, are superfluous, or as some of them have expressed it, impertinent to our Lords design. Now this I say, is directly repugnant to the plain and express declarations of the holy Scriptures, which describe faith in Christ to be a firm persuasion of the truth of certain propositions concerning Christ, which are grounded upon his authority, and either respect his Offices, or relate to his Person. And this faith is required of us as a virtue highly commendable in itself, and an especial Instrument of our Salvation: it being a necessary condition required of us antecedently to our partaking of the benefits and privileges which our blessed Saviour hath purchased for us. In short, we are required to believe him to be the Christ, the son of God, the Saviour of the world. For God did not think fit to dispense those great blessings which have been procured for us to any, but such as should own and aclowledge him from whom they are derived; as also by what means they were at first obtained, and by which they are still to be applied. And therefore they that thus believe, viz. that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; are said to be born of God, 1 John 5. 1. To dwell in God, and God in them, 1 Joh. 4. 15. To overcome the world, 1 Joh. 5. 5. To be as sure of everlasting life as if they were in actual possession of it. He that believeth in the son of God hath everlasting life, Joh. 3. 36. On the other hand, they who do not thus believe on him, are said to make God a liar, because they believe not the record which God gave of his son, 1 Joh. 5. 10. who hath declared more than once by a voice from Heaven, that he was his beloved son. Nay, hereby they do not only dishonour God, but bring also inevitable ruin upon their own Souls; being already under condemnation and the wrath of God abiding on them, 3 Joh. 18. 36. Thus we see the sense of the Scriptures concerning this matter, which all along put a great stress upon Faith, as it bespeaks the assent of the understanding, and persuasion of the mind concerning the truths of the Gospel, and particularly this great truth that Jesus is the Son of God. And this alone might be abundantly sufficient to convince any honest and unprejudiced mind, not only of the usefulness, but likewise of the absolute and indispensible necessity of believing. But forasmuch as this is a matter of great importance, in which the honor of our blessed saviour; the truth and authority of the holy writings, and particularly those of the New Testament; the excellence and indeed the certainty of the Christian Religion, are highly concerned: I shall farther enlarge upon this Head, and endeavour to lay before the Reader sundry of those evil and pernicious consequences, which are included in, and unavoidably follow from the contrary opinion, which makes faith either an useless, or at best but an indifferent matter. And first I say, this opinion tends plainly to the dishonour of our blessed saviour, and to weaken that veneration which every one who is called by his name ought to have for him: To have just and right conceptions of him, being the first act of honor, and the foundation of all other expressions of homage and duty which we owe him; and therefore if we have not a true information and knowledge of him as to his nature and essence, it is impossible for us with any certainty, or with any safety, to pay him that adoration and service which may be claimed from us. Upon this account, we find him in his Sermons and Discourses, making it his business to inform the people upon all occasion▪ of his nature, descent, and original: always declaring that he was the son of God, that God was his Father, that he was the Messiah the saviour of the World, that he came from God, that he was the living bread which came down from Heaven. Nay he doth not only bear witness of himself, but for the farther confirmation of this great truth he appeals to the Scriptures, Jo. 5. 39. which testified of him; to the Miracles which he wrought v. 36. which proclaimed his Divinity, and were a clear proof of the truth of all that he had averred of himself; to the testimony of John Baptist v. 33. who bare witness unto this truth. For he saw the Spirit descending from Heaven and remaining on him, 1 Jo. 33. And what he saw himself he published to others, and bare record that he was the son of God v. 34. Nay to place this truth above the reach of all doubt, he appeals, as to the last and greatest confirmation that could possibly be given of it, to the Testimony of his Father who sent him v. 37. and by a voice from Heaven more then once bare witness of him, and declared that he was his well beloved Son, Mat. 3. 17.& 17. 5. Now to what purpose should our saviour take all this pains to inform his Hearers, so often to inculcate, and by so many arguments to confirm this matter, if it were not of great consequence, highly fitting to be made known, and therefore necessary to be believed? And therefore we find that he was desirous to know, if I may so say, not only what effect his doctrine had upon the minds of his hearers, but what opinion they had of his person, whom do men say that I the son of man am? Mat. 16. 13. The same question he repeats to his Disciples, that they might declare their apprehensions of him, but whom say ye that I am? v. 15. To the man cured of his blindness Jo. 9. 35. the question that he puts to him in order to his being admitted one of his Disciples, was, dost thou believe on the son of God? which Faith plainly respected the person, and not directly or immediately the commands of Christ. For the answer returned, was not which be those commands, but who is that person, v. 36. who is he Lord that I might believe on him? And upon this discovery made by our saviour of himself v. 37. the blind man declares his Faith and acknowledgement of him, that he was the son of God; and as a sign of his inward Faith, he pays his outward adoration Lord I believe and he worshipped him, v. 36. Thus, St. Thomas his Faith did not consist formally in obedience, but in the acknowledgement of Christs person, Jo. 20. 28. My Lord and my God. And this persuasion of the mind, and confession of the mouth, which is the consequence and proof of the former, is not only a duty, but a duty so acceptable to God, that our saviour more than once pronounces a blessing to it; first here in his discourse with Thomas v. 29. because thou hast seen; thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Where the word Believe in the Antithesis, must be taken in the same sense as it is used in the former part. Now in the former it is plain, it is used to denote the assent of the understanding; for St. Thomas his infidelity did not consist in immorality and disobedience, but in a distrust of the truth of what the Apostles had related concerning the resurrection of Christ. His faith consequently consisted in an assent to and acknowledgement of what he before doubted. The same blessing, and for the same reason our Saviour pronounces to St. Peter; viz. for his glorious Confession and acknowledgement of his Divinity, mat. 16. 17. Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and hlood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. It is true indeed, and therefore must be acknowledged, that this persuasion of the mind, and a Confession consequent thereupon of the Divine Nature of Christ, without a Conformity to his Laws, will not be sufficient to recommend us to the favour of God, and to give us a title to the blessing pronounced to them who believe. But this will not overthrow the truth of what I have now asserted, viz. that faith in this sense as we now take it, is a duty highly acceptable to God, and of as necessary obligation, as is any other of the graces of Gods Spirit, tho none of them in separation from the rest will give us a title to happiness. For instance: Temperance and Chastity are virtues highly commendable in themselves, and therefore serve to recommend us to the favour of God; but if they are found in any person, where truth and justice are wanting, they alone, without these latter virtues will never procure us a reward. Yet however, this will not hinder, but that these good qualities, are, as we said before, in themselves very acceptable to God, and of necessary and indispensible obligation. The case is the very same with faith. If any man therefore should put the question from St. James, 2d. ch. 14. v. and ask, if a man have faith, and have not works, can that faith save him? I Ans. by no means: we may roundly and peremptorily declare that this faith, tho' it should be joined with fiducia, a strong confidence, or if you please, a recumbency on Christ, will not, it cannot save him. But will it therefore follow, that it is not acceptable to God, and absolutely required of us? No, this can as little be allowed as the former. That which can reasonably be collected from hence is, not that it is not necessary, but that it is not the only thing that is so. I know it will be here said, that this faith, as it is terminated in the person of Christ, doth not properly respect his Nature, but only or chiefly his Offices. So that when we are so often required in the Scriptures to believe in Christ, the meaning of it is, that we should believe him to be the Messiah, without troubling ourselves or others with any curious but needless inquiries after his Nature and Essence. Answ. The Scriptures declare the contrary, that it is not sufficient to make an acknowledgement of his Office, without the knowledge of his Nature; as is evident from those places before mentioned, wherein he is declared, and we are therefore required to believe him to be the son of God: the writings of the New Testament, every where laying a particular stress on this phrase, and requiring of us to believe in him, in this determinate sense and notion; viz. That he whom we own to be our saviour, Jesus Christ, is the son of God. This was that which he always averred and declared of himself. The same likewise was constantly affirmed and preached by his Apostles; firmly and universally believed by all his friends, and followers; objected against him by his enemies, and drawn up into an accusation and charge by the Jews. We have a Law( say they) and by that Law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God, Jo. 19. 7. Nay the very Devils proclaimed this great truth, unwillingly to be sure, but yet publicly and loudly they declared, what at the same time they trembled at the mention of, proving the Heralds of his Divinity; for Mark 3. 11. we are told, that unclean Spirits when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, thou art the Son of God. I know it will here be replied by some, that it is true indeed, we are obliged in Scripture to confess and aclowledge our saviour to be the Son of God: but by this phrase is meant no more, but that we should believe him to be the Messiah; these being Synonymous terms, both the one and the other of them serving to denote to us, not the nature, but the offices of our blessed saviour, and particularly his office of being our King, so that to believe him to be the son of God, imports no more than to aclowledge him to be the Messiah: That is, to submit to his Authority, to own him for our sovereign, and ourselves for his Subjects; and in pursuance thereof, to promise all due submission to his Regal power, and obedience to his Laws. This is a notion that was at first started by Si quis diligenter inspiciat factam ad Christum à Caiapha& aliis Judaeis interrogationem, an esset Dei filius, intelliget omnino, aliud nihil eos, filii Dei,& quidem singularis cujusdam filii Dei nomine intellexisse, quam Christum, &c.& postea, ex quibus constat, unicam esse interrogationem,& verba illa, ille filius Des, fuisse adhibita, ad magis declarandam illius qui Christus sit dignitatem atque praestantiam: non ad aliquid addendum quod Christi appellatio per se non complectatur. Socin, Resp. ad Wiek. Oper. Vol. 2. p. 571.& alibi passim. Socinus, and afterwards greedily embraced by divers others; and particularly by Mr. Hobbes, that great promoter of useful notions among us, both with relation to Religion, and Civil Government; from whom the Author of a late Treatise entitled, the Reasonableness of Christianity, might have borrowed his thoughts of this matter. Tho it must be confessed that some other persons, of a much greater and better name and note, have likewise recommended the same notion: I mean Vide illius Comment. in Mat 14. v. 33.& cap. 26. v. 63. Grotius and Quid ergo; inquies, sibi volverunt ista locutione, quando confitebantur Jesum esse filium Dei? Certe aliud nihil, quam Jesum esse Christum, sieve Messiam aut Regem illum Israelis promissum, quem, quia Rex singularis erat, unctusque oleo laetitiae supra consorts suos, filium Dei {αβγδ} vocaverunt; prout patet ex eo, quod Nathaniel vocem illam filii Dei, exponat, tu es Re● Israelis. Et quod confessionem illam Petri, tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi; Marcus& Lucas non aliter referant quam hisce verbis, Tu es Christus,& Tu es Christus ille deal, id est, Rex ille Deo unice gratus,& Deo proximus Episcop. Inst. Theol. Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Sect. 2. De Deo. Episcopius, whose Authority and Learning have lead divers others into the like dangerous mistake. I Ans. therefore, that these two phrases of being the Messiah and the son of God are not equipollent phrases, nor have they therefore the same formal import and signification; the one properly denoting the Nature, and the other the Offices of our saviour. It is true indeed, they are often joined together; but the reason why they are so joined is, because the nature and the office did meet in the same person. He who was the Messiah was truly the son of God: and none but only he who was thus the son of God, could execute the office of the Messiah. But however the formal notion of these Epithets given our saviour is different, as denoting and signifying two different things; as will appear from these following considerations. First, that to be the son of▪ God plainly denotes the nature and essence; but to be the Messiah, the office of our saviour, as was said before. And this will appear from the writings of the New Testament, where we find these two Titles, of being the Messiah, and the son of God, very plainly distinguished: without which distinction we cannot clear the Scriptures from the imputation of needless, and sometimes absurd repetitions. For tho in some places, these phrases may seem to be so joined together, as if they were Equivalent, and only Exegetical of each other; yet in others they are placed in such a manner of distinction, that they cannot be supposed to be of the same import, without allowing a manifest and a very impertinent Tautology. And thus( for instance) they are distinguished in the Eunuch's answer to the question of Philip, Acts 8. 37. I believe( saith he) that Jesus Christ is the son of God; or that the son of God is Jesus Christ▪( for so the words as they stand in the Original, may be reciprocally rendered) yet in both cases, the one of these standing in the place of a subject, and the other of a predicate, they cannot denote the same thing, without supposing, that the grave and solemn profession which this new Convert made of his Faith, should consist in a ludicrous, because Identical predication: It being at this rate no other than if he should have said, I believe that Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ. Thus Saul after his Conversion▪ in the Synagogues at Damascus, is said to have preached Christ among the Jews that were there; and the substance of what he Preached was, that he was the son of God, Acts 9. 20. The like confession of his Faith was made by St. Peter, both for himself, and in the name of the rest of the Apostles, Jo. 6. 69. We believe and are sure, that thou art that Christ, the son of the living God. Now as when the Scriptures inform us, that some believed, and others proved and demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ; it must from thence be evident, that to be Jesus, and Christ, must signify two distinct things; for the same thing cannot, except very foolishly and impertinently, be affirmed, and much less be demonstrated of itself. So when the same holy writings acquaint us, that some persons in the solemn declarations of their faith, professed that Jesus Christ was the son of God; and that others by reason and argument, made it their business to prove and demonstrate him to be so: we ought to conceive, that to be Jesus Christ, and to be the son of God, are two phrases that import two different things: otherwise we cannot acquit those holy men who made those professions, and were engaged in that proof, from the imputation of folly and impertinence. Once more, if these places should not be sufficient to silence the Cavils of our Adversaries, yet one would think that the words of St. John, ch. 20. v. 31. should put it beyond all doubt. In which the Apostle gives an account of the reason that moved and induced him to commit to writing the History of our saviours life and actions, viz. that we might be thereby prevailed on to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and not only so, but that he likewise was the son of God. By which phrase, it is plain that he meant to assert the divine nature and Godhead of our saviour; the proof and vindication of which, against the impious Opinion of Cerinthus, who denied his Divinity, was the chief design of our Apostle and Evangelist in writing his Gospel, as Lib. 3. Cap. 11. Ireneus and cattle. Script. Ecclesiast. And the same is affirmed by Euseb. viz. that St. John wrote his Gospel to assert the Divinity of our saviour; tho he doth not make mention of Cerinthus his Heresy as the occasion of his writing. {αβγδ}. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 3. Cap. 24. St. jerome assure us. And this distinction the Jews very plainly and clearly understood. For when our saviour assumed to himself the denomination of being the son of God, they took his meaning to be, that he thereby professed himself to be the natural son of God, and not only a son by adoption and favour, as he must be supposed to be, if he were no otherwise the son of God, but because he was the Messiah. For the consequences which they drew from this affirmation of his could not agree to one who was only a son by adoption. For Jo. 5. 18. by saying that God was his Father {αβγδ}, his own proper Father in a peculiar, sense, they drew this conclusion, that he made himself equal to God, i.e. of the same nature and substance; otherwise it was not possible to suppose any such equality. So again Jo. 10. 30. by his affirming that He and his Father were one; they infer, and infer rightly, that he thereby plainly made himself God, v. 33. Once more at his arraignment before Pilate, these two affirmations of his, that he was Christ, and that he was the son of God, gave occasion for a double charge and indictment against him. Both indeed by the Jews were accounted Capital Crimes, but yet of a different nature: the one being a crime against the State, the other against God and Religion. For in that he said he was Christ a King, this they improved into an accusation of High Treason, Luke 23. 2. we found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give Tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. So Jo. 19. 12. whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar. But in that he said he was the son of God, this was always by them accounted Blasphemy, and a sin directly and immediately against God. The High priest when he heard that he owned himself to be the son of God, and that as such, he should sit on the right hand of power, rent his Clothes, and said that he Blasphemed, Math. 26. 64, 65. And Jo. 19. 7. we have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God. From all which it appears, that to be the Messiah, and to be the son of God, signify two different things, and therefore are not equipollent terms. 2dly, This will farther appear from hence, viz. that our saviour was the son of God before he was the Messiah, and therefore these two phrases cannot denote the same thing. He was not the Messiah, as that bespeaks him to be a Mediator between God and men, before the fall of Adam; nor was he so, as to the actual and complete execution of that office, for many ages after; even till his assuming our nature, and his being born and brought forth into the world. But he was the son of God before the fall of Adam, nay, before the foundations of the Earth and the World were laid, even from everlasting. 3dly, The ground and foundation of these two titles is vastly different: the one, viz. that of his being the son of God, being founded in an eternal generation; the other, that of his being the Messiah, in designation and appointment, and a mutual agreement between him and his father. Which furnisheth us with a 4th, and an unanswerable reason against this assertion, viz. that to be the Messiah was but a voluntary, and therefore in itself a contingent matter, and that in two respects, the first whereof respects the fall and misery of man, which was antecedent to his redemption and recovery: so that if man had not sinned, as he might not( his sin being the result of his own freedom and choice) the son of God would never have been the Messiah. The second respects the gracious, but free pleasure of God. For after man had sinned, he might and must have been irrecoverably ruined and undone for ever, had not God in great compassion found out a way for his deliverance: which deliverance was the result of mere mercy, and founded in mutual but voluntary compact between the Father and the Son, as was said before. But that our saviour should be the son of God, this did not depend upon arbitrary consent and pleasure; but upon a natural, necessary, and therefore an eternal generation. I confess these three last reasons will signify little with a Socinian, who denys any other nature in Christ, then that which he had, and received in the womb of the Virgin; or any existence, antecedent to his Birth and appearance in the world. But however they must be of irresistible force against all others, who agree with the Socinians in this notion, and yet aclowledge the Divinity and eternal generation of our saviour; who was therefore the son of God, both before, and for a reason vastly different from that whereby he was constituted the Messiah, as is fully and plainly acknowledged by Episcopius; who yet in direct opposition to that acknowledgement, confounds these two titles, which ought very carefully to be distinguished. But he did it to serve a very ill purpose: not indeed to impugn the truth and certainty of this great Article concerning the divinity of Christ, but to overthrow the necessity of believing it; and thereby he dangerously weakens, not to say undermines that important truth, which he had before not only plainly affirmed, but likewise very clearly, and I think unanswerably vindicated. I say he hereby weakens that great Article of our Faith; and the reason why I say so, is this, because if Christ be God, as he grants he is, it can be for no other reason, but because he is the natural and eternal son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds: by which eternal generation he had the divine nature communicated to him, and thereby became truly and properly God. If any man therefore shall say, that the Godhead of our saviour is not included in that style and phrase of his being called the son of God, I must aver that by so saying, he doth not only weaken, but by consequence subvert, as one of the clearest, so likewise the fundamental proof of his Divinity. All other proofs of it which are taken from the name, operations, and perfections of the Deity, which are ascribed to him in the Scriptures, being founded upon this Title and supported by it. For when he is called God, and the Divine works and attributes are ascribed to him, we must not think that he is God distinct from his Father, but one with him, partaker of the same divine nature and essence. Neither must he be supposed to have this divine nature and essence of and from himself, but from the Father, of whom he was begotten before all Worlds. In short, if he be not the son of God by a true and essential generation, then it is certain that he is not God. But if he be God by virtue of his being the son of God, then whenever we own and profess him to be that Son, we must at the same time allow, that the divine nature and substance was communicated to him from all Eternity, by a true, proper, tho mysterious and ineffable Generation; for who can declare it? When I say the divine nature was communicated to him from the Father, I mean the same individual, numerical divine nature and substance; and so must every one else mean, that acknowledges and rightly believes the eternal Generation of the Son. By which phrase we understand, and therefore are obliged to believe, that the son of God was not made or created, ex nihilo, as the Arians of old blasphemously affirmed; but begotten of the substance of his Father; not by the substance, that is, by the Omnipotent substantial power of the Father, for in that sense the whole world, and every thing in it, may be said to be produced by the substance or substantial power of God the Father; but ex substantia, of his substance, which was, as we before said, communicated to him from all eternity. Now the substance of one person, whether finite or infinite, cannot be communicated to another, but either in part, or in whole: no other way of communication is conceivable. When the substance is communicated but in part, as it is in all finite Generations, whether of men, or other Animals and plants,( and it is impossible it should be otherwise there) then this partial communication is the foundation of a specifical likeness or Identity between the person begetting and the person begotten; and because the Father cannot communicate his whole essence and substance to his Son, therefore it is impossible that the son can be consubstantial to his Father,( I speak of men) i.e. partaker of the same numerical human nature; for if so, the Father and Son would be but one and the same man. But because the son is so begotten of the substance of his father, as to be partaker of it only in part, out of which part his complete essence and nature is made and framed;( the same indeed in kind, but yet numerically distinguished from that of his father) therefore the father and the son to all intents and purposes must not only be two distinct persons, but likewise two different men. But in the Divine Generation things are quiter otherwise. For here, because it is repugnant to the infinite perfections of the divine nature, to be divided or separated into parts; therefore, if it be communicated from the father to the son, as the Scriptures assure us it is, then it must be communicated whole and entire, without repetition or multiplication, and consequently without the least difference and distinction. And therefore the Fathers when they speak of this divine and ineffable generation of the son of God, teach us carefully to avoid entertaining in our imagination, any mean and cornoreal representations of this matter; we must not think of any {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}, any division, section, or separation of parts; but we must believe that the whole divine nature is perfectly and entirely communicated from the father to the son; which because it can neither be divided, nor multiplied, nor consequently numbered, therefore it must be the same numerical, individual nature in both, without the least imaginable difference or distinction, as was said before. In short, they who assert only a specifical Identity of nature in the father and son, must either with the Arians affirm, that the Son was made {αβγδ}, non natus, said factus, that God the Father, by his Almighty power, created a divine person like himself, and formed him out of nothing: or else they must believe that but part of the divine nature, as in human generations, was communicated to him, out of which his whole essence and substance was framed: whereby he became a God of the same kind with his Father, but not of the same individual substance with him. Either of which affirmations, must be extremely erroneous, and directly repugnant both to natural reason, and revealed religion. By all that hath been said, it is evident, that when our saviour affirmed of himself, and his Apostles afterwards, in pursuance of the commission which they received from him, published and declared to the world, that he was the son of God, meant, that he was the natural son of God, partaker of the same divine nature and substance with his Father, and therefore truly and properly God. Now the same persons, viz. Christ himself and his Apostles, do not only plainly declare him to be the son of God, but as plainly and positively require us to believe him to be so, and that under no less a penalty than eternal damnation. So our saviour himself, Jo. 3. 18. He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God. and v. 36. He that believeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. So his Apostles, and particularly the beloved Disciple, who restend his head in the bosom of his master, and knew his mind and meaning, as well I dare say, as Grotius, or Episcopius, or any the most Learned Interpreter of Scripture that ever was in the world; this beloved Apostle I say, is very copious and pathetical in urging the necessity of this faith, which we are now speaking of, 1 Jo. 4. 15. Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Again, who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the son of God? ch. 5. 5. This was the main scope and design of all his writings, to form in men a persuasion and acknowledgement of this truth. These are written,( saith he, speaking of our Savior's appearing to his Disciples after his resurrection, and the things which he spake and did in their presence) that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name, Jo. 20. 31. And these things, saith he in his catholic Epistle directed to all the Churches, have I written unto you, that ye might believe on the name of the son of God, 1 Jo. 5. 13. It is true indeed, and must not be denied, that our saviour is in the Scriptures styled the son of God upon other accounts than this that we are now insisting on, viz. his eternal generation. But then I say, it matters not upon how many accounts, and for what other reasons he may be called the son of God, provided it be acknowledged, as it is by the persons with whom we are now disputing, that he is truly and properly so called, because he is the natural and eternal son of God: whenever he is called so upon any other account, it is only in a borrowed and figurative sense: the eternal generation being the only true, proper ground of that appellation, whereby he is in a more emphatical manner called the son, and the only begotten son of God, by way of eminence, and therefore by way of appropriation, in which neither man, nor Angel, nor any other creature can share with him. In this sense, as we shewed before, our saviour, and his Apostles, affirmed of him that he was the son of God; and for such, they likewise require us, under the greatest obligations imaginable, to own and acknowledge him. We must believe him so to be the son of God as to be equal to his father, because one with him, which Christ affirms of himself, Jo. 10. 30. And tho our saviour in that Chapter justifies the assuming to himself the name of the son of God upon the account of his mission and consecration to the high and noble office of a Mediator or Messiah, ver. 30 yet it is plain even in that place, that he doth not insist chiefly on that reason, but declares himself to be the son of God in a higher and more sublime sense. For after this answer of his to the Jews, which was only responsum ad hominem; he justifies his former assertion, viz. that he and his father were one; and appeals to his Miracles as the clear proof of what he thus affirmed of himself, v. 37. If I do not the works of my Father, that is, such as none can do but he that is God, believ● me not, i.e. to to be what before I affirmed of my relation to God, that he is my Father. But if I do, i.e. the works of my father, then in all reason ye ought to believe that the Father is in me, and I in him; or which is the same tho in other words, that I am one with him, as I affirmed before. Again, we must believe him to be the son, and the only begotten son of God, who as St. John saith, was with God in the beginning, and was God, by whom all things were made, and without whom was not any thing made that was made, Nay the famed St. John will tell us, 1 Jo. 5. 10. that if we do not believe him thus to be the son of God, we make God a liar, because we do not believe the record which God gave of him, who by a voice from Heaven, more than once, declared him to be his beloved Son. What can be said to avoid the force of such plain and express declarations of Christ and his Apostles in this affair? why it is said, even by them who own the eternal generation of our saviour,( for with the Socinians I am not now discoursing) that it is a necessary duty to believe him indeed to be the son of God; but that it is only necessary to believe him to be so, in one of the inferior and Metaphorical significations of that word, but not in the true and proper, tho the more noble and sublime. Now this I think at first view to any unprejudiced person may justly seem a strange answer, for in all words which are capable of two senses, the natural and proper is the primary, and therefore ought in the first place, and chiefly to be regarded: and the Figurati 〈…〉 especially if it be subordinate, as it is in the case now before us, is to be considered secondarily, and therefore in a more remote and inferior sense. It will▪ be said, that the Metaphorical and less proper sense, may yet be of greatest importance, as it is in the case before us, it being upon many accounts necessary to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and in that notion the adopted son of God; but it is not of the like consequence to believe him to be the eternal son of God, and thereby partaker of the same divine nature with his Father. To which, tho several things might be replied, yet the answer that I at present insist upon is this, that we cannot rightly and truly own him to be the Messiah without believing him likewise to be the son of God; I mean so, as to be partaker of the divine nature, and therefore truly and properly God: forasmuch as no person less than God could discharge the offices, and perform the functions, which were to be executed by the messiah. As will appear by a particular consideration of those offices, and the duties and actions which belong to them. But before I proceed farther in this matter, I must premise two things. 1st, That when it is said, as it is on all hands, that it is necessary to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, I presume it is agreed upon at the same time, that this faith doth not consist only in the pronouncing and affirming these words, but chiefly in the acknowledgement of the thing that is intended and signified by them: for without the sense and meaning the words are but a dead Letter; and tho we should pronounce them never so often, nor ever so vehemently; yet if we do not attend to the thing signified thereby, our confession of this truth will signify no more than the chattering of a Magpie, or the prating of a Pa●on, which may be taught to pronounce words by root without any knowledge of their meaning. 2. That whatever general faith in the Messiah might be sufficient for the Jews before Christ's coming, or for such who lived presently after it, before these matters relating to his person, and offices were plainly and fully revealed; yet the same will not be sufficient now for such who live within the pale of the Church, and to whom those doctrines are clearly and evidently discovered, and sufficiently proposed: of such I say, it is required, that they should not only believe in general that Jesus is the Messiah: but, to render that faith effectual to the purposes for which it is enjoined, it is farther required, that they( provided that they have capacities to perceive and understand what is thus revealed) should acknowledge and believe, that he did such things as a Prophet, Priest, and King, which were necessary for him to perform as a Mediator between God and man, in order to procure the favour of the one, and the Salvation of the other. And these we say he could not do, if he were not God, as well as man, which I am now to show. And first, I say he could not be a Prophet, nor execute the duty of it, in such a manner, as the Scriptures assure us he did, except he were God. For he was to declare and publish to the world such sublime truths as no created knowledge could possibly discover, no finite understanding comprehend. And this both with relation to the nature, perfections, Math. 11. 27. and counsels of God, which none could possibly find out, but he who was in the bosom of the Father; who hath indeed declared and published them to the world, as was formerly shown. Perhaps it will be said, that he was no otherwise privy to these secrets, than as God the father thought fit to make him so, by a voluntary discovery first to him, of what thereby he was empowered to reveal to the world. And to do this, doth not necessary suppose in him a divine nature; all that may be inferred from thence is, that by a particular act of Grace and favour, he was admitted into a more intimate view of the nature and decrees of God than any other: no such knowledge being ever communicated to any other person, as was freely and graciously bestowed upon him. I Ans. That this was not that in which his superlative dignity above all other Prophets consisted; but he is in the Scriptures plainly distinguished from them, upon this account, viz. that he was enabled to make this discovery, not by an occasional and arbitrary communication; but by a permanent, necessary and abiding principle of infinite knowledge in himself, and which he no otherwise received from his Father, than as he did the divine nature itself, which was communicated to him, by a natural, necessary, and eternal generation. He is closely and intimately united to his father; he is in the father and the father in him, whereby they mutually comprehend, and are comprehended of each other. So that he perfectly and at one view beholds the infinite nature and perfections of his father, and is privy to all his counsels and decrees. And as the Spirit of a man is conscious to all his own motions, cogitations, and resolutions, without the help of any foreign and new discovery: so the Spirit of God knows all the things of God, which none else could know but by the help of that spirit. But the spirit itself knows them by his own intimate union with God, whose spirit he is, who searches all things, even the {αβγδ}, the deep things of God, 1 Cor. 2. 10. Now this spirit of God, is likewise the spirit of Christ, which was in the Prophets of old, and spake by them 1 Pet. 1. 11. And it was the same spirit which animated and instructed the Apostles, leading them into all truth, who, as our saviour saith, should be given to them by the Father, Jo. 14. 16. But yet in the succeeding ch. Jo. 16. 7. he tells them, that he would sand him likewise, viz. the Comforter, who was the spirit of truth, who was given them on purpose, to led them into all truth, v. 13. of that ch. He was to receive from Christ what afterwards he was to show unto them, v. 14. So that he was the spirit of the Father, and the spirit of the Son; who proceeded from both, and was sent by both; for all things that the father hath, saith Christ, are mine, therefore said I, he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you, v. 15. To conclude this head: he, who by a permanent and abiding principle of knowledge within himself, and not by a delegated and arbitrary communication, comprehends within the vast and mighty compass of his understanding the whole divine nature, and all the perfections of his Father, and is privy to all his secrets, as a mans Soul is conscious to all his own thoughts and resolutions; he who is the eternal word and wisdom of his father, who knows all that the father knows, and hath revealed such things which none could possibly discover but the eternal spirit, who lies in the bosom of God, and thereby searches the deep things that are lodged there: He must be endowed with infinite knowledge, and be partaker of the divine nature, as well as the divine secrets, and therefore must be God. And for this reason we ought to submit our reasons, and resign our understandings to his authority, it being part of that homage and divine worship which is due to him. And therefore in matters of faith we must be content with his affirmation, whether we do or do not comprehend those divine truths which he hath revealed. Which comprehension ought to be of no regard in these matters, it being extrinsical to the true and formal reason of believing; which is not resolved into the evidence of the thing, but into the authority of God, and the truth and certainty of his Revelations. But 2dly, Let us consider him as a King, and then we shall find that none could execute the Regal office in such a manner as it was to be administered by the Messiah but he that was God. And that first, if we consider the vast extent of his dominion, which was to reach over the whole World; the Heavens and the Earth and all things in them; Men and Angels, both good and bad, were to be the Subjects of this mighty Empire. All things are put under his feet, and he is made the head over all things to the Church, and for the sake of it, Eph. 1. 22. He is placed above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is name, not only in this world, but likewise in that which is to come. v. 21. Upon this account he is styled the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Rev. 8. 5. Rev. 27. 14. It is true indeed, this power is said to be given him, as the reward of his obedience and sufferings. But we must know, that antecedent to this gift, he was possessed of a natural, inherent and essential sovereignty, and which he no otherwise received, as was before observed of his infinite knowledge, then as he received the divine nature itself from his father, to which this power is necessary and essentially annexed. And as to that other power which was bestowed upon him as Mediator, by way▪ of gift; he could not possibly have been capable of it, if he had not been God as well as Man. For who can be fit to be entrusted with so vast a sovereignty over all parts of the Creation, but he who was the Creator of them. None but the eternal God, can be the Lord of Heaven and Earth: It is the style and appellation by which he is known, and by which he is distinguished from all false Gods. No Creature is capable of being advanced to so great and high a dignity: because this were to place him upon the same level with the supreme God; which cannot be done, without confounding all distinction in point of greatness and power, between God and the Creature. And the like confusion it must inevitably bring between both, in the duties of Homage and adoration, which are founded in the abovenamed prerogatives of sovereignty and power; quiter contrary to the express and solemn declarations of Gods pleasure in this case. For we find him at the same time, and with the same solemnity, asserting the Unity of his nature, and the Unity, if I may so speak, of his worship. Thus Esay 45. 22, 23. I am the Lord, and there is none else. And by myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth in righteousness and shall not return:( the Decree we see is immutable and irreversible) unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swoar. These being the acknowledgements of his infinite sovereignty, in which none can share with him, without a high encroachment on his divine prerogative, and a manifest violation of his commands and pleasure: for he hath solemnly and frequently declared, that this his glory he will not give to another. And yet it is as plain that he hath partend with it to the Messiah: For God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, Phil. 2. 9, 10, 11. And accordingly we find him that sitteth on the Throne, that is, God the Father, and the Lamb, that is, the Son, joined together in the same expressions of adoration, and in the highest strains of them, for Rev. 5. 11, 12, 13. we find the Angels who were about the Throne, and the Beasts and Elders, the number of which was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands: and together with them, every Creature which is in Heaven and Earth and under the Earth; and such as are in the Sea and all that are in them, ascribing blessing and glory and power, unto him that sitteth on the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. By which it appears, that they are joined together in the same act of adoration, without any difference or inequality. Now then we must either assert, that the Son of God to whom these divine honors are paid, is really partaker of the divine nature, as well as these divine honors: or else we must make Idolatry, viz. the ascribing divine worship to a creature, an uncertain arbitrary matter; not founded in the eternal and unalterable laws of reason, and the nature of things; but depending upon the positive, and therefore mutable declarations of Gods will and pleasure. And if so, then the Heathens were guilty of no such great crime, as hath hitherto been imagined, if of any at all, in giving religious worship, either to Angels, or the souls of pious men; or other eminent parts of the Creation: forasmuch as God having made no such plain and positive revelation of his mind to them in this case, they must upon this supposition, be left to the uncertain conduct of their own humors and fancys, or if you please their Reason: which yet must be supposed to be left at liberty to make choice of any convenient objects for divine worship; since there were no eternal and unchangeable rules of nature, to direct and determine its choice. But 2dly, That none could execute the regal office, as it was to be administered by the Messiah, except he were God, will farther appear from a consideration of those actions in which the exercise of this sovereignty doth consist; as also of those reciprocal duties of hope, trust, dependence, and an entire submission to his authority, which are required of us; all which do necessary suppose in him infinite perfections, and cannot be performed by us, without the supposal of his Omnipresence, or at least of his Infinite wisdom and power: as is acknowledged by Socinus and his Disciples. Now to suppose a finite being, capable of these infinite perfections, which are requisite for the discharge of this office, is one of the greatest absurdities imaginable, and indeed can amount to no less, than a plain contradiction: because it must quiter alter the natures, and take away the distinction of things; and with it all truth and certainty, which must hereby be entirely subverted and destroyed. And he that can say or affirm this, may with equal right affirm or deny any thing at his pleasure, and if he will persist in it, he can neither be convinced nor confuted. Now the force of this Argument in order to prove the divinity of our saviour, which is taken from the consideration of those divine perfections of infinite power and knowledge, which are requisite for the discharge of the Kingly office of the Messiah; and that divine worship and adoration, which is the necessary consequence of that supreme authority and those infinite perfections; is fully acknowledged, and by clear and unanswerable arguments proved, and made out by the Socinians, and those other Unitarians, who in the point of Invocation, and the adoration of our saviour, differ from Socinus. I mean one part of the Argument is acknowledged by Socinus, and the other by the other Unitarians: and the whole is clearly demonstrated by both, which is sufficient for our purpose. And 1st, That Christ is possessed of those above name perfections of Et propterea in hoc& superiori loco( scil. Apoc. 2. cap. 23.& Heb. 3. 5.& 6.) Christo simpliciter& absolute tribui agnosco, quod corda hominum noscat& scrutetur: quod de nullo prophetarum unquam dictum fuit, aut dici potuit. Socin. Resp. ad Wiek. p. 616. Quilibet ratione praeditus, si modo sacris literis fidem adjungat, cum videt in ipsis expressum esse, Christo à Deo datum fuisse omne judicium, nihil prorsus dubitat Christum hominem omnia nosse quae à nobis agantur, cum judicium sine cognitione exercere nequeat. Socin. contra Franken. p. 771.& contra Francis. Dav. p. 739. infinite wisdom and Quamvis Christus non est creationis socius, est tamen divinae potestatis socius. De potestate autem loquimur summa, cum imperio videlicet ac dominatione conjuncta; qualem una cum divinis scriptoribus affirmamus eam esse, quam Christus ex Dei patris dono habet. Id. contra Frank. p. 773. In Christo ipsa Dei potentia, divinitas atque majestas residet, atque relucet. Id. ibid. p. 769. Nego falsum esse, Christum in Ecclesia participem esse omnipotentiae. Ibid. Dico igitur, verum esse solius Dei esse facere miracula: nec quisquam miracula facere potest ipso non dante& concedente. Haec autem datio& concessio varia esse potest,& amplior restrictiorve, prout ipsi Deo visum fuerit. Praecipua vero differentia in eo consistit, an potestas data& concessa in eo ipso resideat cvi data est, ejusque arbitrio perpetuo permissa, atque ejus propria facta: an vero non in eo ipso resideat cvi data est; said ad arbitrium dantis ei sit concessa; ita ut precario, non autem domini titulo eam possideat. Christo ut omnium domino& haeredi universorum designato, ipsiusque Dei personam plenissima ac singularissima ratione in terris, in iis quae ad salutem nostram aeternam pertinent, sustinenti, talem potestatem Deum dare miracula faciendi decuit, qualem priore loco descripsimus. Id. Resp. ad Wiek. p. 616. Apostol●rum potestas in eo diversa potissimum à Christi potestate fuit, quod ipse virtute patris in se manente& fecit,& facit; illi virtute quidem eadem, said non in ipsis▪ verum in Christo residente faciebant, in cujus nomine operabantur. Id. Resp. ad Francisci Dav. Defensionem. p. 727. Nihil prorsus est contra Scripturae sacrae analogiam, si dvo aequalem potestatem in Ecclesia habere dicantur. Agnoverunt Judaei Christum seize ●uadam ratione Deo parem facere, Jo. 5. 18. Et ipsum in forma Dei,& aequalem Deo fuisse aeperte testatur Paulus, Phil. 2. 6. Quam aequalitatem ad potentiam operandi referri debere, loci ipsi manifestum faciunt. Nullo autem modo absurdum est, ut dvo sint aequalem habentes potestatem, quorum tamen alter alteri subjiciatur& subordinetur, ita ut non duae said una potestas censeatur. power is confessed by Socinus, as being absolutely necessary for the execution of that supreme sovereignty and dominion, with which he is now invested in Heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God, men and Angels, and the whole Creation being now subject unto him. 2dly, That being possessed of this divine power, and those perfections, he is thereby become the object of religious invocation and worship. And this is not only acknowledged, but earnestly contended for by Socinus: who in several places in his writings, declares this to be a necessary duty, Video nihil in tota Christiana religione majoris momenti edi posse, quam h●c sit, demonstratio videlicet, quod Christo Invocatio seu cultus divinus conveniat. Sic vera Christi potestas& majestas ostendetur,& in omnium animis conformabitur: sine cujus cognitione▪ nec Deus ipse, ne● quidquam rerum divinarum recte cognoscitur; salutis nostrae ratio revera ignoratur; ipsius Christi universa religio in dubium revocat●r; aut saltem mutationi& fini in hoc ipso saeculo obnoxia redditur, &c. Socin. de Invocatione Chr. Tom. 1. p. 353. without which we cannot be Christians, nor be entitled to any of the benefits which Christ hath purchased for us. From hence it must follow, that the belief of that one Article, that Jesus is the Messiah, even in the judgement of Socinus himself,( tho upon other occasions it be often affirmed by him) is not sufficient to make and constitute men Christians; except they likewise believe, what he saith, and saith rightly is the unavoidable consequence of that concession, that he is likewise to be adored, and that it is lawful to make our addresses to him by religious invocation. The contrary opinion, which was maintained in his time by Palaeologus, Francis David, Franken. &c. is condemned by him as a damnable error, which overthrows the Christian Religion; and thereby renders those who entertain it, unworthy of the In posterum, abastis omnibus qui Christo Jesu adorationem& invocationem, cultum denique divinum non concedunt, diligentissime nobis caveamus, neque cum i●s qui tantae blasphemiae vel suspecti quidem sunt, quicquam commercii habeamus. Idem ad Synod▪ Chmeln. Epist. ●od. Tom. p. 397. Unus etiam,( de Palaeologo loquitur) atque adeo ni fallor, praecipuus fuit ex antesignanis illorum qui Christum nec adorandum nec invocandum esse hody affirmant,& tamen se Christianos esse impudenter profitentur, quo vix quidquam scelestius in religione nostra depravanda excogitari posse existimo. Merito igitur talis homo talem finem est sortitus, ut cum sui nominis perpetua ignomin●●,& ● quod multo pejus est, ainae aeterna jactura magnae illi meretrici( Romanae scil. Ecclesiae) denuo seize adjunxerit. Id. Resp. ad Wiek. Tom. 2. Oper. p. 538. said quid pluribus opus est, cum tu ipse evidenter testeris, eum qui Christum invocandum negat, ne● potestatem, nec gubernationem Christi in Ecclesia agnoscere, sine qua agnitione& professione, nemo salutem per Christum adipisci potest. Epist. 2. Joh. Niemjo. ad Faust. Socin. eod. Tom. p. 470. Communion of the faithful, and much less fit for the sight and enjoyment of God. That is in short, it excludes men out of the Church here, and will shut the doors of Heaven against them hereafter. Now from these two premises which Socinus hath furnished us with, upon good reason and great authority, the other Unitarians have drawn this infallible conclusion; that if Christ be possessed of the before mentioned divine authority, and perfections, and be the object of divine worship, he must therefore infallibly be God. Si Christus invocandus& adorandus est, dvo manifeste pugnantia cum verbo Dei admitt●ntur▪ primo Christum esse illum unum verum Deum qui Israelem ex Aegypto duxit, &c. Fran. Davidis contra Socin. p. 751.& 742. Dato quod Christus ipse potestatem efficiendi habet,& facultatem praestandi, ut habeamus vitam aeternam& resurgamus, optimo jure jam Deus non officio, said natura proprie dici potest& debet, Id. p. 737. These being the clear and unanswerable proofs of his Divinity; forasmuch as none but God can have the infinite perfections of the Godhead, and thereupon be capable of divine worship and religious invocation. And indeed the connexion between these two things is so evident, that Socinus and his followers dare not deny it: but on the other hand, contend earnestly for it, as for an undoubted and an important truth, viz. that Christ since his ascension into heaven is Consecrated and deified, and thereby become Nec nos, Christum dominum Deumque nostrum esse negamus, immo& ultro profitemur,& vehementer gloriamur. Socin. contra Eutrop. p. 707. Nemo profecto, qu● mente non caret, negaverit eum in quo plane divina virtus relucebat, Deum ob id ipsum merito dici potuisse,& porro fuisse. Id. ibid. p. 641.& alibi passim. Verus Deus, a true God, made indeed and constituted such, Deus factus, but however possessed of a true and real Divinity. I need not here acquaint the Reader what opinion Socinus and his Disciples have of the Divinity of our saviour, as it is owned and stated in the catholic Church: How they load it, together with the other Articles of the Christian faith which have a connexion with it, with all the heaviest and most scandalous imputations, that wit heightened with malice could possibly suggest. Particularly, that it is a foolish and absurd opinion, repugnant to their clear and distinct Ideas and perceptions; and therefore, that it is so far from being an incomprehensible truth, that they plainly comprehend it to be a contradiction to our natural notions, it being a brutal and inexcusable error, repugnant to common sense as well as true reason. Now let us examine this matter a little, and with the Readers leave and patience, fairly compare the Doctrine of the Christion Church concerning the Divinity of our saviour, with what these men affirm of it: and then I doubt not to make it appear; that all that charge of absurdity and nonsense, which( with equal falsehood and impudence) they load our doctrine with; is justly to be laid at their door, and retorted upon this new and monstro●s opinion of theirs. Which is infinitely derogatory to the honor of God, repugnant to his divine nature and perfections, and tends plainly to undermine the foundations of all Religion, which can never long subsist where the right notions of God, and the distinction between him and his creatures are plainly subverted, as they are by this opinion. 1st Then: The Christian Church believes and professes that Christ is true God, and therefore that he is the eternal God; who had his being before the foundation of the earth and the world was laid, even from everlasting: necessary existence, and therefore eternal duration, à parte ante, being included in the notion of God. It is true indeed, he hath not his Godhead of and from himself, but from his Father, of whom he was begotten. But however this doth not depend upon arbitrary consent and pleasure, as we before observed, but upon a natural, necessary, and therefore an eternal Generation. The Socinians on the other hand tell us, that he is a God, distinct from his Father, and not only so, but that he is a junior and a modern God; made and constituted such, the other day, by the appointment of his Father. So that his Godhead is purely an arbitrary and contingent matter, not arising from any necessity founded in the nature of the thing, but perfectly owing to divine Grace and favour. Now let any honest and unprejudiced reader fairly compare both these accounts, and then impartially pass sentence, whether of them seems to be most agreeable to plain reason. Will not natural reason {αβγδ}. Stob. Eclog. Phy. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. ,( I mean where it is not corrupted and depraved) agree with the declaration of the Christian Church, that if Christ be God, he must be so from all eternity? yes undoubtedly it will. Indeed the Christian religion farther informs us, that he hath his Godhead communicated to him by way of Generation, being begotten of the substance of his Father, which because it cannot be either divided or multiplied, must be one and the very same in both. This we must aclowledge to be a great and deep mystery, not to be found out, and much less fathomed by our shallow finite understandings. But yet at the same time we must affirm, that tho it surpasses our reason, it contains nothing that overthrows any plain dictate of it. For tho it must be confessed, that this may be repugnant to common notions and those Ideas which we have of finite beings, whose nature and essence cannot be communicated without being multiplied and divided into parts; but must it from thence follow, that it is contrary to any plain Idea and notion that we have of an infinite being? No, neither logic nor Divinity will teach us to make any such inference; but rather the quiter contrary, viz. that since we cannot form a complete and adequate conception of all the powers and perfections of the Godhead which is infinite; that therefore things may be so as the Church declares, for ought that reason can show to the contrary: nay that they must be so, since this account is supported by a supernatural and divine revelation. It being highly reasonable to conclude, that God almighty best knows his own nature, and the manner▪ of its subsistence; and therefore that the account which he gives of himself being certainly true, ought to be believed and entertained, tho we cannot comprehend it. On the other hand, the Socinian account of the divinity of Christ, is directly contrary to reason, and overthrows two principal dictates of it, concerning the Unity, and the necessary, and therefore eternal existence of the Godhead; both which are plainly included in the right notion which we frame of it. 2dly, The Church saith, that if Christ be truly God, and not only such in a figurative and metaphorical sense: that he must therefore be partaker of the divine nature and substance. Every thing being what it is by virtue of its nature and essence. If a man be a true man, he must be partaker of a human nature, and a true Angel must partake of the nature of an Angel: And the like must be affirmed of every thing else, whether created or uncreated, finite or infinite, the reason being the very same and common to them all. But the Socinians on the other hand say that Christ is truly God, and yet at the same time that he is a mere man; That he is See the first part of the Preservative, p. 9, 10. Deus verus, as Socinu● calls him, Deus eximius, as Wolzogen. nay not to aclowledge him to be a true God, is to renounce the Christian Religion, saith Smalcius and yet they affirm that he is not any way partaker of the divine nature. Which is all one, as if a man should assert, that there were a true Triangle which had never an Angle in it, a square without ever a side, a figure without a line, a sentence without words, or a word without ever a letter. None of which can contain a greater absurdity than to say, that there is a true God without the Godhead, a divine person without a divine nature. Which is not only a false assertion, but a plain contradiction, and downright nonsense; If I may be allowed upon this occasion to make use of those decent characters, which these men at every turn bestow upon the sublime Articles of our holy faith. Perhaps it will be said, that the Socinians when they affirm Christ to be a true God mean that he is so only with respect to his supreme dominion, and those divine perfections which are necessary. for the exercise of it. I know they do say so, but by this saying they are so far from clearing the point, that they confirm the former objections, and perplex this matter with new difficulties. For 1st, They suppose him to be a true God without a Godhead, which is nothing else but the divine nature. For tho he should be possessed of the dominion and perfections before mentioned, without the divine nature, if that were possible; yet this would make him a God only in a figurative sense; by a metonymy of the subject for the adjunct; but he could not be Deus verus, which they always affirm. It is true indeed, this supreme power is a clear proof of his Divinity; but then it doth not constitute but suppose him to be God. As the Regal power doth not make the King a man, but suppose him to be such, otherwise he were not capable of it. But 2dly, By this answer they separate that which is essential from its proper subject, and thereby overthrow one of the first, and most universally received principles of Reason and Philosophy. For this sovereignty which we are now speaking of, is not in God as it may be in men, founded in compact and voluntary consent; or owing to the appointment of any superior power from whom it may be derived: but it is foundin the divine nature and perfections, and more immediately in those actions of Creation and providence, which necessary suppose that divine nature, without which they could not be performed. So that this dominion over his Creatures is a natural and necessary sovereignty, always inherent in the Godhead, and cannot be separated from it. And so are likewise those before mentioned perfections of power and wisdom, which are necessary attributes or properties of the divine nature. So we must be allowed to speak of them in the present case; tho really and truly they are only different conceptions of one and the same simplo and uncompounded nature. To this it will be farther said, that it is true, these attributes are originally and essentially in God; and in Christ only by way of participation, being communicated to him from God the Father. Be it so, but then we must inquire, whether the divine nature be not likewise communicated with these divine perfections? If they say no it is not; then I say these following absurdities and plain contradictions, must be the unvoidable consequences of that affirmation. 1st, That what is essential may be separated from its proper essence: i.e. the divine perfections from the divine nature: which must entirely destroy all true notions of God, and utterly confounded all distinction between him and his creatures: I mean as to his nature and essence. For allowing that these attributes are originally in God, and by way of communication in his creatures; this will argue only a subordination and dependence, but will be no argument of any difference of nature between them. Now forasmuch as the nature of things in themselves are hide from us, and that we cannot either know or distinguish them but by their properties and operations: if the properties of God can be communicated to men, then the essential distinction between God and man must hereby be confounded and utterly lost. 2dly, From hence it must follow, that what is peculiar to one may be common to many, who may receive what cannot be bestowed, and participate of what is incommunicable. These things being included in the notion of a property; proprium quarto modo,( and such are the divine attributes) that it can neither be separated from the essence, nor communicated to any other. Now that the same thing should be proper and yet common, communicated and yet be incommunicable, can amount to no less than a palpable contradiction. Lastly, From hence it must follow, that a finite creature is capable of infinite perfections: which is infinitely a greater absurdity then to affirm, that not only the writings of Homer, but all the water in the Ocean may be comprehended in a mercers-chapel. For supposing for once, that the properties could be communicated; yet one would think it were impossible that they should be communicated to a subject that were not capable of receiving them. That maxim being of undoubted and eternal truth, that quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis. A rational creature can undoubtedly receive different degrees and improvements of knowledge; but yet this must be still with respect to its own powers and capacities. For as no agent can do more than he hath power of doing: so no patient can receive more then it hath a capacity of receiving, which always supposes a proportion between them. Now there being no proportion between finite and infinite; it must therefore be impossible that a finite being, whose faculties and capacities are finite likewise, should be possessed of infinite power and knowledge, because this were to suppose that it actually enjoyed more than it was capable of receiving. If it should be said that the capacities of Christs human nature were by the almighty power of God enlarged, whereby he became in a condition to receive what otherwise he was not naturally capable of. I Ans. That the capacities of Christ could not be enlarged beyond the fixed bounds and limits of his nature, which being finite, can admit of nothing that is infinite. And therefore the question which will arise from hence must be, whether the nature of Christ be enlarged as well as these supposed faculties and capacities. If they say no, as they do, and are positive in it; then I must affirm that this supposition is irrational and groundless, and is liable to all the absurdities before mentioned: in making a finite being, while it continues such, to have an infinite capacity: which is absolutely impossible and more difficult to be conceived; than that the dimensions of a mans hand, while that continues the same as to its substance, should be so far extended, as that within its compass it should be able to grasp not only the globe of the Earth, but likewise the vast and prodigious circumference of the Heavens. In short then, and to bring this matter to some Issue: Are not the perfections of infinite power and wisdom proper to God? This cannot well be denied. 2dly, Doth not the supreme dominion with which Christ is invested, necessary suppose those infinite perfections, without which it could not be exercised? This likewise must be granted. But will it not therefore follow in the last place, that therefore Christ is God? Here one would think that Socinus should be so entangled that he could not easily disengage himself. But tho you tie him never so fast, and think you have him bound hand and foot; yet by the help of some strange and unforeseen distinction, he presently sets himself at liberty. For when urged and pressed with this objection by Christian Franken in the dispute between them about the divine worship and adoration of Christ; Socinus answers, that Christ indeed is partaker of the divine perfections, and particularly of Omnipotence, but it is only in a certain respect; viz. in Ecclesia, Ob. Franken. Si Christus particeps est adoratiouis, ergo& particeps est Omnipotentiae ac reliquarum proprietatum Dei, said hoc est falsum, Resp. Socin. Nego esse falsum Christum participem esse Omnipotentiae in Ecclesia. Franken. Omnipotentia, sieve in Ecclesia sieve extra Ecclesiam est proprietas solius Dei. Socin. Absoluta Omnipotentia est proprietas Dei. Et postea, Deus simpliciter est infinite oimpotens. Christi Omnipotentia est in Ecclesia tantum. Franken. Ne gladium in tenebris ventilemus, quaero quid voces Omnipotentiam in Ecclesia. Socin. Omnipotentiam in Ecclesia voco datam Christo potestatem servandi omnes qui ipsi obediunt. add& ea omnia faciendi quae ad Ecclesiam quocunque modo pertinent; sieve ad universam sieve ad partem ejus, seu denique ad singulos quosque qui ex eo numero aliquaratione sunt. Hanc potestatem, agnoscit Socinus tantam esse, ut in suo genere infinita& oimpotens appellari mereatur, quia prorsus inquit, singularis est& divina. Disp. inter Faust. Socin& Christ. Franken. de honore Christ Tom. 2. Oper. Socin. p. 769. in his Church, and with relation to those things that pertain to it. Franken farther urges; that we may not saith he, brandish our Swords, and combat in the dark: Is this power of Christ infinite, or is it not? Socin. Answers, it is infinite, but not absolutely so, but( as he said before) only in his Church. An arbitrary and a very senseless distinction. For he acknowledges that Christ is possessed of a power of doing every thing in the Church, & ea omnia quae quocunque modo ad Ecclesiam pertinent: which any way may appertain and be for the good of the Church. And if so, then every thing may come within the compass of this power; because every thing may one way or other, either mediately or immediately, directly or indirectly have some relation to the Church. For within this Omnipotence is certainly included, as the same Socinus confesses, the power of working Miracles, of pardoning sins, of raising the dead, of saving and damning; and in short, of altering the whole course and frame of nature, when it is for the use and service of the Church. All this Christ is allowed to do, and that by a permanent and abiding principle of action within himself. The same question then naturally returns, and we must ask again, is not this power which enables him to do all this, an infinite power? Yes saith Socin. it is, in suo genere prorsus divina& singularis, in its kind absolutely divine, and such as no other Creature is possessed of. Well? but a power that is thus infinite in one kind, is it not so in every kind? Is it not a contradiction to say, that a person possessed of omnipotent power in some cases, is limited in others, because hereby he must be limited and unlimited, finite and infinite at the same time? No saith Socin. it is no absurdity to affirm this of one and the same person, provided it be in different respects, as it is in the case before us. Christs power being as was said before, with respect to his Church infinite; but kept within just limits in respect of other matters which have no relation to it. So that Christ indeed is Omnipotent, but yet he is finitely so; infinite Omnipotence Loc. jam citato. being the sole property of God. But is not infinite omnipotence a ridiculous tautology, and finite omnipotence, a contradictory blunder? Cannot the same omnipotent power which enables Christ to do every thing within the Church, enable him likewise to do any thing out of the Church? From whence must this difference arise? It can arise from nothing, but either first from the difficulty of the things to be done, or secondly, from the pleasure and appointment of God the Father who entrusted him with this power. 1st, As to the difficulty of the things, this can be no hindrance to the power of Christ, which is acknowledged to be infinite in its kind, and then certainly it must be so in every kind: because as all things that are placed out of the reach of a finite and created power are equally hard and difficult; so all things that are possible, to an infinite power are equally easy and capable of being done. It is a ridiculous imagination to fancy that any power should intensively and with respect to the degrees of power be infinite; and yet extensively, and with relation to the objects, should be limited and finite. Can any thing be too hard for Omnipotence? No certainly, for wherever there is this divine power, it must be prorsus divina& in omni genere; it must be so at all times, and in all places, and upon all occasions. But 2dly, Tho it should be allowed that this difference doth not arise from the difficulty of the things to be done, yet it may perhaps be owing to the pleasure of God; who hath entrusted our saviour with this mighty power, but under just restrictions and limitations, viz. that he shall exercise it in the affairs of his Church, but not elsewhere, or upon other occasions. I Ans. That this account, besides that it is liable to those two great absurdities before mentioned, viz. 1st, That God( if he so pleased) might bestow an absolutely infinite power, in its utmost extent, upon a creature: that is, that he might communicate what is incommunicable: for such are the divine attributes, and particularly an infinite omnipotence( I use the words of Socin. that the Reader may not wonder at the solecism) which is acknowledged to be such. 2dly, That a finite being is capable of infinite perfections. And besides these, 3dly, That one infinite power can be controlled and restrained by another infinite power; which is impossible. For tho the persons in whom these powers may be lodged, may be subordinate, yet the powers themselves being infinite must be equal, and consequently both being supreme, one cannot be subject to the other. Otherwise we must suppose the same power to be inferior and yet supreme; limited, and yet almighty, Impotent and Omnipotent; which are terms which destroy one another. Besides this I say, it is directly contrary to the express words of Scripture, and even to the interpretation of those Scriptures by Per mortem& resurrectionem suam, omnem potestatem in coelo& in terra, id est Illimitatum regnum at queen imperium supper omnes creaturas in coelo& in terra existentes etiam supper mortem& Diabolum adeptus est, Wolzogen. Comment. in Matth. cap. 28. v. 18. E quibus omnibus liquido patet, potestatem istam Christo communicatam pro● sus esse divinam, quae se supper omnia( solo tantum Deo excepto) extendit, Ibid. Judivare mundum est proprium Dei opus, verum nune sub novo foedere potestatem judicandi mundum plane& in totum Deus Christo filio suo commisit, adeoque eum dominum omnis creaturae in coelo& in terra constituit, Id. cap. 1. 5. Johan. v. 22. Per sessionem Christi ad dextram patris tam perfecta designatur potestas, quae à superiori potestate nullis certis limitibus circumscripta est, Idem in v. 23. ejusd. cap. Sedere ad dextram Dei dioitur, quatenus absoluta potestate in Dei populum,& propter hunc in caetera omnia gaudet, adeo ut auctore Paulo, Deo patri subjectus non sit, said pro suo arbitrio ac voluntate, in iis omnibus quae legibus divinis plane definita non sunt, cuncta gubernet. Crell. in Epist. ad Heb. cap. 1. v. 3. Illa subjectio omnium rerum sub pedes Christi, adres praeter Deum omnes nulla excepta refertur, Id. ad Epist. primam ad Corinth. cap. 15. ver. 25. the Socinians themselves. In Math. 28. 18. Our saviour tells his Disciples, that all power was given to him in Heaven and Earth. And St. Paul assures us That all things are put under his feet. Every thing in Heaven and Earth, and under the Earth, that is, the whole Creation without exception of any part of it: He only is excepted which did put all things under him, 1 Cor. 15. 27. By virtue of which power he is constituted and appointed heir of all things, Heb. 1. 2. He is Prince of the Kings of the Earth, Rev. 1. 5. Nay Angels, Principalities and powers, both the powers of Heaven and Hell are made subject unto him; He hath the keys of Hell and death, Rev. 1. 18. that is, full power to save and destroy. And can there be any greater. Upon this account the Socinians in the interpretation of these Texts, aclowledge the Empire of Christ to be universal, unlimited, and from which no creature is excepted. That his power is so absolute and perfect, that à superiori nullis certis limitibus circumscripta est. That it first and immediately indeed respects the Church, but for the sake of that, caetera omnia, all things else, which are subject to his pleasure; which are managed and governed, Christus ferebat omnia, quatenus omnia ad ejus nutum ae placitum movebantur: nihil erat quodejus imperio non cederet, non pareret. Ferebat omniapotenti suo verbo, non magno aliquo conatu& molimine opus fuit ut Christus omniamoveret; solo nutu ac verbo cuncta peragebat: quod plane divinum est,& merito is qui id facit, Dei ipslus character& effigies nominatur. Talis nullus hominum extitit, qui virtute in se semper residente quotiescunque velvet, cuncta unico suo nutu ac verbulo moveret. Id. in Epist. ad Hebr. loc. prius cit. solo ejus nutu as verbo, by his single nod and word. Let him but utter his voice, or in the least manner intimate his pleasure, and then all the world immediately submits to his orders, and complys with his commands. The last difficulty with which the Socinian opinion concerning the factitious divinity of Christ is chargeable, is, that thereby as they separate the divine perfections, so they do divine worship and adoration from the divine nature; in direct opposition both to right reason, natural religion, and express revelation. And thereby plainly lay the foundations of Idolatry, and open the doors for it to enter into the Christian Church. Now the danger of Idolatry is both acknowledged, and extremely aggravated by the Vnitarians on all hands. Socinus saith, that it is highly dishonourable to God, and destructive to the Souls of men; Quod ad me attinet, nullum mihi est dubium quin illi omnes sieve Calviniani, &c. qui se ad praescriptum Christi gesserint coelestis vitae Haereditatem adituri sint. De papists idem affirmare nolim, quos omnes hody Idololatras esse statuo. Novi vero, neminem Idololatrarum salutis aeternae compotem fore. Socin. Epist. ad And. Dudith. Tom. primo Oper. p. 502. forasmuch as no Idolater can enter into the Kingdom of God. The English Vnitarians say, that to worship any other person besides the one true God, and to make him the object of our praise, love, faith, devotion, &c.( as the Socinians do Christ, tho he be not in their opinion that one true God) or ascribe to the Gods of our own devising as they phrase it, that is, to any Creature, the glory of the incommunicable properties; viz. infinite wisdom, power, goodness: That this detracts from the glory of God, Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation p 5, 6. and is next door to Atheism. Reflections on two discourses of Mr. Lamoth. p. 8. That it is a sin of so heinous a nature, that it plainly dissolves the Covenant between God and man; and consequently, that they who are guilty of it, are in a desperate condition, out of the reach of mercy, and can have no hopes of it, which are only grounded upon that Covenant. Now if a man were to govern himself by the writings and opinions of these persons, he would find himself reduced to inextricable streights. If you do not worship Christ, say the one, you deny him to be the Messiah, and thereby turn Apostates from the Christian Religion. But if you do pay divine honors to him, you do in effect renounce all religion, and are next door to Atheists. Now since they are so positive and peremptory in this matter, and that the danger of refusing divine honor to Christ on one hand, and that of paying it to him, if he be but a mere creature, is really so great on the other; the conclusion that every one should draw from these different opinions of theirs, is, that the stating and settling the right object of divine worship is a matter of great consequence, in which the honor of God, and the Salvation of mens Souls is nearly concerned. And therefore that it will behove us all to inquire not only into the offices, but likewise into the nature of Christ; which will render faith in his person, as we said in the beginning of this discourse to be not only a duty, but a necessary duty, without which we cannot in point either of prudence or safety govern our actions with relation to him. If we are required to pay divine honors to him, the question that will naturally arise from hence, will be, whether he be the right and lawful object of religious adoration? Otherwise we may before we are ware be guilty of Idolatry, which is a crime of so high a nature, that no wise man, would venture upon any action that might carry the least suspicion that way, without mature deliberation, and clear and full satisfaction about it. Now if he be truly and really God, then it is certain that we may, nay that we must pay him divine honors. But if he be not, then it will be as certain, from the dictates of right reason, and much more so from express and clear revelation, that we ought not to worship him; because we cannot do so, without an open and bold violation of the laws of God, and thereby apparently incurring the guilt of Idolatry. And if any man shall pretend to be satisfied of the contrary, by those shuffling and ambiguous answers of Socinus, and those senseless. and arbitrary distinctions which are made use of by him upon this occasion, by which both Popish and Pagan Idolatry may in great measure be justified; I say he that can receive satisfaction in this affair by these means, against the solemn and reiterated declarations of God expressed in Scripture; for my part I cannot think any such person, can have any great concern for the honor of God, or the reputation of the Christian religion, notwithstanding the pretences which may be made to the contrary. I know it will be here said in behalf of the English Vnitarians, that they are not concerned in this charge: because as they aclowledge Christ to be only a man, so they believe and declare that divine honors are not due to him. I know they do so, and thereby it is plain that they are more consistent with themselves, and act more agreeably to their principles than Socinus and his followers. But yet for all this, they are to be told, that their opinions and practices with relation to our saviour are full of danger to themselves, and infinitely offensive and scandalous to all others. There being no sect or party of men this day in the world, besides themselves and their partisans, who own Jesus to be the Messiah, who do not likewise make him the object of religious invocation and worship: so that hereby they justly come under the same censure which the Apostle passes on the Jews 1 Thes. 2. 15. that they please not God, who strictly requires that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father, Jo. 5. 23. and are contrary to all men, that is all who profess the name of Christ. It is true indeed whilst they are under this persuasion, that Christ is not God, they cannot honestly nor with a good conscience adore and worship him, because it were Idolatry in them so to do. But then they ought to consider that as they are not Idolaters, so on the other hand they cannot bestyled Christians: nay Socinus wonders how they can have the impudence to pretend to that name: who by denying divine honors to Christ, at the same time disown him to be the Messiah. And withall ho affirms that no opinion can be contrived, or thought on, which is more execrable and pernicious to the Christian religion than this of theirs. Upon which account he cautions every body from keeping company, or having quicquam commercii, cum iis qui tant● blasphemiae suspecti sunt, any thing to do with such blasphemous wretches; who in his opinion, deserve not only to be excommunicated out of the Church, but like wise( if we may judge of the meaning of that former expression by his behaviour towards. Francis David to be exterminated out of all Christian states and societies. This may be thought too heavy a censure, but they must thank Socinus for it; and therefore if in this, that wise and crafty man, the great promoter of moderation and indifference in the affairs of Religion, did not act agreeably to his own principles,( as such designing men seldom do) let them on the other hand, pass what censure they think sit upon him for it. I shall leave them to debate that matter among themselves at their leisure. Hitherto we have spoken only of two of Christs offices, viz. his Prophetioal and Regal, and have shewed that they are clear proofs of his Divinity. It remains now in the third place, that we should consider him as a Priest; and then we shall find that he could not execute the several parts of his Priestly office except he were God as well as man. And particularly, that the Sacrifice which he was to offer, and the punishment which he was to undergo for the sins of the world did necessary require it. For he was to stand in the room of sinners, and consequently to undergo the punishment due to their sins. Which he accordingly underwent, whereby divine Justice was so fully satisfied, and so perfect a compensation made for the injury done to the honor and authority of God by the transgression of his Laws; that neither his hatred against sin, nor high displeasure against sinners: neither the sanction of his Laws, nor his veracity which might be concerned in the execution of them: saftly, that neither his authority and government, nor his justice which was obliged to take care of it; could now any longer be an obstacle to the pardon of sinners: because our saviour underwent that punishment which the Law threatened, and their sins deserved. When I say that our saviour suffered the punishment due to us; I do not mean strictly idem, the same in kind; for that he neither did nor could undergo: but tantundem, that which was tantamount, because of equal value, and therefore every way sufficient for the atonement of justice and expiation of sin. Now no creature, no finite being, either Man or Angel, could suffer a punishment that was equivalent to the guilt and demerit of mankind. And therefore if Christ did so, he must be God as well as man. The consequence is unavoidable: We must therefore endeavour to make it out that the sufferings of our saviour were of this sort, which will be abundantly proved from these three following considerations. 1st. Of the end and design of those sufferings. 2dly, of their own intrinsic worth and dignity. 3dly, of the event and consequence of them, whereby it will appear that they did not only equal but indeed preponderate the guilt of the whole world. First, if we consider the end of those sufferings, we shall find one of the principal designs of God in them was, that he might declare to the whole world, his implacable detestation of sin and his high displeasure against sinners; and thereby deter men effectually from the practise of it. The former he could not more clearly demonstrate, viz. his hatred of sin, than by punishing it so severely in the person of his own son: as is evident from those places of Scripture, which mention the sufferings of our saviour, as proceeding from a judicial act of God, showing his displeasure against sin, and condemning it thereby. Hence it is said that he would not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all, Rom. 8. 32. Giving the world hereby an amazing instance both of his compassion to men, and of his indignation against sin, that he would not spare, I say, his own son, when he appeared in our likeness and with our sins. For God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, v. 3. of that ch. That is, in those sufferings which Christ sustained in his flesh, or body upon the across, God passed sentence upon sin and condemned it, and thereby discovered his justice, and demonstrated his displeasure against it. This indeed, notwithstanding the plain declarations of Scripture, is denied by the Socinians; but is acknowledged by Episcopius and his followers, who otherwise in conjunction with the Socinians are the violent impugners of the Doctrine of our Savior's satisfaction: I mean a true and plenary satisfaction made to the justice of God; which they do not only disown, but endeavour likewise to expose under the contemptible name of the doctrine In eo errand( de Contraremonstrantibus loquitur) quam maxim, quod velint redemptionis pretium per omnia aequivalens esse debere miseriae illi, è qua redemtio fit, Limb. Lib. 3. Theol. Christ. Cap. 21. Sect▪ 8. Aequivalens hic concipi potest nisi juxta acceptationem Dei, Sect. 8. of Equivalents. Now let us consider what God had formerly done in order to show his hatred of sin, and thereby to discourage and affright men from the commission of it. Not to mention the remarkable punishments which have overtaken particular persons, or those more public testimonies of his displeasure, against societies and communities, by sending among them fire and sword, famine and pestilence, earthquakes and inundations whereby states and Kingdoms have been overturned, Cities laid wast, and Countries made desolate; I shall only instance in some of those eldest and earliest discoveries of Gods fury and indignation against sinners, which are recorded in Scripture, and designed as a warning to all succeeding ages of the world. First, He rained fire and brimstone out of Heaven, and thereby turning the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, he condemned them with an overthrow, who are set forth as an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, 2 Pet. 2. 6. judas v. 7. 2dly, As he destroyed those Cities by fire, so he did the old world by water, bringing a flood upon those ungodly wretches, and thereby extinguished the whole race of mankind, except Noah and his family who were saved in the Ark. 3dly, For the transgression of Adam, he cursed the whole Earth, and brought mortality upon him and all his posterity. For as the violent destruction of the old world, so the natural death of all mankind, is the punishment of sin, in which we may red Gods high displeasure against it. For by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and thereby judgement came upon all men to condemnation, Rom. 5. 12. 18. Lastly, The numerous company of Apostate Angels, who revolted from their maker, are thereby become the dreadful instances of his implacable vengeance against sin, for they who kept not their first state of integrity, were forced at the same time to quit their first habitations: being tumbled down into those lower regions, where they are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day, 2 Pet. 2. 4. judas v. 6. All these are clear and unquestionable indications of Gods high displeasure against obstinate sinners▪ And yet we must affirm, that no one of these, nor all of them put together, do in so eminent a manner discover Gods hatred of sin, as doth the punishment of our saviour, when he stood in the place, and suffered in the room of sinners. That God should overthrow the Cities of the plain, destroy the old world, turn Adam out of Paradise, and both him and all his posterity afterwards out of the world. That he would not spare those once glorious spirits, who kept not their first estate, are remarkable instances, as we said before, of his justice. Yet that God should Justitiam suam Deus ostendit, quia sacrificium illud peragi noluit, nisi cruenta at maledicta morte dilecti atque innocents filii sui jesu Christi, tanquam victimae piacularis pro peccato. Quo enim clariore documento odium suum erga peccatum d●monstrare potuit, quam quod noluerit illud remittere, nisi intercedente tam funesta unigeniti sui filii morte? Limb. Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Sect. 4▪ not spare his own son, is a much clearer and greater demonstration and proof of it▪ The former instances may justly awaken our fears, but the latter must preclude all hopes of impunity. For who can be so foolish as to entertain any thoughts of escaping punishment, since it overtook the son of God himself. In short, nothing can so effectually increase mens horror against sin, and deter them from the practise of it, as the consideration of those sufferings which our saviour underwent upon the account, and for the expiation of it. In them we have the greatest instance of Gods indignation, and not only so, but of his wisdom likewise, that ever was discovered to the world. Other examples of Gods justice tho very dreadful, yet were such as did not exceed a finite invention: but this was purely the contrivance of Heaven, at which both men and Angels justly stand astonished. They prie and search into this mystery, but the farther they search, the more they admire, and return from this enquiry only with wonder and amazement. Here we have the liveliest Ideas of the guilt of sin, and of Gods displeasure against it; for after all former, and beyond all future examples of divine vengeance, the justice of God is most conspicuous in the death of his son. And therefore his death, must not only equal, but outdoe the death and sufferings of all mankind; yea and of all the Apostate Angels into the bargain. Here then I think we may set our foot, and rest as upon sure ground, and therefore may safely and warrantably pronounce, that God could not do more to testify his displeasure against sin, and to discountenance the practise of it, than to make his only son an offering for sin, and to give him up to those sorrows and sufferings which he underwent for our sins, and for our sakes. And hereby God hath taken the most effectual care, for to secure his Authority and Government in the world; and to discourage and affright men from the violation of his laws. But this end of Christs sufferings looks only forward, but we must likewise look backward, and consider God as one highly incensed, and his justice provoked by the sins of men. And therefore before he will be reconciled to them, we may reasonably imagine, that some way was to be found out, to appease his wrath, and pacify his indignation; and this was another end of Christs sufferings, viz. 2dly, to satisfy the justice of God, which he did by standing in the place of sinners, undergoing the malediction of the Law, and suffering the punishment which the law threatened, and their sins deserved. For the proof and confirmation of this, I must be forced in some measure to repeat what hath formerly Preservative part 2d. p. 112. &c. been delivered upon this occasion. And 1st, I must affirm what I think hath formerly been sufficiently proved, that the sufferings of our saviour were properly a punishment. This we must insist upon as upon a matter of great importance, without which we cannot rightly apprehended the nature and design of Christs death, and without which he could not perform the errand upon which he came into the world. For the great end of his coming, and taking our nature upon him was, that he might die for sinners, and lay down his life in the room, and in exchange for theirs. This is denied not only by the Socinians, but likewise by the Vid. Limb. Th. Christ. Lib. 3. Cap. 22. Sect. 2. Potest Christus certo sensu deci loco nostro punitus, quatenus poenam vicariam, pro beneplacito divino sibi imponendam, boc est, afflictionem, quae poenae vicem sustinuit, in se suscepit. Remonst. which one might justly wonder at: because they thereby clearly overthrow their own concessions concerning the reason and ends of Christs sufferings. For first they tell us that he suffered not only upon our account, or for our benefit, as the Socinians express it, but likewise in our stead: That his death was a Nostra sententia haec est, quod Jesus Christus fuit sacrificium verum ac proprit dictum pro peccatis nostris. Tulit pro nobis ac nostro loco gravissimam afflictionem, at queen it a poenam commeritam à nobis avertit. Idem Ibid. Christus factus maledictio pro nobis, quia maledictam crucis mortem in se suscipiens, maledictionem quae nobis debebatur à nobis abstulit,& in se quasi derivavit. Sanguis Christi fuit redemptionis pretium, quod pro nobis persolutum est, ut à peccatorum reatu liberemur, Id. eod. Lib. Cap. 20. Sect, 9. Et egregiam hic personarum commutationem denot at vocula {αβγδ}, quae Christum loco nosto afflictum docet: nos siquidem peccaveramus,& irae divinae reatum contraxeramus; Deus nobis praeteritis, filio suo diram ac cruentam mortem imponit, qua nos affici merueramus. proper Sacrifice, that his life was the price of our redemption, which was paid down for us, that we thereby might be freed from the guilt of fin, and the obligation to suffering: That he was made a curse by undergoing an accursed death for us: which clearly demonstrates a permutation and exchange of persons: we sinned and deserved punishment, and he underwent that death which we had deserved. None of which can be true, if the death and sufferings of Christ were not properly a punishment. In expiatory Sacrifices, the guilt of tho criminal was transfered upon the Sacrifices, which thereby became accursed and devoted to destruction. If Christ stood in our room, and underwent the sentence of the Law; then he must undergo a punishment; because what the law threatens must be a punishment, or otherwise we can have no notion of it. If there were a permutation of persons, then he must suffer what otherwise would have lighted upon us; which was death, and that death was the punishment of sin. His blood was shed instead of ours, his life went in exchange for our lives; and why was all this done, but to satisfy the Law, which threatened and required punishment, and that punishment he underwent in our stead, who were thereby freed from the obligation to it? I am ashamed to use so many words in so plain a case. And yet for all this, Christ must not be said to be punished for us, but to undergo that which was 'vice poenae, instead of punishment. If so, then Christ was not truly a Sacrifice, but he was 'vice sacrificii, he served in the room of one; and was not substituted properly loco nostro in our place,( as hitherto we have been taught) but loco sacrificii, in the place and instead of a Sacrifice. His blood was not the price of our redemption, but was given 'vice pretii, instead of a ransom. He dyed for us, and gave his life a ransom {αβγδ}, for many or all, Matth. 20. 28. where the word {αβγδ}, is allowed to denote a permutation; but at this rate, it must denote not only an exchange of persons, but likewise a change of the sufferings: we were to be punished, and he was only afflicted for our sakes. It is true in such cases the nature and kind of the punishment may be altered, but yet so, as that what one man undergoes in the room of another, must still be a punishment, or else the end and design of that permutation is wholly frustrated and defeated. And so indeed it is too much,( in the case before us) by this account of Limb. who tho sometimes Id. Lib. 3. Cap. 10. Sect. 4. Impromeritum quidem amorem ergo peccatores testatur Dominus Jesus, ceu sponsor, quod omnia eorum peccata in se transferat, eorumque poenas ipsorum loco pendat. he tells us plainly and roundly that Christ took all the guilt of sinners upon himself, and suffered the punishment due to them corum loco, in their place and stead: yet all this is done with a reservation. For when he comes to declare his true sense of this matter, then he affirms that Christ was not truly made a Curse for us,( tho the Scriptures in express terms say so) but Christus maledictionem quae nobis debebatur in se quasi transtulit. He was not properly punished in our stead, but poenam peccatis nostris commeritam quasi Ibid. Sect. 5.& 9. in se derivavit. Christ shed his blood for us, which was not truly a price, but tanquam redemptionis pretium. Ibid. Sect. 9. God was well pleased with the obedience which his Son shewed in dying for us, and this he acceped of not as a real satisfaction, but Idem Cap. 19. Sect. 2. tanquam plenariam satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris: and so at long run, with these tanquams and quasis the whole work of our redemption as it is delivered in the Scriptures, and believed by the catholic Church, may be in danger of being undermined. For at this rate we may be forced at length to say, that Christ did not truly redeem us from guilt, but quasi redemit; did not truly reconcile us to God, but quasi reconciliavit; was not truly and properly a saviour, but tanquam servator. Again 2dly, They aclowledge that the reason of Christs sufferings for us, was, that thereby God might testify his Peccatum Deo adeo ingratum est, ut illius reatum non nisi hostia adeo eximia tolli volverit, propriumque filium illius abolitioni impenderit; qui enim adeo detestatus est peccatum, multo gravius gratiae suae contemtum, foederisque novi violationem vindicaturus est, Id. Cap. 23. Sect. 18. hatred of sin, and his indignation against sinners, as was said before. But how could this be discovered I beseech you, if those sufferings were only afflictions and calamities, which if considered in themselves, barely as such, are so far from being arguments of Gods indignation, that on the other hand they may be, nay indeed in that case always are consistent with his greatest affection to those persons who are thus rendered calamitous? But on the other hand in punishment, the anger of God is very clearly manifested, which thereby becomes a very proper means to discourage men from sinning. The Law that prescribes men their duty, threatens the violation of it with punishment; and when this sentence is executed upon Malefactors, then every man in such execution may red his own doom, which if any thing can, will deter them from the like practices. But if we see an innocent person afflicted and rendered miserable; forasmuch as this doth not suppose the transgression of any Law, as the cause of such misery, it can be no argument of Gods displeasure; nor consequently any restraint upon men, to hinder or deter them from sinning. Nay on the other hand, this is so far from deterring men, that to wicked minds it often becomes an occasion, and proves an encouragement to sin. Perhaps it will be said, that these sufferings which Christ underwent, tho they were only afflictions, yet were inflicted on him upon the account, and for the sake of our sins, which were the meritorious cause of them. For we sinned, and he became miserable in our room. Be it so, but then we must ask, are not calamities, and especially death, when sent for the sake and upon the account of sin, properly punishments? If not, then we have lost the true signification of words; and those Gentlemen who are of that opinion, must contrive to alter our language, before we can consent to make this alteration in our Religion. By all this it plainly appears that the sufferings of Christ were properly a punishment. And if so, it must as plainly follow in the second place, that these sufferings proceeded from the justice of God, and were designed to give satisfaction to it. There being a necessary and an essential relation between these two, viz. punishment and justice. This latter being the next and immediate principle and faculty, if I may so say, from whence the former proceeds. For it is not wisdom, or righteousness, as that bespeaks Gods holiness and the rectitude of his nature; nor yet bare power considered in itself, to which punishments are to be ascribed. For tho all these may be concerned and are manifested in the punishment of sinners; yet they are not the next and formal principle to which they are to be attributed. For if they were, then every person endowed with wisdom, or virtue, or might and strength, might be supposed empowered to punish a malefactor, which yet we know they are not. For the better understanding of this matter, we may consider sin under a double respect. Ist, As being opposite to the immaculate purity and holiness of God. 2dly, As being contrary to his Laws, of which sin is the violation or transgression. The first is an opposition to the nature, and the second to the authority of God. In both cases sin is an impurity, and therefore we may consider the sinner under a double defilement thereby. The first is properly called the filth and pollution of his nature, which is really deformed and stained by sin. The second is guilt, or an obligation to punishment. Now if we could imagine that God could sand a creature endowed with reason into the world, and not prescribe him Laws for the government of his actions, but leave him at liberty to act as he pleased: yet in this case, we must suppose that his reason would, tho not command, yet direct him to act suitably to the dignity and constitution of his nature. For there are certain decencies which arise from the natures of rational creatures and their relation to each other. And if a man should act contrary to those dictates of his nature, he would contract a defilement thereby, viz. from that natural and essential turpitude which would be in those immoral actions; as being directly contrary to the rectitude and purity of Gods nature, which is the grand rule and standard by which his own actions are governed; and therefore must much more be a rule for the actions of all other rational creatures. And the turpitude of such actions would render the persons committing them odious and detestable in the sight of God; who by virtue of that sovereign power which he hath over his Creatures, might show his abhorrence of them by suitable actions, as we would our abhorrence of Toads and Serpents. That is, he might tread them under his feet, crush them to pieces, or spurn them out of his presence, as we would the most venomous or loathsome Creatures. And there is nothing in all this but what is very agreeable to that universal and essential justice in God, whereby he not only hates all 'vice and immorality, but likewise at the same time, and for the same reason detests the persons who practise it. But yet all this would only be an instance of his abhorrence, which would be levied by that absolute dominion which he hath over his Creatures. And as such a defilement in the present case could not properly be called guilt; so neither would those actions of displeasure properly be styled punishment: which always hath relation to the violation of a Law. And therefore 2dly, we must consider all rational Creatures as under the obligation of a Law, whereby their duty is prescribed to them under certain penalties, which are threatened to all such as shall transgress it. For tho in point of speculation we may, and must sometimes distinguish between Gods universal righteousness, and his Jurisdiction; yet in fact they can never be separated: because this righteousness with relation to rational creatures, will always and necessary be joined with authority and legislation. It would be an infinite derogation to the wisdom and righteousness of God, to suppose, that he could leave rational creatures without laws for the Government of their actions: because this were to suppose a God without a providence, which were the next door to Atheism, and that thro which it must inevitably enter into the world See the preservative 1st. part. p. 34. &c. . And as all rational creatures must necessary be under the direction and obligation of Laws, so those laws must be enforced by certain sanctions, otherwise they would loose their nature, and be no other nor better than wholesome counsel and good advice. And lastly, as the laws must be enforced by threatenings, so we must suppose something in every legislator, that moves and inclines him to execute those threatenings upon such as shall transgress his Laws. And this is as necessary as the former: because, as the laws would be ineffectual without sanctions, so those sanctions would be equally insignificant, without such an inclination in the legislator to put them in execution. The execution itself indeed may be stopped for some very weighty reasons. But the general disposition and inclination to execute them must be supposed; otherwise, let the threatenings be never so severe, and the declarations to punish uttered in never such high and peremptory expressions, no man would be under the terror of them, so as to be affrighted thereby from sinning. And these are things that are to be found in all Laws, and all Lawgivers, whether human or Divine, the reason being the very same and common to them all. Now that attribute whether in God or Men, that is concerned in the execution of threatenings, is not, as I said before, power or wisdom or universal righteousness,( which in men is but another name {αβγδ}, Theogn. for virtue, and comprehends all particular virtues within its compass, which, are but several parts and branches of it;) but Justice, which from the effect of it is called punitive, because it discovers itself in punishing offenders. And this justice as it constitutes a particular virtue in men, so for the same reason, it must be considered by us as a distinct attribute in God. For the farther confirming and clearing of this whole matter, I shall endeavour to make good these following particulars. 1st, That there is such a thing as punitive justice in God. 2dly, That the punishments which he inflicts procede from that justice, and among other ends, are designed for the discovery and satisfaction of it. Nay sometimes they have no other end but this. 3dly, That the sufferings of our saviour for the sins of men, did fully and perfectly satisfy this Justice. 1st, That there is such a thing in God as punitive Justice; I mean as distinct from that universal justice or righteousness of his nature, of which the former is a part. For general justice as Grotius Lib. de Satisf. Cap. 1. p. 33. rightly observes, as it is conversant about different objects, hath different effects, and therefore hath different names. As it is conversant about the moral actions of rational agents, it discovers itself in retribution, and the effects of it with relation to evil actions are punishments. And therefore as this justice in men, is defined by the ancients Hierax. apud Stobaeum de Just. Serm. 9. to be {αβγδ}, that which requires and demands punishment; so this Justice of God, as is rightly observed by Grotius Illa Dei proprietas quae Deum movet ad p●ccata punienda,& quae in ipsa peccatorum punitione demonstratur. Grot. Ibid. , is that property which moves and inclines him to punish sin, and which is declared and manifested thereby. When we say God is thereby moved or inclined to punish, we must not fancy any such transient motions or inclinations in him, as are to be found in men, which are taken up and laid down upon occasion. Such indeed are very foolishly and impiously ascribed to God by the Socinians; I say impiously, because they are inconsistent with his divine wisdom and perfections. But by that phrase we mean the anger and displeasure of God towards sinners, arising from a just and great provocation, which will certainly end in their punishment, except for some weighty reason he shall think fit to suspend it, by which his glory may be more illustrated than in the punishment. And this inclination in God is natural, arising from his implacable hatred of sin, and is necessary supposed in the threatenings annexed to his Laws, without which those threatenings, as we before observed, would be insignificant. Upon which account the light of nature, antecedent to any positive declaration of his purpose, directed men to apprehended this in God, viz. that he was highly displeased with them for their sins, and would certainly be revenged upon them, except they could find out some way to appease his anger, and divert his indignation. Indeed if we speak strictly, God is neither angry nor appeased, neither provoked nor pacified; his infinite perfections placing him out of the reach of such mean passions as are to be found in men. But when we speak of God we must do it in such a way as is agreeable to our own shallow and imperfect conceptions of his nature( provided that we do not thereby derogate any thing from his perfections) otherwise we must neither think nor speak of him at all. And therefore, in the same sense that we say that God is angry or provoked, we must say that God is moved to do that which mens sins provoke him to do,( that is to punish them) and which he certainly will do if some great reason doth not interpose, and prevent the punishment. The inclination to punish sin, we see, in God is natural, and therefore punitive justice, from whence that inclination proceeds, must be so too. Indeed universal righteousness, and this particular justice which is called punitive, in God are really one and the same thing. But so are all his other Attributes likewise, which are neither distinguished from his nature, nor from each other, by any real distinction. But forasmuch as we cannot fully and at one view comprehend his infinite nature and perfections, we must form different conceptions of them in our own minds, and distinguish. those things there, which are all united in God. And thus by his own warrant,( who is pleased in the discoveries of himself in Scripture, to condescend to our imperfect conceptions) we are taught to distinguish his nature from his Attributes, and his Attributes from each other: which are distinguished sometimes,( as they are in the case before us,) by different objects, and those different operations which they are conversant about. Universal justice, is an absolute Attribute in God, and may be considered in him abstracting from all other considerations of Government, and Laws, and threatenings. But punitive justice is a relative Attribute, and supposes God standing in relation to rational creatures, as they are subject to his Authority, and under the direction of his Laws. Universal righteousness is visible in the whole creation, and in every thing in a manner, that God doth in it. Every action of his power, every decree of his will, every external demonstration of his counsel and purpose is governed and conducted by it. But punitive justice hath for its object sinful Creatures, and is conversant about punishments only. And as we may warrantably say in general, that God is by the instinct of his own nature, inclined to do every thing that is necessary for promoting of his own glory: so in particular, that he is disposed to do that, which tends plainly to the discovery of his great hatred of sin, the support of his Authority, and the vindication of his providence, all which are seen in the punishment of sinners. We may call this if we please, universal justice, but then by confounding these principles, we cannot avoid running into a confusion in discoursing of such actions which flow from them, which ought carefully to be distinguished. And without which distinction, we cannot( as I conceive, with submission to better judgments) rightly either state the truth, or vindicate it against the cavils of our adversaries. For Socinus acknowledges that there is such a thing in God as universal righteousness, and that it is very agreeable to this righteousness, that Interim haudquaquam negamus, Dei justitiam ac rectitudinem, ut in caeteris omnibus ipsius operibus, ita etiam in poenis cerni, earumquè modum gubernare deinde nec illud negamus, rectitudinem ac justitiam Dei nonnunquam eum ad peccata punienda movere: eorum nempe, quibus veniam non concedere non modo aequitati per se est admodum consentaneum, verum etiam decretis divinis, ut ita loquar, debitum; quails sunt homines non resipiscentes atque in peccatis contumaciter perseverantes, quemadmodum Socinus ipse eo loco, quem Grotius notavit,( Lib. scil. 1. de Christo serve.& Cap. 1.) docuerat. Crell. Resp. ad Cap. 1. Lib. Hug. Grot. de Satisf. obstinate and incorrigible sinners should not escape unpunished. But yet so, that this punishment doth not proceed from the justice, and displeasure of God, but from his will, and is only the result of an arbitrary, and mutable Decree. But enough of this. But 2dly as there is such a thing as punitive Justice in God, so the punishments which he inflicts upon sinners, flow from it; and are among other ends designed for the discovery and satisfaction of it. And in certain punishments no other end but this is intended and aimed at. Indeed in human punishments the preservation of Government, and the benefit of the Commonwealth, which is thereby maintained and supported, is principally, and in most cases only aimed at. And this is the great rule and standard by which they are to be regulated: So that to equal sins, unequal punishments; and equal punishments, to unequal sins may be assigned, if the public good so require. Nay not only the distribution, but the suspension likewise of punishments is to be regulated hereby. So that the most flagitious criminals, at least if the Law of God doth not otherwise interpose, may be suffered to escape unpunished, if their punishment be adjudged inconsistent with the public safety. And in these punishments, as we before intimated, Magistrates and Governors principally aim at the security of their Government, and therefore do not inflict them so much for compensation of what is past,( except it be in case of injury and damage, strictly so called, which either the public or private persons sustain thereby, in which cases, common reason and equity will allow a recompense to be made to the injured party) as to prevent the like crimes for the future. But in divine punishments, nothing is so much to be considered as the violation of the divine authority; nor any thing so much aimed at by God, as the satisfaction of his justice, and a compensation to be made it, for the wrongs and injuries which he sustains, by the transgression of his Laws. It is true such punishments in this world do likewise look forward, and are designed to deter others from the like violations of the Law; and very often are joined with a merciful intention to the sinner himself, in order to bring him to repentance and amendment of life. But besides these, it is certain, in some punishments God principally aims at the vindication of his Authority, and a compensation to his justice for what is past; and is not moved to punish by the consideration of any thing, extra Deum, without himself, but ideo punit, us puniat; that is, that thereby he may manifest his hatred of sin, and indignation against sinners, and execute his vengeance upon his enemies. So Grot. de Jure belly& pacis Lib. 2. Cap. 20. Sect. 4. Grotius hath rightly stated this matter, with whom agrees Element. Jurisprud. Lib. 1. Defin. 21. In which Chapter he assigns the ends and reasons of human punishments, viz. the preservation of public order and mens private interests: But yet at the same time declares, that he doth not intend thereby to limit and determine the measures of divine justice. Quid circa utrumque in foro humano observari, soleat& debeat, nobis hic dispicere labour est; nam Tribunalis divini edicta uti excutere non est nestrum, ita isthaec eo trabi nolumus. Pufferdorf. And without allowing this, we cannot give any satisfactory account either of the punishments of the fallen Angels, or of those which overtake incorrigible sinners, sometimes in this life, but especially of those which will be inflicted on them in the next. First as to the Apostate Angels, we know that upon their apostasy and revolt from their maker, they were by an irrevocable sentence doomed to eternal misery, without hopes of pardon, or possibility of escape. Now what ends, I beseech ye, can we assign of this terrible sentence? was it joined with any merciful intentions to them, in order to move them to repentance, and thereby render them capable of pardon. No, here was no mixture of compassion, no place left for repentance, no room for mercy, no intentions in God to pardon, no inclinations in them to desire or procure it. They are doomed to eternal obduration as well as torment. No spark of goodness being left, but all dispositions to it being totally and eternally exstinguished. Well, but tho these punishments can work no good upon themselves, were they not designed as examples thereby to deter others? no they were not. Not to deter men; for tho now their punishment is proposed. in Scripture as a good means to affright men from disobedience, yet forasmuch as both their sin and punishment was antecedent to the Creation of man, that could not be any reason or design of their misery and torments. Nor are they proposed as examples to the good Angels, who kept their first estate, and with it are immutably fixed in their first habitations, and the happiness which they enjoy in them. As a reward of their obedience, they were immediately confirmed in their integrity, and are placed out of the reach of all temptation and possibility of sinning. Some indeed have thought otherwise, but their opinion in this matter, hath been censured and condemned by the generality of Divines both ancient and modern. Either then we must say that their punishment is unjust, as being without any good reason to warrant it: or else we must allow that it was inflicted on them for the discovery of Gods justice, and the satisfaction of it; no other can be tolerably assigned or imagined but this. 2dly, The secret and invisible punishments of some obstinate sinners in this life, who by the righteous judgement of God, are delivered up to final obduration and impenitence, are a a farther proof of our assertion. For they are not hereby made examples to deter others, because this cannot be accomplished, but by visible at least, if not public inflictions. Whereas in this case, that final obduration to which they are doomed, is not discernible by any human eye, but is known only to God himself. Lastly as such invisible punishments in this life, so the eternal punishment of incorrigible sinners in the next, will be an irrefragable proof and demonstration of this matter: which will not be inflicted on them to prevent the violations of the Law for the future, but by way of compensation for what is past. Here indeed, in this life, in punishing God aims at the support of his Authority and Government; but there, in the next, he designs only to revenge the contempt of it. That is, as Grotius before expressed it, ideo punit ut puniat; he punishes for the sake of punishment. Not as that punishment is subservient to any external ends of Government, but only that thereby he may display the glories of his holiness and power, and particularly of his justice, which then will most eminently be conspicuous in the eternal miseries of the wicked. Neither are the ends and reasons of those future punishments, to be taken, from the threatenings and monitions which are given men in this life. For tho this will be one greater aggravation of their guilt and misery than that of the Apostate Angels, viz. that they brought all this mischief upon themselves, by going on in a course of sinning, notwithstanding so many warnings, and the hopes of pardon joined to them, upon condition of their repentance and return; yet, tho hereby they will be found infinitely to have deserved punishment, we must farther inquire for what reasons God will inflict it. For if no good end can be served by it, to be sure, notwithstanding their deserts, God will not in the conclusion impose that punishment. It is true God hath annexed threatenings to his Laws, and the end of those threats is to prevent the violation of them. But since the Law is violated, and the transgressors therefore to be punished, we must now inquire after the end of the execution as well as the reason of the sanction. For except not only a just, but some great end were to be served by these punishments, to be sure, as we intimated before, the God of all compassion, would never execute them in so terrible a manner upon his Creatures, as we are assured he will. Now what ends I beseech you, can we assign of them extra Deum, as Grotius rightly states this matter. They cannot be designed for the security of his Government, or the reformation of the parties suffering, as was said before. Those reasons will then be at an end. We must therefore find a reason taken from somewhat in God himself. And this must be chiefly and principally his Punitive Justice, which will be then made illustrious, and he thereby be honoured in the condemnation and execution of his enemies. Perhaps it may be said, that this will be done to to discover and vindicate his veracity, he having often and peremptorily declared that he would thus punish all obstinate offenders. It must be acknowledged indeed, that his truth is concerned in the execution of his threatenings. But this cannot be the principal end, nor strictly speaking any end at all. For tho God who hath annexed threatenings to his Laws, hath likewise annexed a declaration to those threatenings, of his immutable resolution to put them in execution: yet the reason of the execution itself is not barely to verify his word; for we cannot think that the merciful Creator of the world would make his creatures eternally miserable only, or chiefly because he hath declared he will do so: But he hath signified his irrevocable purpose of so doing; because his own glory, and particularly that of his justice will thereby be rendered illustrious to eternal Ages. And in this is the remarkable difference between human and divine vengeance, as we have intimated before; which latter will not be conducted, as we find it oftentimes is in men, by any furious and ungovernable passions; or proceed from sudden and rash resentments of real or pretended injuries: but from fixed and immovable resolutions in God to manifest and promote his own glory, which will be rendered illustrious in the condemnation of the wicked, as well as the rewards of the righteous. In the former God himself will take delight and pleasure; as well as in the latter: not because it is the misery of his Creatures as such,( far be it from us from entertaining any such thoughts as that of the merciful Creator, and righteous Judge of the world) but of guilty and incorrigible creatures, who would go on in an obstinate course of sinning without remorse, and against all monitions to the contrary. The justice of which proceeding, will be acknowledged by the parties themselves who are to suffer, and accompanied not only with the approbation, but the applauses and acclamations likewise of Saints and Angels. For the time will come when the meek and most indulgent saviour of mankind will ascend his Tribunal, before whom all Nations shall be assembled, and then he, whose bowels so often yearned over these sinners, will with a stern countenance and inflexible rigor pass sentence upon them. In which all the Saints, who shall then sit as Assessors with him on his Throne, shall join with him, together with his holy Angels, in whose sight as we said before, and with whose approbation all this shall be transacted. This indeed is a sad, but a very great truth; and this we must insist upon as a matter of great importance, without which we cannot give a satisfactory account of the justice and righteousness of Gods dealing with sinners at the great day. Besides, hereby we shall lay the most effectual restraint upon wicked men, and affright them from going on in an evil course; because if they do so, they hereby find that they must inevitably and eternally be miserable, without hopes of mercy or possibility of escape. For as the certainty of the sinners punishment doth appear from the threatening, which is peremptorily denounced by God, with an express declaration of his irrevocable purpose to execute it: so the righteousness of it will appear, from the consideration that Gods glory will be thereby manifested: the glory( as I said before) of his holiness, power, and particularly of his justice which will then take place,( the day of mercy, together with all hopes of it being now utterly ended) and will then be displayed in the eternal perdition, joined with the eternal confusion of all his enemies. To proceed: in the third place we are to show that the sufferings of our saviour did fully and perfectly satisfy the justice of God. The sufferings of Christ being a punishment, must as hath been already shown, have relation to the justice of God, which did inflict it, and was plainly manifested and discovered by it. And that hereby a full and plenary satisfaction was made to that Justice, appears from the effect and consequence of his sufferings, viz. that God who before was angry with sinners, is now pacified and appeased. He is willing to enter into a Covenant of grace and mercy, whereby he engages himself to admit them into favour, and to be reconciled to them: provided they will perform such easy conditions as he shall require on their parts, viz. faith the repentance, which are no other than such as are absolutely necessary to qualify them for his favour. So that there is now nothing further required on Gods part, to move and dispose him to pardon sinners. All the obstacle of reconciliation is on mans side. The Law threatened 'tis true, and men by sinning deserved punishment; but Christ stood in their room, and underwent what otherwise must have fallen upon their Heads. So that now a sufficient compensation being made to the honor of God, for those injuries which he sustained by the violation of his Laws; his justice doth now no longer interpose, to demand their punishment or hinder their pardon. Perhaps it will be said, it is true indeed Gods justice is hereby satisfied, but this satisfaction doth not arise from the sufferings of Christ, considered in themselves, but from divine grace and acceptation. To which I answer, that the divine acceptance in this case is absolutely requisite, without which the death of Christ, tho it were of much greater value than it really is( if that were possible) could have no influence upon the pardon of sin: because God the Father who is considered as the principal party injured, might have demanded the lives of the criminals themselves, and have refused any commutation tho never so valuable. But supposing that God was willing so far to relax his Laws, as to accept of an exchange( as he did in this case) whereby his honor might be vindicated and his justice satisfied; I say the satisfaction thus made, doth depend upon the worth and value of the punishment itself which our saviour underwent in our stead, which sua vi& efficacia, by its own force and efficacy did expiate the sins of the world. And wherein I pray you did its efficacy consist, but in this, that his life which he laid down was of equal value to the lives of all men which were forfeited to justice; and his death consequently equivalent to their death; because hereby Gods hatred of sin and his indignation against sinners was as conspicuous as if all mankind had suffered and dyed? The Socinians indeed deny that God was angry with sinners: but the Rem. who are in part adversaries to this truth, do plainly own it: and do farther aclowledge, that Christ by the sacrifice of himself, did pacify and appease the wrath of his Father, ex irato placatum reddere. But how is he appeased? Is it only because he was pleased to lay aside his resentments, and did graciously accept of a small punishment instead of a much greater which we deserved? This indeed may be an argument of his liberality, and may magnify his grace; but is a great diminution to the worth and dignity of our Savior's sufferings, which appear in their inward virtue and efficacy, and to which the Scriptures do very plainly and emphatically ascribe the expiation of sin. 'T ishis blood 1 Jo. 1. 7. 2 Heb. 9. 14. 3 Heb. 9. 26. v. 12. 4 ch. 10. 14. v. 4. 5 Deo autem jus absolutum est declarandi, quo pretio sibi satisfieri velit. merely si ex voluntate Dei yet. Testam. victimae sufficere potuerunt ad expianda minora populi delicta, pro quorum expiatione Deus illo tempore sacrificia admisit. Quidni& ex ●adem voluntate Dei, sanguis Christi peccatis expiandis sufficiat? Limb. Lib. 3. Cap. 22. Sect. 5. Ostendimus, ad redemtionem non requiri pretium per omnia aequale malo ac miseriae è qua redemptio fit: said tantum juxta aestimationem illius cvi pretium persolvendum est. Ille autem acquiescere potest quocunque pretio, quod ipse exigere potest, persoluto, Id. Cap. 21. Sect. 9. that cleanseth us from all sin; that 2 purges the conscience from dead works. 'tis by the 3 sacrifice of himself that he hath put away sin, and obtained eternal redemption for us, and hath 4 perfected forever them that are sanctified, Could this be affirmed of the sacrifices of the Law? No, the Apostle assures us that it neither was, nor could possibly be affirmed of them: {αβγδ}, it was impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats could take away sin. How impossible? if the virtue of all sacrifices did depend upon divine acceptation, was it not possible that God might have appointed, and have accepted of the life of a Beast instead of that of the greatest Malefactor in any case, who thereby might be freed not only from a temporal, but likewise from the obligation to an eternal death; I mean accident fide& poenitentia, upon condition of faith and repentance, without which the sacrifice of Christ himself will not be effectual to procure actual pardon. The Socinians and Remonstr. I am sure will teach us another lesson, viz. that God if he pleased might 5 have pardonned the inward guilt, as well as the outward pollution, by any sacrifices, or by any other means and conditions such as he should freely and graciously appoint. Wherein then lies the difference in point of expiation, between the sacrifices of the Law, and the oblation of Christ; that one could purge the Conscience and take away sin, but the other could not? If all be resolved into divine appointment and pleasure; then I say it might equally be affirmed of the blood of Christ,( if considered in itself) as well as of that of Calves and Goats, that it could not take away sin, that it could not make the comers to God perfect as pertaining to the Conscience: nay that it was impossible it should do so. And on the other hand, upon the same supposition, it might be affirmed of the legal Sacrifices as well as of that of the Gospel, viz. if God had appointed them to that purpose( as they say he might) that they did obtain eternal redemption for us, that they did take away sin, that they did sanctify, not only to the purifying of the flesh, but likewise to the purging of the Conscience from dead works; and lastly that they perfected for ever them that were sanctified and cleansed thereby. And therefore that they needed not be reiterated year by year, because the worshippers being thus once thoroughly purged, would have no more Conscience of sin. These are things that would sound very oddly to any Christian ear. But yet these must be the unavoidable consequences of that opinion, which makes the efficacy of Christs death like that of the sacrifices under the law, to depend upon divine approbation and consent, for by this account they are put upon the same level as it were. You will say, there is a vast difference still between them, which arises from the dignity and worth of the person of our saviour. As to what concerns the person of our saviour, the Socinians we know, do account him to be but a mere man as to his nature; and withal assure us, that whatever strokes are laid upon Socin. de Christo serve. par. 3. Cap. 4. See the second part of the preserve. p. 128. a man, have no more force and virtue than if they were inflicted bestiae alicui, upon any beast, Ox or ass, Horse or Camel. So that whatever difference there may be otherwise between them, yet in this case, one hath no superiority or advantage above the other. The Remonstrants indeed do say that he is the son of God, and God blessed for ever,( Tho I am afraid Curcellaeus his opinion is very well known in this matter; which is approved of and vindicated by Limb. in his Preface to his works, whose sense of this matter may be farther seen in his Institutions, Lib. 2. Cap. 17. Sect. 25, 26. Where he asserts not only a subordination between the Father and the Son, which we likewise grant; but that the Son is inferior to his Father, and the Father consequently superior to the Son: aevo, potentia, dignitate, This he saith was the opinion of the Fathers of the first three Centuries; for proof of which he cites the Testimony and Confession of Dionysius Petavius which he mentions with approbation; who among other things tells us, that the aforesaid Fathers did believe the Son of God, non minus quam caeteras creturas initium habuisse; hoc est, minime ex aeterno distinctam hypostasin habuisse, putarunt. they call him so only in the Arian sense, viz. that he is a divine person, but inferior to his Father, both in duration, power, and dignity, which it is certain he cannot be, if he be true God, and Consubstantial with his Father,) and therefore that the dignity of his person doth add pondus Limb. Lib. 3. Cap. 22. Sect. 5. immensum, a great weight to his sufferings. But then the question farther will be: whether the dignity of his nature did add any such dignity to his sufferings, so as, sua vi& efficacia, that by their own force and efficacy they could, and did expiate sin? no, they say it did not; the sacrifice which Christ offered was indeed sufficient for this purpose, but this sufficiency, notwithstanding the great worth and exellence of his nature, is to be resolved into the divine will and pleasure. God required no other nor greater price for the redemption of mankind, said in hac unica victima acquievit; he did rest satisfied with this one oblation which Christ made of himself. But if this be all that is to be owned concerning the satisfaction of Christ, we are but where we were before. And then the sacrifice of Christ, whatever other worth it might acquire from the dignity of his nature, acquired no proper force and virtue to expiate sin; and therefore,( if so) we must say again, that in point of efficacy it did not exceed the sacrifices under the Law; and that his blood, if considered in itself, did not any more than that of Calves and Goats, take away sin; nay {αβγδ}, it was impossible it should do so. Which must needs be a harsh and unpleasing doctrine to any Christians ears, as we said before, which have been accustomend to another sort of sound. On the other hand we think ourselves obliged to affirm, that the death and sufferings of our saviour by their own efficacy, arising indeed from the infinite worth of his person, did take away sin, and purge the Conscience which was sensible of the guilt, and in great dread of punishment. And if you inquire wherein this efficacy did consist; we answer as we did before, it did consist in this, viz. That his sufferings for us, did bear a just proportion, and were equivalent to the sufferings and punishment of all mankind, and thereby he made a full, perfect and sufficient oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. And this is that which the Fathers of old constantly affirmed; so that it is no new doctrine, but that which was always believed and maintained by the catholic Church: as will appear by the following Testimonies, which, among a great many other that might be produced to this purpose, I have made choice of, as being very plain and full, and coming up to the point. Among the works of St. Cyprian, are some treatises inserted, which are now generally acknowledged to be written by Arnoldus Abbot of Bonneval, styled Carnotensis from the diocese in which that abbey was situated, wherein he speaks very fully on this Subject. Particularly in his Treatise Pro debitoribus debitorem se objecit,& quod ex se non debebat, ultro debere non abnuit; ideoque totius debiti summam ab eo qui pro omnibus se tradebat, exactor exegit. de septem verbis Novissimis à Christo in Cruce prolatis, Cap. 1. He asserts, that our saviour substituted himself in our room, and voluntarily undertook that debt which he owed: And accordingly that God the Father who required payment, exacted of him totius dobiti summam, the whole debt, which he fully discharged. It was not the whole debt in kind, but it was the whole in a just construction of Law, because it was an equal value. But in his Treatise De Ascensione Tanto pretio damnatos redemit, ut dubium esse non posset, quin pretii magnitudo superaret negotium: nec aequarl potest damnum, quod omnino damnatio nostra meruerat, obedientiae Christi quae gratis usque ad mortem progressa est,& ultro solvit quod non debebat. Christi, he expresses himself more plainly. It is not to be doubted( saith he) but that the price which he laid down for us was so great, ut superaret negotium, that it exceeded what we owed: and the punishment which we were condemned to, and justly deserved, was not equal to the obedience and sufferings of Christ; which were therefore not only a sufficient, but a superabundant compensation for the damage sustained by our disobedience. anselm De Concept. Virgin.& peccato Origin. Cap. 12. Deus non exigit ab ullo peccatore plus quam debet: said quoniam nullus potest reddere quantum debet, solus Christus reddidit pro omnibus qui salvantur, plus quam debetur. who lived for some time in the same Century with him expresses himself to the same purpose, That since no man can redeem his own soul, by a full payment of what he owes, therefore Christ discharged that debt,& reddidit plus quam debetur, paid more then was owing. Perhaps it will be said, that it is no great matter what these, and the like Authors affirm of this matter, because they lived in that Age, when the foundations of scholastic. Divinity were laid in the Latin Church, whereby a great many Met●physical subtleties were introduced into our Religion with which the ancient Church was unacquainted. It is true Arnoldus lived in the same Century with Lombard, and Anselm flourished in that preceding, viz. the 11th, and succeeded Lanfranc in the See of Canterbury, who is said to be the first that began this way of writing in the Western Church, in imitation of what had been three ages before attempted by John Damascen in the Greek. But this can be no prejudice to their opinion in this particular, because they hereby did not introduce any novel doctrine, which the former and better ages were not acquainted with: but did tread in the steps of their forefathers, and delivered what they found generally embraced by the whole Church, and which made up part of the faith of all sound Christians in these and former ages. And accordingly we find Grotius citing them among the other authorities which he produces from the Ancients, in defence of the catholic Faith concerning the satisfaction of Christ. By which it appears that Grotius in his excellent Book on that subject, did not rest in the general notion concerning the expiation of sin, but intended such an expiation as was performed by a plenary and ample satisfaction made to the Justice of God; such as these Authors owned, whose words he cites in confirmation of his own opinion. For we cannot imagine that Grotius could be so devold of judgement, as to produce any testimonies that were impertinent, and much less such as were inconsistent with his own doctrine. But to rise higher, and proceed to other testimonies which are more authentic. The great Athanasius hath written several Treatises concerning the Incarnation and sufferings of our saviour, in which he expresses himself plainly and fully upon this Subject. All men saith he, having {αβγδ}( de Christo Dei verbo loquitur) {αβγδ} &c. Athan. de Incarn. p. 60. Edit. Par. sinned, all must die, or else the Law which threatened death could not be fulfilled. But for as much as the greatness of the sin exceeded all the punishment which they could suffer; all mankind being unable and unsufficient for this purpose: our saviour did voluntarily undergo {αβγδ} Id. De Passione& Cruce Dom. p. 1002. {αβγδ}, that very punishment, {αβγδ}, and suffered what we deserved, and what otherwise must have lighted upon our Heads. How could he undergo our punishment, or offer up those sufferings to his Father which otherwise would have overtaken us? were they the same in kind? no that they could not be. But they were the same in worth; and that not only by a gracious and favourable acceptation, but in a strict and proper valuation. For by standing in our stead and dying for us, he Id. de Incarn. p. 60. did {αβγδ}, quod aequum& rationi consentaneum erat patri praestare, undergo what was just for his father to demand, and reasonable for him to accept. What? was this a punishment less than what our sins had deserved, and what we otherwise should have suffered? how then could it be {αβγδ}, agreeable to reason and justice. It is certain it could not be so in the opinion of Athanasius. For not to lay too great a stress on that word: it appears by the other expressions which he makes use of upon this occasion, that he thought the death of Christ, was not only of equal value, but far exceeded the sufferings and punishment of all mankind. For they could not do that which was sufficient to satisfy the justice of God; but He, and He {αβγδ}. De Incarn. p. 60. alone was able to suffer for us; He only sufficient to mediate between God and man. Being to suffer in our stead. it was necessary that he should take upon him {αβγδ}. ibid. p. 61. a body that in it he might be capable of dying; but that this Body might prove a sufficient Sacrifice Ibid. {αβγδ}, it was united to the divine {αβγδ}: and thereby became abundantly or if you please superabundantly sufficient for this purpose. If the sufficiency of Christs death in order to expiate sin, were to be resolved into divine pleasure and acceptation: Athanasius his way of reasoning upon this subject would have been extremely impertinent. For upon that account, the death of a Beast( as the Socinians and Remonstrants tell us, as we heard before) and much more the sufferings of any eminent man, or glorious Angel, might have sufficed to have procured pardon for sinners.' No, saith Athanasius, {αβγδ}. ibid. p. {αβγδ}, it was not in the power of any other, either Man or Angel, to redeem men from punishment, but only {αβγδ}, of that divine word which first made, he only did, and only could restore them. He saw and had compassion upon the forlorn condition of fallen, sinful man; and therefore he undertook to do that which was {αβγδ}. Id. de passione& cruce Domini p. 1002. impossible else to be performed; and what was that? was it only to submit to punishment; no sure that could not be all; for others were capable of being punished as well as he. But he was farther to suffer a punishment that was equal to the guilt of men, and thereby to satisfy divine justice.' For Ibid. {αβγδ}, the greatness of our guilt was such that it exceeded all finite punishments: But the son of God knowing {αβγδ}, his own strength and sufficiency; he submitted to death, and thereby {αβγδ}. De Incarn. p. 75. consummated the death of all men: and by offering his own body, {αβγδ}, as a sacrifice in their room, {αβγδ} {αβγδ} ibid. p. 73. {αβγδ}: fully discharged their debt, whereby they become acquitted and free from that obligation. Nay he did not only pay what was due, but by offering up his own life, gave that in exchange which far exceeded it:& {αβγδ} De Passione Domini p. 1002. {αβγδ}, parva magnis compensavit. How parva? what were those small things which were thus to be recompensed? why they were no less than the sins of mankind, and the obligation to punishment which they had thereby contracted: But all that was but a small matter in comparison of what he gave in exchange, which was his own death and sufferings. And with him agrees Serm. de Temp. 122. St. Austin, who in a devout contemplation of the greatness of his Savior's sufferings for him, crys out, Magna est iniquitas mea, said mayor est redemptio tua: the punishment which my sins deserved is great, but what thou didst and sufferedst for my redemption is much greater▪ And so may every sinner truly say; which will not be a compliment to his saviour; but a pious confession of his own demerit, and a grateful acknowledgement of the worth and dignity of his Redeemers passion. And of the same opinion with them both was Exegesi ad Valerianum de verbi Incarn. citat. à Grot. Lib. de Satisf. inter Testim. yet. St. Cyril o● Alexandria, who affirms that the death of one, viz. of the divine word, who assumed our nature that in it he might die for us; omnium hominum vitae praeponderavit, did not only equal but far excel the lives of all mankind. I shall instance but in one Father more, and that is St. Chrysostome, who in his Exposition on the 5th Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans v. 17. affirms, that Christ did not only discharge our debt, but {αβγδ}, paid more than we owed: nay, {αβγδ}, so much the more, as that our whole debt bore no greater a proportion to it, than a drop of water doth to the immense Ocean. Here is the doctrine, not only of equivalents, but even of exsuperants delivered with a witness. And I believe neither Anselm nor Lombard, nor Thomas, nor Bonaventure, nor any other the most subtle and Metaphysical Schoolman, could deliver himself more fully, or as some perhaps may think, hyperbolically upon this occasion. By all which it plainly appears what the opinion of the Ancients was, concerning the end and design of Christs dying for us, which was that he might thereby satisfy the justice of his Father for our sins. And whatever other ways the infinite wisdom of God might have found out for the redemption and salvation of mankind, yet the reason why he contrived and pitched upon this method in their opinion was, because it was the fittest way for the vindicating his authority, and giving satisfaction to his justice, I mean a full and plenary satisfaction. And with these expressions of the Fathers, agree the declarations of our Church, frequently made by her in her Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies: particularly in the first Sermon concerning the Salvation of mankind; where we are told, that God sent his onely son our saviour Christ into the world, to fulfil the Law for us, and by shedding his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or( as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, to assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us for ●he same. And in the Conclusion of that discourse. That whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their ransom: It pleased our Heavenly Father of his infinite mercy to prepare for us the most precious Jewels of Christs Body and Blood, whereby our ransom might he fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. By all that hath been said upon this head, I think we have made it sufficiently to appear, that the end and reasons of Christs sufferings do clearly demonstrate, that they were equivalent to the punishment of all mankind. This will be farther evident in the second place from the consideration of their inward worth and dignity, arising indeed from the superlative eminence and dignity of the person suffering; who was the eternal son of God, and God blessed for ever. 'twas he who purchased and redeemed his Church with his own blood. Indeed the sufferings of our saviour if considered in themselves, abstracting from the divinity of his person, could not be of such extraordinary excellence and value as we now contend for. The pains that he endured in his body it is true were very acute and grievous. The fear and horror which he was under from the apprehensions of his Fathers wrath, and indignation against sin,( of which to be sure he had a clear, and sensible view when he stood in the room of sinners;) and the anguish and agonies of his Soul which were consequent thereunto, tho exquisitely and unexpressibly great; so that he might cry out, was ever any sorrow like unto my sorrow, wherewith the Lord hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger? yet for all this they were but finite, because terminated in his human nature which was so. For this reason, as his sufferings before, and upon the across, were extensively and in their duration finite, it was impossible that intensively and with respect to any degrees of pain, they should be infinite; and consequently they could not be equal to the punishment of all mankind. But then we are farther to consider, that this human nature, made up of that body, and soul in which he suffered, was united to the Divine word: and this gave them pondus immensum saith Limb. nay valor●● infinitum say other Protestants, and so say the Ancients: whereby they did not only procure, but strictly and properly nuri● pardon. For which reason the Church teaches us to recommend ourselves to the mercy of God, thro the merits, nay the all sufficient merits of his son. I hope here I need not be put upon the proof either first, that in all true merit there is dati& accept● aequalitas, a just proportion and equality between the thing given and received, the action and the reward; and consequently that if the sufferings of our saviour are meritorious of pardon, they must be equivalent malo& miseriae è qua redempti sumus; to that guilt and misery from which we are redeemed. This is agreed on on all hands, as every body knows, who pretends to know any thing of these matters, and the disputes between us and the Papists upon this Subject. Nor in the second place is it needful, I hope, to prove, that the sufferings of our saviour were truly and properly meritoriou●. This is owned by all good Christians, both Papists and Pr●testants being at perfect agreement in this matter. And the declarations of our own Church about it are so frequently made, and so fully expressed, that she hath left no room for doubt or scruple concerning her sense of it. Nay she doth not only believe this doctrine concerning the merits of Christ to be true▪ but likewise so important a truth, that she hath declared This faith the holy Scripture teacheth us.( viz. concerning the merits of Christs precious blood as the true cause of our justification) this is the strong rock and foundation of the Christian Religion: this doctrine all old and ancient Authors of Christs Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of Christ, and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever denieth is not to be accounted for a Christian man &c. The third part of the Homily of Salvation. , that to deny it is in effect to renounce the Christian Religion. And for any man to pretend to be a member of this Church, and yet to make any doubt of the truth of that, which she so often affirms, and which she requires all her devout Children in their solemn addresses to Heaven to make mention of, as the only ground of their confidence, and the true bottom upon which they can place their hopes of pardon and acceptance: I say after all this for any to pretend to be of her Communion, and yet either deny, or indeed doubt of it: is such a degree of prevarication. that we cannot easily find words to express the scandal and impiety of it. Now from both these things it must plainly follow, that the doctrine of Christ's merits, and the doctrine of Equivalents, must either both be received or both be rejected, and must stand or fall together. But perhaps for all this it will be said, that Calvin and some other Protestant Divines, deny the merits of Christ strictly so called, and say his sufferings are only meritorious by divine acceptation. To which I answer, that tho the Divine acceptation( as we have always affirmed) is absolutely necessary to render them effectually such to us; yet their merit is originally founded in their internal worth and dignity, and that equality and proportion which is to be found between them and the reward, to which they a●e ordained and appointed. And this their immense value and dignity is acknowledged by Calvin and all other Protestants in as ample manner as can be desired. But for the Readers farther satisfaction, and that he may not be lead into any mistakes by the suggestions either of Papists or Rem. in this matter; He must know that there was a controversy which did arise betwixt the reformed and some of the Schoolmen, occasioned by a very nice and overcurious question started by these latter; Vide Vasq. disput. 5. in tertiam partem Divi Thomae. 2 Loco jam cit. 3 Th. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 21. 4 And with them agrees Suarez( for the Schoolmen themselves are divided upon this subject) who very clearly and judiciously hath stated this matter in the following words. De ratione meriti perfecti est, ut opus ipsum habeat sufficientem proportionem,& condignum respectu illius praemii ad quod ordinatur: quia alias non servaretur aequalitas quam justitia postulat. Praeter hanc autem operis proportionem& dignitatem, existimo necessariam esse promissionem sub conditione operis, in qua tale opus nitatur. Est en●m meritum( ut omnes Theologi fatentur) actus cvi debetur ex justitia merces; unde non satis est ut de se sit condignus& proportionatus praemio, said etiam oportet ut habeat vim inducendi obligationem ex justitia, ex qua illi debeatur praemium. Nullus enim actus meritorius apud Deum potest respectu illius habere hanc vim, nisi in illius promissione vel pacto fundatur: quia cum Deus sit absolutus& supremus Dominus, nullus alius potest per se obligare illum ex justitia, secliisa promissione ejus. Comment. in tertiam partem Thom. Tom. 1. quaest. 19. Art. 3. Sect. 1. Vide illum fuse ac nervose disputantem de hac re, quaest. 1. Art. 2. Disp. 4. eod. lib. who according to their custom, after they have rightly stated, and by clear arguments confirmed the truth; do then proceed to propose several vain and curious questions about it; which they as vainly and confidently venture to determine, without any good warrant from reason, and less from divine authority and revelation, which is generally silent in those matters. This being generally the great fault of those writers, whose writings otherwise are of excellent use. And so it hath happened in the case before us. For having rightly and in agreement with the Ancient Church afferted and vindicated the dignity and efficacy of our saviours sufferings: they then proceed farther, and propose this nice and impertinent question, whether, if the Son of God, without the consent, and antecedent to any agreement between him and his Father, had taken our nature upon him, and in it had suffered for the sins of men; whether I say in this case, his death and sufferings would have procured and merited pardon for sinners; and which God the Father must in point of strict justice have accepted, tho he had entered into no such covenant and agreemtn with his Son. Here the reformed divines, and particularly Calvin,( who is railed at by Vasquez, and mentioned by Limb. with commendation for so doing) upon good reason dissents from these Schoolmen; and rightly states this matter, as we formerly observed: viz. that the sufferings of Christ, tho of infinite value, could not have obliged God the Father to grant remission of sin, without his own free consent. Because he might( if he had so thought sit) have refused any Exchange tho of never so great value; and have demanded the punishment of the criminals themselves. But upon supposition of such agreement, none can speak in more lofty and sublime terms of the dignity and virtue of their saviours sufferings than the reformed generally do: who aclowledge them to be of infinite worth and value, and strictly meritorious of pardon. And particularly about imini, oh Sophist'ae, otio vestro, nostra patientia, cum haec nunc ingeritis tam importune. Probatis scil. immensam esse dignitatem pretii pro nobis oblati: probatis aequasse peccatum, probatis long superasse peccatum. Egregiam vero laudem! quasi ea non sit vel puerorum apud nos institutio, Cham. de merito Christi, cap. 3. Chamier in his disputation on this subject, tells Vasquez( who had raised some groundless and unreasonable complaints against Calvin upon this occasion) that he did but lose his time, and abuse the patience of his Readers by such loud but fruitless exclamations. you magnify the merits, saith he, of Christ, and tell us that the price which he laid down for our redemption, equalled, nay exceeded our guilt; but you are so far from meeting with any opposition from us upon this account, that we own and contend for it as well as you It is the subject of our sermons and catechetical discourses: our children are taught and instructed to aclowledge it, and it it is reputed by us among the first principles of the Oracles of God. Which Testimony of his ought the more to be regarded, because he speaks not only his own sense, but likewise in the name of the Gallican and other Churches; whose judgement and authority ought to be of the greater value and weight with us, than the Heterodox and new fangled Opinions of Episcopius and his disciples: who in this, as well as some other matters, have forsaken the common faith of the reformed Churches,& in castra Socini transivere, giving too great countenance to the bold and pernicious tenets of Socinus. This is a truth therefore that we must stand by, and which ought stiffly to be maintained by us, in opposition to any innovations that may be attempted in this matter, either as to words or sense. It is true the words merit, and satisfaction are not to be found in Scripture, for which reason they are quarrelled at and rejected by Dissert. de vocibus Trinitatis, Personae, &c. Sect. 30. 31. Curcellaeus and Theolog. Christ. Lib. 3. Cap. 21. Limb. But this matters not, as long as the sense and meaning couched under them is to be found there. And this is acknowledged by Rejiciuntur à nostris hominibus nomina Trinitatis& personarum in Deo, non ob id praecipue, quod ipsa nomina in sacris literis non legantur; said quod res ipsae quas significant ib●dem nullo modo contineantur, Socin. defence. animadver. adversus Eutrop. Oper. Tom. 2. p. 635. Socinus himself in another case. The words are now adopted by the Church, inserted into her Homilies and Liturgies; they are part of the catholic Faith and become the common Language of all Christians. So that we cannot lay them aside, without giving infinite offence and scandal to all our friends of the Reformation, and at the same time of affording matter of boasting and triumph to our adversaries of the Church of Rome, who have long since told the world, that we are grown weary of our old Religion, and are all ready to turn Socinians. Besides all this, it will justify in great measure the Calumnies of our Modern Vnitarians, who will exceedingly triumph to find their suspicions made good, viz. that we secretly favour their impious Opinions: and that if it were not for the bias that is given to our minds by the awe of our superiors, and the love of our preferments, we would soon take off the mask and discover our true sentiments in their favour. Lastly; as the worth and dignity of our saviours sufferings prove them to be equivalent to the punishment of all mankind; so the effect and consequence of them are a clear demonstration of it likewise. For he underwent what the Law threatened, and our guilt rendered us obnoxious to: and we are thereby for ever freed from the obligation to punishment. I mean ex parte Dei, whose anger is pacified, and his justice is fully satisfied; so that he requires no new sacrifice, exacts no new sufferings from us to entitle us to pardon: because our saviour by that one oblation of himself made upon the across, having obtained eternal redemption for us, and having thereby perfected for ever them that are sanctified; all that he now expects from us, are as we said before, repentance from dead works, and faith in his son, without which the redemption purchased will not be available to us; because without those conditions, as God in honor and justice cannot bestow, so neither are we capable of receiving those benefits, which Christ by dying in our stead hath merited for us. But otherwise, all that was necessary to appease the anger of God, and to purchase pardon for sinners, hath been abundantly performed by our saviour; who having undergone the sentence, and submitted to the punishment of the Law, in our room and stead, hath discharged us from the obligation to it. For hereby as the Apostle tells us, He hath blotted out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us, and which was contrary to us, Col. 2. v. 14. By Ordinances there are meant, both the Ceremonial and the Moral Law, from the obligation to which we( both Jews and Gentiles) are delivered by the Oross, that is the death of Christ; but not in the same way and manner. By his death we are entirely freed from any obligation to the observance of the Ceremonial, and from the curse and condemnation of the Moral Law; which therefore might be said to be against us, because it being not fulfilled and obeied by any in that latitude and perfection which was required, it subjected all mankind to the Curse annexed to the violation of it. The Law then was a Chirographum, a written testimony, sufficient to convince us before God, and render us obnoxious to his justice, as a bond doth a debtor. But the force of this even the Moral Law, as to its condemning part, was evacuated and disannulled by the death of Christ. And this is fully and emphatically expressed by the Apostle by three phrases, which denote the total abolition and extinction of the power and obligation of this hand-writing, or written Law, I mean as to what concerns the punishment threatened by it. See the Oxford Paraphrase upon this Text. 1st. It was blotted out and canceled as men do a Bond when it is discharged. 2dly, He took it out of the way, so that it should never after be produced, or he forth coming to accuse or convince us Lastly, He nailed it to his across, rending it as it were with the nails of his across, and thereby tearing it to pieces, as men do a bond after it is canceled, which is then done, cum omne quod debebatur solutum est; our saviour hereby discovering and declaring to the world, that he had undertaken and suffered the penalty and condemnation due to the forfeiters of that Bond. Neither can all this be resolved into divine acceptation and pleasure; because the intention and design of the Apostle was to set forth and declare to the world both Jews and Gentiles, not only the riches of Gods grace in the forgiveness of sin, but likewise the mighty power and efficacy of Christs death, whereby it was procured and purchased. Which appears by what follows, when in the next verse he tells us, that by thus disannulling the condemning force of the Law, he spoiled the powers of darkness, and those principalities of evil Spirits, who hereby were devested of that power and jurisdiction whereby they ruled over us as their Slaves and Captives; nay he made ● show of them▪ leading them as it were in triumph as the Conquerors of old were wont to do, and made them attend the wheels of his Chariot, viz. his across, in which he restend himself and sate as it were in state, after he had thereby vanquished all his and the enemies of our salvation. Now if the death of Christ had no other dignity and efficacy but what was owing purely to divine estimation and acceptance; Then I say it could not bear such a loftiness and sublimity of expression, with which it is set forth by the Apostles: neither could our saviour with any regard to fitness and decency, be represented, as he here is, sitting as it were in state, adorned with the glorious and magnificent titles of conquest and triumph, encompassed with the spoils of his adversaries as so many trophies of his victories over them: Because according to this opinion, if we consider things impartially, we shall find that what he did was very little and inconsiderable to this purpose. He dyed for us indeed, but his death if considered in itself, was but a very feeble impotent business: it had no power to effect, no worth and dignity to procure and merit our redemption. The Devil, it is true, the great enemy of our salvation, is now vanquished, and he who bruised the heel of our saviour is now placed under his and our feet; but this is owing not to the passion of Christ, but to the power of God, and our deliverance from his tyranny is to be ascribed solely to divine grace and favour. And if it had not been for that, we must still have continued under the guilt of our sins and the dominion of the Devil, notwithstanding any efficacy that we may imagine was in the death of Christ; whose across would only have been a monument of the injustice and cruelty of the Jews and Romans, but no trophy of his power and conquest over sin and Hell; as the Christian world hath hitherto vainly fancied. But I shall forbear enlarging any farther on this subject. By what hath been said, I think it plainly appears that the death of our saviour, whereby as a priest he offered up himself a sacrifice to divine justice, was equivalent to the death and punishment of all mankind: and therefore( that we may bring both parts of our argument together) that it was a clear proof of his Divinity. And for such it was always acknowledged and urged by the Fathers when they discoursed of this matter. For when the question at any time was put, how the sufferings of Christ could suffice to purchase pardon and mercy for the whole world, they always resolved the efficacy of them into the divine nature which was united to the human in which he suffered. He only did, and he only could redeem us. Now this must not be so understood, as if Eos itaque qui dicunt, Itane defuit Deo alius modus, quo liberaret hominem à miseria mortalitatis hujus ut unigenitum filium hominem fieri velvet, mortalemque factum mortem perpeti? parum est sic refeller●, ut istum modum asseramus bonum& divinae congruum dignitati, verum etiam ut ostendamus, non alium modum possibilem Deo defuisse, cujus potastat● cuncta aequaliter subjacent; said sanandae nostr● miseriae convenientionem modum al●um non fuisse, non esse oportuisse. Aug. Lib. ●3. de Trinit. Cap. 10. Verax nanque misericordia Dei▪ cum ad reparandum 〈◇〉 num genus ineffabiliter ei multa suppeterent, hanc potissimum consulendi viam el●gi●, qua ad destruendum opus diab●li, non virtute uteretur potentiae, said ratione justiti●. lo Mag. Serm. de Nativ. Christi. any restraints were designed thereby to be laid on the power of God, or such limits assigned to his wisdom, as if he could not have found out any other way, or effected our salvation by any other means than this: But when they spake of the reasons of our saviours Incarnation and sufferings, they place the necessity of them in the divine appointment and decree. That is, since God had so ordered this matter, that the redemption of mankind was to be accomplished by a plenary satisfaction made to his justice; it was therefore necessary that a divine person should suffer, otherwise those sufferings could not have been of sufficient value, nor have afforded that perfect satisfaction which the Law required, and divine justice demanded. How could Christ {αβγδ}. Athan. de salutari Christi adventu, p. 639. Edit. Colon. who was but a part of the world, save the whole world? it was the objection of the Apollinari●ns mentioned by Athanasius: which the holy Father styles a deceitful and blasphemous suggestion, because he who wrought our Salvation for us was God as well as man. If he had been only a man, it would have been a very proper question, and would have carried a difficulty with it, such as could not have been solved. But when we consider that he was the Son of God who dyed for us, the objection immediately vanishes. {αβγδ}, Loc. prius cit. p. 103. saith the same Father as we heard before; it was not in the power of any other either man or Angel, to purchase this redemption for us; he who first made, he only could restore us. It was not a mere man, but the God man Christ Jesus, saith St. Basil {αβγδ},& postea: {αβγδ}, Basil▪ Homil. in ps. 48. v. 7. who could be a propitiation for the sins of the world. For what is there of that value, that was possible for a man to give for the redemption of his own Soul; but the infinite wisdom of God contrived and found out a price of equal value to the sins of mankind, viz. the holy and precious blood of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum and afterwards of Constantinople, in the Homily which he spoken in the great Church at Constantinople in the presence of Nestorius then Patriarch there; declares himself very clearly and fully upon this subject. For in giving an account of the end and reasons of Christ's Incarnation, he tells us, {αβγδ}. council. Eph. Edit. Labb. cap. 1. p. 14. that mankind were much indebted to the justice of God by reason of their sins, which debts they themselves were not able to discharge: The Devil in the mean time was not wanting upon all occasions to put them in mind of their demerit, and to demand their punishment. Now one of these two things was absolutely necessary, either that all must undergo the death to which they were condemned, because all had sinned; or else that some such price for their redemption should be laid down as might fully satisfy the demands of justice. But this neither Man nor Angel could do: it remained therefore that he who was God should die in the room of sinners; this being the only way left whereby they could escape that misery to which otherwise they must unavoidably be exposed. Again, {αβγδ}. ibid. p. 15. He only was able to redeem us; because being God as well as man, he did lay down a price which was not only equal or equiponderant to our Guilt, but which did by many degrees exceed it. A very proper question is put by {αβγδ}; ibid. part. 3. cap. 9. p. 993. Theodorus Bishop of Ancyra in the Homily which he spoken upon the day of our saviours Nativity, and which was publicly red in the Council of Ephesus; If it were not God who suffered for the sins of men, from whence could those sufferings acquire that mighty force and efficacy which is ascribed to them? How could death be destroyed by death, except it were God that dyed for us? But forasmuch as those sufferings were undergone by him that was God as well as man, it is no wonder that such mighty things should be accomplished by them; since they received their virtue and power from his Divinity. The like question is put by {αβγδ}. De Verbi Incarnat. Exegesi ad Valerian. ibid. part. 3. cap. 40. 1161. St. Cyril of Alexandria more than once. If our saviour was but a common man, how could his life be equal to the lives of all men which were forfeited to divine justice? To which he gives the very same answer: He was God incarnate who dyed, and then it is no wonder that he could lay down such a price as was sufficient for the redemption of the whole world. This he repeats again {αβγδ}. Id. ibid. part. 1. cap. 4. p. 186. {αβγδ}. Id. ibid. pag. 187.& alibi passim. and again, and both he and the other Fathers assembled in the great Council of Ephesus still resolve the dignity and efficacy of our saviours sufferings into the Divinity of his person. And with this Argument they combat the Heresy of Nestorius, the impiety and danger of whose opinion chiefly consisted in this, viz. that by dividing Christ into two persons, and consequently cutting off all communication of properties between them; he plainly evacuated the force and energy of our saviours sufferings, and thereby clearly subverted the doctrine concerning the redemption of the world by his death, as it was stated in the Scriptures, and believed by the catholic Church. If Nestorius had lived in our days, he might have answered for himself, as some now do: It is true by asserting two persons as well as two natures in Christ, I must aclowledge that he was a mere man that dyed for us, and consequently that the sufferings of an human person, could receive no virtue or dignity from the Divine person to which he was united, and which did cohabit and dwell in him In this cohabitation or indwelling consisted the great mystery of the Hypostatick union, as it was explained by Nestorius; which explication of his was censured and condemned in the before mentioned Council of Ephesus. Vide cyril. Exeg. ad Valerian. council. Eph. Par. 3. Cap. 40. p. 1160. Et Nestorii Anathematismos Cyrilli Anath. oppositos par. 1. Cap. 29. p. 424. . Neither is there any need that this should be done; for their efficacy doth not arise either from the worthyness of the person, or the dignity of those sufferings: They may without this, be still all sufficient, because their sufficiency depends only on the divine pleasure and acceptation. But those Fathers were strangers to this sort of Divinity; who always believed that no less a recompense would be accepted of by God, than that which was equal to the guilt and demerit of mankind, and that none therefore could make it but he who was God as well as man. I should tyre the Reader if I should city all the Testimonies of the other Fathers, which might be produced to this purpose. And indeed I have been the longer upon this subject, in citing and insisting on the former authorities from the Ancients, that I might rescue this doctrine concerning our saviours satisfaction from the reflections cast upon it, as if it were only a Metaphysical nicety, and the invention of the Schoolmen: which now by some is thought to be so great a disparagement to any opinion, that you need not add any thing farther to expose it to contempt, and indeed to the detestation of the readers. But by what hath been produced I hope it sufficiently appears that this was the doctrine of the Church of Christ, always professed and maintained by the Fathers long before any such persons as the Schoolmen were ever heard of in the world. And what they say upon this subject may be reduced to these four Heads. 1st, That whatever methods the divine wisdom might have contrived for the Salvation of Mankind, yet the way that he pitched upon was, by demanding a plenary, adequate satisfaction for those wrongs and injuries that were done to his authority by the violation of his Laws. 2dly, That it was not in the power of Man or Angel, or any other creature, to afford any such compensation to divine justice. Because, ex perfecta justitia, the expiation of Sin could not be accomplished but by such sufferings as were of infinite value. 3dly, That our saviour by dying for us did make a sufficient recompense to that justice. The honor and authority of God being fully and in a more eminent manner vindicated by his death, than injured by our disobedience. So that his punishment did not only equal, but indeed preponderate our guilt. Lastly, That this was a clear proof of his Divinity. The Church of God was redeemed by his blood; the price therefore which he paid was of unspeakable value: the sacrifice which he offered was of immense, nay infinite virtue; the punishment which he underwent was equivalent to the sufferings of all mankind. This shows him to be God, because none less than God could lay down such a price, offer such a sacrifice, undergo such sufferings as were of this immense worth, this infinite force and efficacy. And thus at length I have finished what I had to say upon this Head: and I hope have hereby made it sufficiently to appear that Faith as it is terminated upon the person of Christ is a necessary indispensible duty; and that the contrary opinion of Socinus, and Episcop.( which by confounding faith and obedience, makes the former, as it bespeaks the persuasion of the mind concerning the truths of the Gospel, and particularly that great truth, that Christ is the natural and eternal son of God, an useless and indifferent matter) is highly dishonourable to our saviour. And this was the first mischievous consequence which we affirmed, necessary attends this opinion; because, without this persuasion concerning the nature of Christ, we cannot have that inward esteem and reverence for him as becomes us; we cannot make him those outward acknowledgements, nor pay him those external actions of Homage and worship which the Scriptures require of us. Nor lastly, can we truly and rightly own him to be the Messiah; because he could not execute the offices, nor perform the functions which belonged to him as the Messiah, except he were God, as well as man. And if so, then this persuasion of the mind concerning the Divine nature or Godhead of our saviour, is, fatentibus adversariis, absolutely necessary to Salvation, and that without which we cannot be Christians. The Primitive Christians could not conceive how it was possible for any person to be our saviour, who was not likewise our God. Therefore if it be necessary to believe Christ to be our saviour, it must at the same time( according to them) be necessary to believe him to be God. And so I come to consider the second pernicious consequence which flows from it, viz. that it is highly pernicious to the Christian Religion, and the Christian Church which is established upon it, and tends plainly to undermine and overturn them both. And this I shall endeavour to make out, with relation first to the Doctrine, and then secondly to the practise of Christianity. 1st Then, as to what concerns the doctrine, I say that Socinus and his followers, by confounding faith and obedience, and accounting the former, as it bespeaks the persuasion of the mind concerning the truths of the Gospel, an useless or at best an indifferent matter; plainly lay the foundations of infidelity, and thereby betray the Christian Religion, and deliver up the Doctrines of it into the hands of its enemies, both those within, and those without the pale of the Church. 1st As to the former, such I mean, who take upon them the name and profession of Christians,( and therefore in a large general sense may be said to be within the Pale of the Church) and yet hold several pernicious and impious opinions, such as have been vended and published both in former and latter ages by divers bold and presumptuous persons,( such as were the Cerinthians, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Marcionites of old; Unitarians, Anabaptists( especially the Munsterian and Flandrian sorts) Familists, Muggletonians, Quakers, &c. of later times) to the great detriment and scandal of the Christian Religion, whereby the peace of the Church hath been disturbed, and the purity of its doctrines corrupted and depraved: 'tis certain all these, together with the opinions published by them,( whether they are owing to rapture and enthusiasm, or are the product of a more calm and deliberate contrivance, in this case it matters not) receive too great countenance and encouragement from this notion. For since a good life is not only the principal end of all Religion, but consists solely See the assertions of Socin. to this purpose before produced, p. 34, 35. , as they tell us, in the practise of Piety and virtue; what need any man be concerned about his Faith, and the persuasion of his mind, concerning the doctrines of the Gospel, provided he yields obedience to the precepts of it; which obedience they say, is the sum and substance of Christianity. Now it is certain, that probity, which is the main thing required and recommended by Socinus, consisting in the exercise of Justice, Charity, and Temperance, &c. and other moral virtues, may be, and hath been consistent with divers false and erroneous persuasions concerning the mysteries of Religion and the Articles of our Faith: and if so, from hence it must follow( I mean according to this notion advanced by Socinus) that it matters not what apprehensions you have of these latter; nor particularly what opinions you entertain of the person and nature of Christ: whether you conceive him to be God or Man; the son of God, or the son of Joseph: whether you think he existed from all eternity, or think he had no existence antecedent to his being born of the Virgin; whether you believe him to be one person, or divided into two: whether you think he consists of two natures, or after the union of both, whether they are so blended and confounded, as to make up but one: That is, whether you are an E●ionite, Cerinthian, Arian, Samosatenian, Photinian, Nestorian, or Eutychian; it is not much material: modo vitae sanctimonia salva sit: provided you retain a due regard for holiness and live a good life. For supposing the opinions before mentioned, or others of the like nature, to be opposite to the truth, yet forasmuch as they are not inconsistent with Piety, there can be no harm or danger in them. The persons who maintained them might be men of probity, and if so, the holiness of their Lives makes a sufficient atonement for the errors of their understanding, which at most are inconsiderable, and therefore very pardonable mistakes. For among all An Exhort▪ to an impartial enquiry into Rel. p. 15. Sects, and in all Ages, as one of them saith, God hath preserved a Body of Morality, which is the great and only design of the Gospel. For which reason, not only the Socinians,( who publicly profess We know the Unitarians both of this and the last Age, are so far from being ashamed of the above mentioned names, and others of the like nature, so as to look upon them to be terms of obloquy and reproach, that they rather Glory in them, and own divers of the Authors and Founders of those Sects to be of their Party. Nay upon this account they vie with the Orthodox for superiority in point of numbers, even in the Primitive times. So that of all those Heroes transmited to us in the Catalogue of heretics, down from Simon Magus to Arius, there are few which they do not claim to be theirs. For whereas we cannot produce above twenty Authors, they say, in defence of our Doctrines concerning the Divinity of Christ; they can city near two hundred, who are clearly on their side, viz. Theodotion, Symmachus, Cerinthus, &c. and much good may their number● do them. See the Book Entitled the judgement of the Fathers opposed to Dr. B●l●● Defence. Whereas there are now lost about 200. for about 20 Antenicene written which are preserved, we are to impute this loss, to the Errors contained in their Books; that is more plainly, he saith, to their too manifest agreement with the Arian and Minean, now called the Socinian Heresies, p. 5. See the Brief Hist. of th● Unitarians, p. 10. themselves to be of the same party, and own the opinions of divers of them who in the first and purest ages, were branded with the name of heretics) but Episcopius Tanti est Remonstrantibus manifesta veritas, ut susque habeant, sieve Socini, sieve S●●vet●, sieve Ari●, sieve Pelagi● sieve alterius exosissimi hoins nomen praes●ribatur, ●● genium ejus aut spiritum redolere dicatur. Manifesta veritas non d●pre●●atur 〈◇〉 nominibus, prudentes non terrentur vocibus Haereticorum, Episcop. Resp. ad Spe 〈…〉 Calumn. Oper. Tom. 2. p. 287. In these words there is craftily pretended a reservation for truth; but then at the same time there is an insinuation, as if the opinions of Socinus, Servetus, Arius, Pelagius, in those points in which they differ from the common and generally received doctrines of the catholic Church, are true, which I think is a scandalous suggestion. Affirmare non dubitamus, f●eri posse, ut error aliquis qui non tantum in Doctrinam Jesu Christi impingit, said ita etiam impingit, ●● etiam in natura sua,& in s●ipso consideratus cultui& obsequio Jesu Christi, 〈…〉 rique& majestati ejus omnino contrarius sit, cum fide vera, qua creditur Jesum ess● Christum, consistat, ac proinde errans talis, vere filius Dei, membrum Jesu Christi,& frater noster sit atque habeatur, Id. Lect. Sacrae. 1 Cap. 5. primae Epist▪ Joh. v. 1. Videas crebro id accidere ut qui Haeretici judicantur, vitae sint castigatioris& disciplinae exact●oris, atque ita exemplo suo non modo nulli non noceant, said aliis ad acc●ratius vivendum occasionem simul ac stimulum praebeant. Quae res innocentiam eorum adeo illustrat, ut merito dubites, m●jusne malum ab eorum Haeresi metuendum sit, an ab exemplo vitae bonum sperandum: profecto vitae innocenti● admirabiles vires h●b●t,& qui per errorem vel cum error in ea adeo proficit, ut aliis exemplo sit& p●n● miraculo, ejus errori nescio quid non à nobis condonari posset ac debeat. Perdidit a●ul●um suum error qui vitae emendatioris studium non potest extinguere. Id. in Videl. Rhaps. p. 351. Hic limbs, hic terminus eorum est,( Scil. Remonstr.) neminem pium à se excludere, nec profanum admittere, dissentientes omnes far& amplecti. Quos Deus Coelo ac glorioso suo throno dignatur, eos cur illi non dignentur societate sua ● Atqui certa res est, omnes& solos pios ac fideles Dei cultores, omnes pacificos Christi filii su● imitatores, Deus coelo& domo sua dignari vult. Dissentientes ac errants a se separare, aut se ab illis segregare, nuspiam sibi mandatum legunt. Nec refer putant Remonstr. in quocunque dogmate sit dissensio, modo dogma istud Deum& pretatem non laedat,& qui istud profitetur pacem cum dissentientibus colere ex animo paratus sit. Id. Apol. pro Conf. Remonstr. p. 118. His consentanea passim in illius scriptis, centies fear, usque ad fasti dium ne dicam nauseam Lectoris repetita, reperiri possunt. and his followers acted by the same principle, speak very favourably in general both of Heresy and heretics, and profess a high respect nay a kind of veneration for some of them, especially for those of this and the last Age, who are the bold and implacable enemies of the blessed Trinity. They disown their doctrines in some measure it's true, but yet maintain a friendship and correspondence with the Authors of them, and give them the right hand of fellowship. They compliment their persons, extol their piety, excuse, extenuate, make apologies for their mistakes, and proclaim to the world, that they know no harm nor malignity that is in them. Thus like Judas they betray their saviour with a kiss, and at the same time that they pretend to salute and reverence his person, and embrace his doctrines, they do really deliver up both into the hands of his professed enemies. I know it will be here said, in behalf of both these beforementioned Socinians and Remonstrants, that they are so far from disowning the usefulness, that they preach up the necessity of Faith, and upon all occasions declare, that to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, is a duty of absolute and indispensible obligation, and without which we cannot be Christians. To which I answer, that this very belief, which is all that they require of us, may be, and hath been consistent with divers, and those very dangerous errors, which plainly subvert the foundations of Christianity. And particularly in the primitive Church, sundry persons there were, who tho they did not totally revolt from the profession of the Christian Religion, but openly professed and believed Jesus to be the Messiah, yet for all this fell into many wild and desperate opinions, for which they were then, ●nd still have been justly reputed heretics. Thus the Corpocratians and Cerinthians, against whom St. judas and St. Peter are supposed to writ their Epistles, are styled by them ungodly men, and their errors, damnable heresies, 2 Pet. 2. 1. for by denying the divine nature of Christ, and accounting him to be only a man, tho at the same time they owned him to be the Messiah; they are said by those inspired writers, to deny the Lord that bought them, judas 2. 4. And the Judaizing Christians, against whom St. Paul wrote especially in his Epistle to the Galatians, come under the like Censure and Condemnation. For tho they did in general believe in Christ, yet forasmuch as at the same time they did likewise believe that they were under a necessary obligation to observe the Ceremonial Law; they did thereby evacuate the force, and destroy the excellency of their former Faith; and reduced themselves into a condition as bad as that of Infidels. For by this persuasion, they did fall from Grace, Gal. 5. 4. And while they continued in it, the Apostle assures them that Christ would be of no effect to them, or which is the same in other word▪ would profit them nothing, v. 2. That is, they should receive no advantage by any thing that Christ either did or suffered for their sakes. For which reason the Apostle chides them severely; upbraids them with their Levity and inconstancy in the profession of the Faith, charges them with folly and stupidity, that they should so soon be removed from the grace of Christ, and the obedience of the truth, which was so plainly preached, and so fully and evidently set forth before their Eyes, that except they were blinded or bewitched they must be forced to aclowledge it. I confess if we were to be governed by the opinions of Socinus and his friends,( formerly published, and which do of late too much prevail) we might justly wonder why the Apostle should be so positive and so severe, and draw up so heavy a charge against the Judaizing Christians, upon the account of their mistakes in this matter. Did they renounce the Christian Religion, and by a total revolt to judaism plainly deny him, whom formerly they owned to be the Messiah? No they did not. How then could they be said to introduce a new Gospel who professed and maintained the great, nay the only fundamental article of it? Why should it be said that Christ would profit them nothing, who reverenced his person, submitted to his authority, obeied his precepts; and in short, according to the opinion of these men, acknowledged all that was necessary to be believed, and performed all that was necessary to be practised? For the observation of the Ceremonial was not inconsistent with obedience to the Moral Law. For both Christ himself and his Apostles, those great patterns of virtue and holiness, for some time shewed themselves conformable to both. Wherein then did the malignity of this error of theirs consist, which should bring them under so great and heavy a Censure? Why it consisted in this, that tho they acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah, or the Christ,( otherwise they could not have been esteemed Christians) yet they did not own him to be so in the full import and signification of that word. They would aclowledge him to be their King, and as such were ready to obey his Laws: but they would not accept of, and own him to be their saviour, I mean a complete and perfect saviour. They expected justification by the works of the Law but not by the Faith of Christ, or at least partly by the Law, and partly by Christ; and thereby they clearly evacuated the force and efficacy of Christs death, and overthrew the end and reason of it, which was to purchase pardon of sin, and eternal Salvation for us. In short, they did hereby frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain, Gal. 2. 21. Now this was plainly to undermine the Gospel of Christ, and to introduce a new one in its room; and whoever attempts to do so, whether he be Man or Angel, deserves to be censured with an Anathema, Gal. 1. 7. From whence it must follow, that there are more Articles than that one concerning the Messiah which are necessary to be believed; and more errors consequently destructive of Salvation, besides that one of denying Jesus to be the Christ, if we believe St. Paul. But he perhaps may be thought to be a hot-headed fiery zealot, who out of a contentious humour, and a concern for I know not what opinions of his own, disturbed the peace of the world, and turned it upside down. Socinus was a person of more wisdom and temper; he hath brought down Religion out of the Clouds, and hath reduced it, as Socrates did of old, all from speculation to practise. There is but one thing necessary, and that is obedience. But doth not the Scripture say we are to believe in Christ? Yes, but that is only another word for obedience, if we believe Socinus, as was formerly observed. I pray you let us examine this matter a little more particularly, lest hereby we may be lead into some great and dangerous mistake before we are well ware. If we look into the Gospels we shall find the holy Pen-men of them very careful in giving us, an exact account of the birth of our saviour, the manner and circumstances of his life, death, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven. The matter of fact is delivered by the Evangelists; the grounds, ends, and reasons of this whole dispensation, are more fully declared and explained by the Apostles in their Sermons, and the Epistles which they wrote, directed indeed to some particular Persons or Churches, but designed for the lasting benefit of all Christians▪ in all succeeding ages of the world. Now these things are faithfully recorded, frequently inculcated, and insisted upon by them, as matters of great importance, in the knowledge of which we are nearly concerned; and therefore they take all this pains sufficiently to instruct us, that we might thereby be fully persuaded of the truth of them. These things are written, saith St. John, That ye may believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that believing ye might have life thro his name, Jo. 20. ●●. Is it not then from hence evident, that these things which concern the birth, death, resurrection, &c. of our saviour, are properly Articles of our Faith, and that they ought therefore to be ●stinctly known( I speak still of those who have capacities of knowing, together with sufficient means of information) and firmly believed by us; and consequently that our ignorance, and much more our denial of these truths is extremely dangerous? No saith Socinus, your ignorance of these matters cannot be dangerous, because your belief of them is not necessary. How not necessary? doth not the Scripture in express terms, and under the highest penaltys require it? Yes it doth indeed▪ but then you must know by Faith in those places where it is required of us as a necessary duty, is not meant the assent of the understanding to the truths of the Gospel, but a Arbitror ante ea quae à me hactenus dicta sunt, satis esse ad demonstrandum, cur cum de Christi fide verba fiunt, fiduciam potissimum intelligam quae in ipso Christo collocetur. At queen affirmem hanc fidem esse illam Christi fidem qua revera justificemur, non autem persuasionem illam quod Jesus sit messiah, Socin. Libello de fide& operibus, Tom. 2. Op. p. 205. Ex scripto igitur tuo( Covetum alloquitur) apart colligitur, fidem illam in Christum qua nos justificari sacrae literae passim docent, nihil aliud esse quam firmiter credere, per ea quae passus est Christus peccata nostra deleta fuisse. said enunciationem istam à veritate quam longissime abbess, vel id satis ostendit, quod fides in Christum Dei promissione nititur. Verum promissio futurum tempus respicit. Itaque necesse est, fidem in Christum persuasione seu firma opinione alieujus rei, quae futura sit, contineri. At vestra istaec in Christum fides praeteritum tempus omnino respicit,& firma opinione ejus rei quae jam peracta sit, tota continetur, Id. de Christo serve. par. 4. Cap. 9. Cum de fide quae nos Deo gratos efficient, sermo est, qualis certe fides in Christum censeri debet, vix invenias de re credenda agi quae jam peracta est, said semper de futura, Id. ibid. p. 230. confident persuasion and assurance, that if you obey the precepts of Christ, you shall be pardonned and saved by him. Now this Faith, you must know, as it signifies fiducia, hath no retrospect, doth not look backward to what is past? but always forward to what is to come. So that that Faith which is required to our justification, is not conversant about the birth, death, and resurrection of our saviour; all these things are past and gone; but you must look forward, and view Christ now in Heaven, sitting on the right hand of his Father, endowed with power to save us, if we obey his Laws. It is true indeed Christ now in Heaven is the noble object of our Faith, and the great support of it: But is it not requisite likewise to believe that he dyed for our Sins, and rose again for our Justification? No: for tho our Salvation may in some measure be owing to Christs death and resurrection, yet for all that, it is of no great consequence, to be persuaded of them, because our justification doth not depend on any such knowledge or persuasion. For since to believe in Christ is to confided in him, quis non videt, saith Jam vero si fides in Christum est ipsi consider, quis non videt, fidem in Christum non praeteritum tempus said futurum respicere;& non firma opinione beneficii jam accepti, said aliquando accipiendi contineri? Id. ibid. p. 231. Socin. who is so blind as not to see, that this Faith doth not consist in a firm persuasion, beneficii jam accepti, said aliquando accipiendi; of any thing that Christ hath done, or of any benefits which by dying and suffering he hath procured for us; but of what hereafter we shall receive from him, viz. Remission of our sins, if we be obedient to his Laws. Now this we must needs say is a very mischievous position, advanced in direct opposition to the whole tenor of the Gospel, and to the express declarations of what Christ and his Apostles have so often made upon this occasion. For doth not the Angel who appeared to Joseph in a dream, give him this as the reason why the Child which was conceived by the Virgin Mary his wife, should be called Jesus, viz. because he should save his people from their Sins? Math. 1. 21. and doth not that same Jesus acquaint his Disciples with the way and manner how that Salvation was to be accomplished, viz. by the shedding of his blood? This is my blood which is shed for the remission of Sins, Mat. 26. 28. And doth not he in another place inform them that this was the principal end of his coming into the world, that he might give his life a ransom for many, or for all? Mark 10. 45. Is it not fit therefore that the ground and reason of our saviours coming into the world, and the way whereby he purchased remission of sins for us, should be known and believed by us? No, saith Socinus, there is no necessity that this should be known, as in fact it was actually known but by very few. And therefore saith he, Tale quidpiam populo nunquam dixit. Tantum discipulis suis seorsim semel dixisse eum legimus, sanguinem suum jamjam fusum iri pro multis in remissionem p●ccatorum, Math. 26. 28. Idem etiam solis discipulis affirmavit, se venisse, ut anima● suam daret redemptionis pretium pro multis, Mar. 10. 45. Populo autem, seu poti●s Pharisaeis& populi primoribus, nihil apertius quod huc pertinere videri posset, eum dixisse memini, quam se bonum pastorem esse, qui animam suam pro evibus ponat Jo. 10. 15. Quae verba idem sibi volunt, ac si Christus dixisset, se in vitae discrimen seipsum adducere, ut suos à morte servaret. Quod cum ita sit, non dicam plebi& populo universo ex professo, said ne populi quidem pri●oribus obiter quod ammodo, in quae ipse passurus erat peccata eorum deletum iri, dixit Christus. Quomodo igitur id propterea credi aut debet, aut etiam potest, quia Christi verbis fides sit adhibenda? Id. ibid. I do not remember that ever our saviour acquainted the multitude with this, or ever Preached any such doctrine in public to them. It was a secret which he privately whispered to his Disciples when they were alone, and there it restend and went no farther. How? declared only to his Disciples? doth not our saviour in a public discourse and in the hearing of all the People tell them, that he was the living bread which came down from Heaven and that this bread was his flesh which he would give for the life of the world, Jo. 6. 51. And at another time, that he was the good Shepherd, who would lay down his life for his sheep? Jo. 10. 15. It must be confessed that he did say all this; but as to the former of these two Texts, Socinus did not think fit to take any notice of it; whether out of forgetfulness or design, let the Reader judge. And as for the latter, they contain only, as he tells us, a general declaration of Christs love to his people, which was so great, that he could be content, if there were occasion for it, to lay down his life in order to save theirs. And nothing more can be collected from Christs words in that place. But as for that main point, viz. that pardon of sins was to be purchased by the death of Christ, and the shedding of his blood for us, this was not known either by the common people among the Jews, nor by their Elders or Rulers; nay nor by the Disciples of Christ himself; and therefore it cannot be necessary that it should be known and believed by us, nor can the knowledge and belief of it have any influence upon our justification. So Socinus. It is true indeed, as to what concerns the Death and Resurrection of Christ, those things either as to the matter of fact, or the ends and reasons of them, were not so plainly understood and believed by the Jews in general, or by his own Disciples in particular, as might reasonably be expected from such who were conversant in the writings of the old Testament, where these matters were plainly enough delivered. And therefore we find our saviour upbraiding his Disciples with their folly and slowness of heart to believe all that the Prophets had spoken on this subject. Afterwards he drew the veil away that was before their eyes, removed the prejudices which they lay under, and opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures: and shewed them plainly that thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, Luke 24. 46. And what he thus informed them of, he commanded them afterwards to publish to the world: for he appointed them to be his witnesses of these things v. 48. Jo. 15. 27. And accordingly we find them in pursuance of their Commission, every where and upon all occasions testifying these things, and with great power giving witness of his Resurrection, and consequently of his death, both these being necessary joined together. I shall not trouble the Reader with multiplicity of examples in this matter. Let it suffice to instance in what St. Paul declares upon this occasion to the Corinthians, Epist. 1. ch. 15. viz. That the sum of the Gospel which he Preached to them was, that Christ dyed for our sins, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, v. 3, 4. This was that Gospel which they had received, and by which alone they could be Saved; this they are required to keep in memory, i.e. frequently to meditate upon and firmly to believe it, otherwise whatever else they had believed, would be altogether vain and insignificant, v. 2. and v. 14. If Christ be not risen, then is our Preaching vain, and your Faith is also vain. Well? but tho it should be allowed, that it is not necessary to believe the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, because this brings us backward, and engages us to look after what is past; yet ought we not to have a firm belief, of the Ascension of Christ into Heaven, and that he there lives, ever making intercession for us? because this may and doth respect Tempus futurum,( as Socinus before stated this matter) not only what Christ hath done, but what he continues still to do, and will be doing to the end of the World. If you put this question to Socinus, he will tell you Cum de Justificatione nostra disputatur, nnde ea proficiscatur, vis praecipua qu●stionis, si hinc fructus aliquis percipiendus sit, non circa illa versatur quae extra no● sunt, said quae in nobis. Nam quod ad illa attinet quae extra nos sunt,& tamen justificationis nostrae sunt causae, quamvis digniora& nobiliora iis quae sunt in nobis, non est ut de ills soliciti admodum simus, quatenus quaerimus ut justificemur. Ete●i● aut ista sunt& erunt sine ulla nostra cura& industria, nec necesse est ut prius in nobis aliquid certum sit:& quid opus est de eis sollicitum esse? aut nec sunt nec erunt, sine nostra cura& industria,& nisi prius in nobis aliquid certum sit,& merely opus est curare ut istud in nobis habeamus. Et postea: Quod enm ad misericordiam Dei attin●t Christique personam, una cum iis omnibus quae idem Christus pro nobis fecit& facturus est, quamvis haec sunt verae ac praecipuae causae justificationis nostrae; tamen, men aut jam illarum sumus erimusve participes, antequam in nobis aliquid certum sit,& sic supervacaneum est de illis cogitare quatenus per ea justificari velimus. Aut illorum nec jam sumus nec futuri sumus participes, antequam intra nos certum aliquid sit, Et sic curiose de hoc quaerere debemus. Socin. Script. de fide& operibus p. 251. you need not trouble your selves much about that, any more than about those other matters. For if you desire to be satisfied in that important question concerning your justification, and the remission of sin; and if you would reap any benefit and advantage by that enquiry, then you must not be much concerned about the external causes of it, ea quae extra nos sunt, for vis praecipua quaestionis non circa illa versatur; the stress of the enquiry must not ly there, viz. upon those things which are without us, such as are the mercy of God, the person of Christ, together with all those things which the same Christ either already hath, or hereafter shall do for us. These are extrinsical and foreign to the purpose; and not only quae supra, said quae extra nos, nihil ad nos; and therefore there is no reason, cur de iis admodum soliciti simus, that we should trouble our heads or disturb our rest, by any fruitless and anxious thoughts about them. As if he should say, recall your wandring thoughts from gadding abroad, and gazing upon those things which are either above or about you; and turn them all inward; see if you have repentance and a reformation wrought within you, and for other things which are without you, viz. the mercy of God and the merits of Christ, you need not be solicitous or much concerned about them. This is the resolution of this great Casuist, in that important case about our Justification; which if it were to be put into the words and language of the Quakers it would amount to this, that we should not so much look after a Christ without, as a Christ within us; and that the true mystery of godliness, is Christ manifested in his Children. For what the one expresses in more plain and common terms, the other choose to deliver in their enthusiastick unintelligible Cant; but the design of both is the same, viz. to take us off from our Faith and reliance upon the incarnation and sufferings of our saviour, which the whole Christian world have as they say, too long and lazily depended upon. These indeed we are taught to aclowledge to be the only foundation of our hopes, I mean as to the procuring and meritorious cause of mercy and pardon: and here we think we are safe; but from this confidence these seducers would fain withdraw us; and would persuade us to build upon a more slippery and unstable bottom, to rely upon a reed that will be shaken with every wind; viz. those virtuous For tho' when we speak of the application of pardon, those good dispositions, are conditions absolutely requisite to render us capable of it; yet the true, proper procuring cause of remission of sins are the passion and merits of our saviour, which we must fly to, and rely upon; otherwise all that we can do, will be useless and insignificant to this purpose. dispositions of mind, which the Socinians comprehend under the general name of probity and the Quakers call the inward and spiritual appearance of Christ in the Conscience. But to return to Socinus. By what we have produced out of him one would think, if what he saith be true, that it should not be so necessary as is generally imagined, to believe Jesus to be the Messiah; for if it be not necessary to believe that he was born, that he dyed and rose again, ascended into Heaven, &c. I cannot imagine why it should be necessary that we should have any knowledge of him at all. It is true this is said to be necessary, but if men may speak freely and impartially, we may venture to affirm, that it is not such an Article as we are under any indispensible obligation of believing. No? how comes Socinus then so often and so peremptorily to affirm it. It is true he doth so, but it is with a just reservation. It is necessary this should be acknowledged; that is generally speaking, and with regard to men, but not so absolutely necessary if you consider things in themselves. I mean thus: a good life consisting in a conformity to the precepts of the Gospel is the only thing that is acceptable to God, and desirable in itself: but forasmuch as you cannot, or rather forasmuch as it may be presumed that generally speaking, men will not obey the Laws of Christ who do not own his authority; therefore it becomes necessary to believe him to be the Messiah or King: that is, it is accidentally Secunda quaestio est, utrum censeam, cum scriptura jubet ut in Christum, aut Christo, aut per Christum credamus, debere hic praecipue rationem haberi doctrinae de operibus& vitae innocentia, cum prima ac praecipua pars doctrinae Christi& Apostolorum sit fidem praedicare, id est, quod Jesus est messiah, Dei filius, &c. cvi quaestioni sic respondet Socin. Nullus ex praedictis tribus loquendi modis praecipue aut per seipsum significat judicio meo, credere Jesum esse Messiam. Id tamen significant, seu potius complectuntur accessory, ut dicitur,& per accidence: quatenus videlicet accidit, ut nemo posset Christo confidere, aut ejus verbis credere, nisi prius credat Jesum esse Christum. Id. Ibid. p. 249. 250. necessary only, as being a good motive and consideration to persuade us to obey him. But if it were possible for men to arrive at holiness of life, which consists in a compliance with the Laws of the Gospel, only from the consideration of the decency, usefulness, excellency of those Laws in themselves( as I know not why this may not be done) then it would be so far from being necessary, to believe in Christ, that it were no great matter whether ever you knew, or heard any thing of him at all. But is it not a point of respect due to our saviour to have just and honourable conceptions of his person, and that indeed which is the foundation of all other external expressions of Homage and duty? No All respect is shewed by obedience, and if that be secured, it is no great matter what your apprehensions of him as to his nature and person may be. Right perhaps it may be said by some, it is not much material to know, and therefore we need not trouble ourselves to inquire, whether he be the Eternal son of God, who in time took upon him our nature, whereby the two natures human and divine came to be united in one person; these are Metaphysical niceties not much to be regarded. But is it not necessary to believe that he was a true real man, made up as all other men are of a true proper material Body and a rational Soul? This indeed one would reasonably think should be absolutely necessary, if it be at all necessary to believe any thing concerning him; because if he were not a true man at least, one might imagine that it were impossible for him to be the true Messiah. But for all this, saith Quod ad illas opiniones attinet, quae pertinent ad ejus naturam sieve essentiam, vix ullae sunt ex quibus, quantumvis falsis, consequatur, eum qui illas tenet, non credere Jesum esse Christum. said tamen si ulla est ejusmodi, alia esse non potest, qua● quod Jesus Christus ver●s homo non fuerit. Nam cum ex divinis testimoniis evinci posset, Christum Dei qui promissus fuerat, verum hominem esse debuisse, si Jesus non credatur fuisse verus homo, videtur hinc omnino consequi, ut non credatur etiam esse Christus Dei. Verum fieri nihilominus potest, ut quis sibi persuadeat, ista dvo simul consistere posse:& propterea si alioqui appareat, eum qui neget Christum fuisse verum hominem, habere illum pro vero Christo Dei; crediderim opinionem istam, quamvis plane falsam& periculi plenissimam, non debere censeri ejusmodi, quae istum excludat à numero fidelium ipsius Jesu, sieve efficient, quo minus iste pro vero fratre is Christo agnosci debeat. Id. Comment. in Cap. 1. Epist. 1. Johan. Socinus, fieri nihilominus potest, it may so come to pass, that those two persuasions, viz. that Jesus was not a true man, and yet that he was true Christ or Messiah, may be consistent. For which reason, that opinion which denys the human nature of Christ, tho it be false and dangerous, yet there is no such harm or malignity in it, as should exclude any such person who holds it, from the communion of the faithful,( provided that he doth aclowledge Jesus to be the Messiah) or hinder us from giving him the right hand of fellowship, and owning him for a good Christian, and a true brother in Christ. I doubt not but the pious reader, will be struck with surprise and horror at this strange determination, made by Socinus. Let us a little consider it. To this purpose we must know, that very early, even in the Apostles days, there arose certain heretics, the disciples and followers of Simon, who denied the truth and reality of Christs human nature, or that he came in the flesh. These( against whom St. John plainly directed part of his first and second Epistle,) because they affirmed that Christ did not assume a true natural body, in reality, but {αβγδ}, in appearance, in after-times were called {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}. And these by St. John are styled deceivers and Antichrists, 1 Jo. 4. v. 2, 3. 2 Epist. 7. And by Ignatius {αβγδ},( scil. Christianorum) {αβγδ}. Ign. Epist. ad Eph. p. 21. who wrote a little after him, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, beasts and mad dogs, whom every body should avoid, and get out of their way, if they had any regard to their own safety. And there was great reason for this caution and advice: because this opinion of theirs is so pernicious and execrable, that no words can sufficiently express the danger and impiety of it. It doth not only undermine the authority, but directly overthrows the truth of the holy Scriptures. It is infinitely dishonourable to Christ and his Apostles; and plainly overturns the whole frame and design of the Christian Religion, which, if this opinion be true, must be a downright falsehood from first to last, and the greatest cheat that ever was imposed on the world. The Apostles and Evangelists give us an account of his Mother who conceived and brought him forth, as also of all his and her Ancestors from whom he as to the flesh was descended. They say he took upon him the seed of Abraham, and was partaker of flesh and blood as the rest of his brethren; to whom he was in all points like, sin only excepted. For he was liable to the same natural infirmitys of hunger and thirst and wearyness as we all are; eating and drinking, and sleeping as other men are wont to do. It is true indeed, say the Disciples of Saturninus, Basilides, and the rest of that Antichristian crew, he did seem to do so, but it was only in appearance; the senses of the spectators were imposed upon, and it was all juggle and deception. But do not the Scriptures tell us that he took an human body on purpose that he might die for us, and accordingly that he was Crucified, dead, and buried, and that the third day he rose from the dead? They do, it must be confessed, inform us of such matters; but yet none of all this was done in truth and reality, but only {αβγδ}, in appearance as we said before. Well! but are not the Apostles then hereby found false witnesses of God, because they have testified of God that he raised up Christ; who really never dyed or was laid in the Grave, and consequently could not rise from thence? And if so, is there not an end of the Christian Religion; because by this account 1 Cor. 15. Their Preaching must be in vain, and our Faith vain; we must still be in our sins, liable to death, and under the dominion of him that had the power of it, that is the Devil? All this must undoubtedly be true, and must necessary follow from this opinion, which denies that Christ came in the flesh or took our nature upon him. But can they. therefore who maintain it, be justly esteemed our friends and brethren in Christ? yes saith Socin. they may, as long as they hold to that fundamental Article, that Jesus is the Messiah: for these persuasions, as we heard before, may be consistent; and the latter of these is so powerful an antidote against any the most pestilent heresies, that it certainly destroys the venom and malignity of them. This must be very good news to some persons if it be true, and the great Socinus hath assured us of the truth of it. He hath told us so indeed, but I must beg his pardon if I do not presently take things upon his bare word: for tho hereby he hath shown a great charity, and concern for his Heretical brethren: yet upon examination I am afraid it will be found, that he hath had no great regard either for the honor of our saviour, or the welfare of the Christian Religion. The former perhaps he thought did deserve his compassion and might want his help: whilst the latter possibly might be able to shift well enough for themselves: And so indeed they must in the present case, or else they will be left in a very deplorable, helpless condition, for any assistance that Socinus is willing to afford them. The question then returns concerning the Messiah, which denoting an office, suppose, that of a King and Sovereign: it must certainly be lodged in some subject; there must be some substratum in which this authority resides, because it cannot subsist by itself. In short it must be vested in some person or nature, and what should that be? was this Jesus, this Messiah that we speak of, possessed of a divine nature? no saith Socinus that was impossible. Did he take upon him, or did he exercise this office in an angelical nature? no saith the Apostle, if we may believe him, he took not upon him the nature of Angels, 2. Heb. Well, did he then take upon him the nature of a man? no say the abovenamed heretics, the {αβγδ}, he appeared in the shape, but did not assume the true real nature of a man. No? Then he must be a cheat and Impostor, and the greatest that ever was in the world. He always declared that he was a man, and the son of man. After his Resurrection he appealed to the senses of his Disciples, even to that which is least liable to mistake, viz. their feeling, for he did not only Luke, 24. 42. 43. eat and drink in their sight, but in order to cure their doubting, he did both show them his hands and his feet, and required them to Ibid. Verses 39. 40. handle and feel his flesh and his bones, to convince them that he was not a spirit or a spectre. And indeed after this proof and confirmation which he hath given us of the truth and reality of his human nature; it is not possible for any man to conceive him to be a spirit, but he must at the same time believe that he was an Evil spirit. For the whole course and series of his pretended life, according to this opinion, must be nothing else but delusion and imposture. His actions must be all fantastical, his miracles illusions; or if they were real, they must be performed by a diabolical force and power, and he must cast out Devils by Beelzebub the prince of them. For no good Angel could be engaged in so wicked a design, as to animate I know not what phantom and spectre, and by so doing, to contrive and carry on such a cheat as this must be, so lasting and so pernicious to mankind. And now is it possible for such a person to be the Messiah? Perhaps it will be answered, no, it was not possible for him to be any thing but what he pretended to be, viz. a true real man: but however some well meaning men might be under an error and misperswasion, and might think otherwise. But can they who think so, deserve the name of Christians and Brethren? For can any thing be thought of that could tend more to the defamation of our Holy Religion and the blessed Author of it, than such an opinion, which would beyond all contradiction, justify the charge of Celsus against our saviour, who saith he was a Magician and a Conjurer? And Hierocles could not be blamed for comparing and preferring Apollonius before him. And thus we see what the consequences of that notion are, which reduces all faith in Christ, to this single persuasion, that he is the Messiah; for this will either justify, or at least excuse all other apprehensions of him, tho never so false and scandalous. For whether you conceive him God, or only a Man; a Spirit, or as having a Body, and that either real or fantastical; a righteous person or a deceiver, a true Prophet or a Magician; it is not much material: for in all the forementioned cases, provided you hold to this foundation, you still continue a true Disciple and brother in Christ. So that you may deal with your saviour as the Jews and Romans did at his arraignment; you may spit in his face, blindfold and buffet him; provided at the same time, you bow the knee and cry Hail O King. But then you must be sure wisely and well to distinguish between his personal and political capacity; if you reverence him in the one, tho you despise, or do ay act of despite to him in the other, there is no great harm in all that. By all which we see, how by excluding faith out of our schemes and systems of Divinity, the Christian Religion, as to what concerns the doctrines of it, is in danger of being destroyed, and betrayed into the hands of those infidels, which for distinction sake, we said might be reckoned within the pale of the Church. For hereby we are made to believe, that all the errors of the understanding if they are not inconsistent with piety, All things that are necessary to be believed or known, in the opinion of Socin. respect only the precepts or prohibitions of the Gospel. Id enim iter, quod ad salutem aeternam sacrae designant literae cognoscendum sufficit. In reliquis si quis occurrat Error, nemo ob ●am caelo excludetur. Socin. Epist▪ 3. ad Dudith. p. 502. tho otherwise never so repugnant to the truths of the Gospel, are innocent, or at least very pardonable mistakes. For in one word, obedience is the true Evangelical Faith, and an ill life the only Heresy. What remains therefore, but that we should explode the distinction letween Orthodox and heretic, Believer and Infidel? For tho these latter thro a superstitious custom which hath too long prevailed, are among some men become names of obloquy and reproach; yet really and truly they are but bruta fulmina, Theological scarcrows, mear bugbears invented to fright fools and Children, into the belief of I know not what incomprehensible doctrines and mysteries, which wise men laugh at, and only weak men reverence and admire. But 2dly, As this notion gives too great encouragement to our Enemies within the Church, so it affords too great advantage to those who are without it, I mean Jews, Mahometans, and Pagans, all which will find their account in this notion that confounds faith with obedience. And indeed it seems to be but too plainly calculated to undermine all revealed, and particularly the authority of the Christian Religion, which is chiefly distinguished from all others, by the discovery of certain supernatural truths, and some other duties which are peculiar to the Christian Religion but which are consequent to, and necessary dependant upon those truths. For take away the Articles and Mysteries of our Faith, and then tell me what there is in the Christian Religion that doth absolutely distinguish it from other Religions, either Jewish, Mahometan, or Pagan; I mean any otherwise than as they stand distinguished from natural Religion. It is true indeed it hath laid aside what( now since our saviours coming) is superfluous in the Jewish, or what was superstitious and impious in the Religion of the Pagans; but when those excrescencies are cut off, it seems only( according to this notion) to have reduced things to their primitive state, and that ancient natural Religion, which without the assistance of a supernatural revelation was at first professed and practised in the world. And if so, what such cogent reason can be offered to us, which should necessary induce us to believe, that our blessed saviour was a messenger sent immediately from God, and his Apostles were divinely inspired, or that the Religion which they published had its Original by a revelation from Heaven; and was not rather the product of bare, but true, right reason? For at this rate, they who first published this doctrine, might seem not to need the extraordinary direction of the spirit of God, but only of that spirit within them, which is the Candle of the Lord, which some tell us, is that light which enlightens every man that cometh into the world. Perhaps it will be said, that it is true, the Christian Religion is nothing else but a system of Morality, but however, the noblest system of Moral precepts, and those required of men in higher degrees, directed by more sublime principles, and enforced with more cogent arguments and motives, than ever yet were offered to the world. Be it so, yet this will not distinguish it in nature and kind from natural Religion; it only gives it the pference in point of degrees of perfection: which account must necessary abate much of that reverence and esteem which men hitherto have had for it; who will unavoidably be hereby induced to account it but a mean institution in comparison; as being but the same exactly as to its whole frame and design with natural religion, only in some measure more perfect than it. And if so, it can by no means answer the eulogies and Commendations which have been given, nor consequently rise up to the height of that Character which hath been made, or those noble Ideas which have thence been framed of it. For that such things should be so long foretold, and such universal hopes thereby be raised in the minds of men; the whole world in a manner, but particularly the nation of the Jews, being strangely alarumed with the predictions, and by them with the expectation of a mighty person, who was to be sent immediately from God; either as having Originally been in Heaven, as we say, as the Socinians tell us, who was to be summoned up thither, in order to receive particular information from God of what he was afterwards to publish to the world: And then that all this information; of which so great, so unusual, so universal an expectation was raised, should dwindle into the discovery only of that in which right reason had before instructed mankind; or at most of a few additionals to the great pandect of the Law of nature; this I say, must needs prove a great disappointment; and consequently create a disdain and contempt, rather than raise a reverence and esteem for the Faith and the great author and finisher of it. It is certain by this account, our blessed saviour will be put only upon the same level; or at best, with some degrees of pference, he will hereby be placed only in the same rank and order of men, with Confucius and Mongo-Capae, the two great Apostles of China and Peru. To whom, their Disciples will think it no great presumption, to add Mahomet and Socinus; who as they tell us, were raised up on purpose, to restore the worship of the one true God, and to reform those abuses and errors which had corrupted the purity, and defaced the beauty of the ancient and true Religion. In short, if natural reason, I mean when it is not stained and sullied with any false and corrupt notions, by its own brightness and splendour is sufficient to inform and instruct us in the precepts of moral virtue, and that our happiness depends entirely Let us conclude here and seriously think, that we shall all be judged by Christ at the last day only according to this rule,( viz. that body of Christian morality, which he had said just before, makes up the great and whole design of the Gospel) independently on those opinions which make up the subject of our disputes. An exhort. to a free inquiry into the Doctrines of Rel. p. 15. The essential part of Religion consists not in Theory, but in practise. And it is undoubtedly in consequence of this principle, that the whole tenor of the Gospel declares to us, that we shall be judged, not according to our belief, but according to our works. Discourse of human reason p. 9. The Philosophers( whose authorities he cites and approves) have unanimously agreed in teaching, not only that right reason was capable to guide us in the practise of virtue, but also that our happiness depends entirely upon our obedience to its lessons p. 25. upon our obedience to them; that is, independently, as one Socinian expresses it, or exclusively of Faith, as another phrases it; then there is an end of all revealed Religion strictly so called: for whatever is superadded to those necessary and fundamental dictates of reason are to be esteemed but frivolous matters, speculative niceties, Metaphysical dreams and whymsies. I know the Unitarians sometimes tell us, that sundry of the precepts of Christ, but especially the promises which are annexed as an encouragement to the practise of them, are of that sublime nature, that they surpass the invention of reason; and consequently the Christian Religion in that respect is sufficiently distinguished from natural, and the revelation of it is so far useful and necessary. First as to what concerns the precepts of the Gospel; it must be acknowledged that sundry of them do indeed exceed the discourses of bare reason tho never so bright and defecate: but then I say they are such as depend upon the knowledge of the necessary and fundamental articles of our faith,( such as are the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption of the world by the sufferings of our saviour) and without which knowledge they cannot be performed; as I shall show by and by. But for these duties our adversaries are not concerned; and indeed it is impossible they should: except at the same time they would aclowledge the doctrine of our saviours Mediation as it is stated and received in the catholic Church, which is the great and fundamental principle of our Christian duty. The precepts therefore which they contend for( except it be that one which concerns the invocation and worship of Christ, about which they themselves are divided) are only those which concern charity, truth, righteousness, temperance, together with those other moral virtues, which as I said before, they comprehend under the general name of probity. Now as to these and all other the duties of Religion, which have no relation to the articles and mysteries of our faith, it may reasonably be doubted, whether there be any precept of the Gospel, which hath not been discovered by the light of nature and approved and recommended as agreeable to reason, tho perhaps not strictly and peremptorily prescribed under the notion and obligation of a law. I say perhaps: tho some of our modern Unitarians have expressed themselves without that caution and reservedness, and have been positive in it; telling us that whatever additions have been made by our saviour to the Id. ibid. p 78. The laws and rules of true Christianity are in substance the very same with the laws of nature. p. 72. The ancient Philosophers were real instances and examples of that very light which shone in them, and directed them without extraordinary revelation to the same duties which have been farther enjoined us by revelation. p. 35. p. 30. first law, were only by way of remembrance and reinforcement: and that they do not so much discovery of new duties, as a recognition of old ones, by time indeed and evil customs antiquated and forgotten. And 2dly, As to what concerns the promises of the Gospel, and particularly the promise of eternal life, we know the belief of this in general hath prevailed among men of all Sects and Religions, tho in point of clearness and manifestation, the Christian Religion hath the advantage above all other institutions: not only above the Mahometan and Pagan, where the knowledge of a future life hath been depraved by many profane and impious mixtures; but likewise above pure natural, and even the Jewish Religion. But tho this shows us the excellence, it doth not prove the necessity of the Christian Religion, according to the Socinians. For the only things which the Gospel discovers worthy our notice, are the precepts and the promises which it contains. The precepts, they say, are the same with those of natural religion. And as to what concerns the promises, we need only be convinced Let it not be said that the happiness which these Philosophers speak of( viz. Juvenal, Arist. Sen. Cic &c.) relates only to this life, and that they had not that prospect of a future felicity which animates us Christians to our duty. I know not what can be said more strong or sound, both concerning that future state and the way that leads to it, than some passages of theirs. Discourse of Reas. p. 27. Tis that light which shines forth in their discourses, who had not the advantage of supernatural revelation. They saw the being of a God: the duty of adoring him: the immortality of the soul; and the necessity of leading a virtuous life here, in order to the obtaining of a happy state hereafter, with these thoughts they were inflamed, and by the direction of these truths they steered the course of their actions. p. 30. of that which is the sum and substance of them, viz. that there is such a thing as eternal life after this; which shall be the reward of all virtuous actions. But this as I said before is more or less to be found in all Religions, and hath been the motive to a virtuous life even among the wiser Pagans Letter of resolution. p. 18. . And thus this account of Socinus, instead of advancing the reputation, and convincing us of the necessity of the Christian doctrine, plainly encourages an indifference in all religions: upon which account we find him and his disciples in their writings speaking very favourably of Mahometans, Jews, and Pagans. Concerning Mahomet, they tell us, 2 that it is affirmed of him by divers Historians,( of very good credit and authority I presume, otherwise their account of him would be insignificant, and therefore not fit to be produced) that he had no other design in pretending to be a Prophet, but to restore the belief of the unity of God, which at the same time was extirpated among the Christians of the East, by the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. And that Mahomet intended not that his Religion should be esteemed a new Religion, but only the restitution of the Christian Religion; and therefore that the Learned men among the Mahometans call themselves the true Disciples of the messiah. Whilst we in the mean time who believe the Trinity, and other parts of the Christian Doctrine, are in their esteem no better than Pagans and Heathens. It is true some mixtures Discourse of human Reason p. 32. There is more or less of such mixture in every profession. of folly there ar● in the Religion of Mahomet, but alas what Religion, say they, i● without them? 2dly For the Pagans, they tell us, that if they would but stand true to those stable principles of eternal truth, which right reason dictates, and which all wise men, of all persuasions agree in, we should find no reason to quarrel with, or disapprove of their Religion. It is true there are certain foolish, superstitious and Idolatrous rites introduced among them but that is the fault of the men, not of their Religion. Besides, these errors may prevail among the rude and illiterate vulgar; but the wise men and Philosophers among them, both of former and lattel times, believe and practise better things. And in short their belief and practise was the very same with ours. Christianity, say they, Discourse of reason. p. 54. is nothing else but the law of right reason; and p. 72. the laws and rules of true Christianity are in substance the very same with the laws of nature, which were formerly writ in the heart of the p. 38. Heathens. The p. 72. 73. corruption indeed into which mankind had fallen made them stand in need of some farther admonition, to remind them of their duty, and the Gospel was of this sort, accompanied with some circumstances more advantageous to mankind than the bare light of nature. But p. 75. after all these advantages we must return to our first principles; and the law of nature is the foundation of all Christs instructions, so that nothing is revealed in the Gospel but what arises from that law and is built upon it. Agreeable to what is thus affirmed by this Author, we find another Unitarian, in his Impartial account of the word Mystery, assigning the ends and reasons why any Religion was revealed to mankind; and what the intent of the Holy Ghost was in that revelation, which he reduces to these two heads. 1st, It was given us, he saith, to excite and preserve among men the natural principles of Morality and Religion, which nature or the universal Tradition had engrafted in their hearts. 2dly, It was given to abridge our studies and inquiries, by making easy to us the knowledge of our happiness, and the means whereby we may be fitted to attain it. Philosophers might have clearer notions about this point than simplo men, but they must arrive at it by long reasonings. Thus by the light of nature and the art of reasoning, men might arrive at the knowledge of the goodness, justice, and power of God in rewarding just men: nay from Gods general promises, one might infer by several consequences the particular reward of the resurrection of the dead. But since revelation hath made those truths common to those who cannot reach to an exact reasoning, the meanest men have as much knowledge about this matter, as the most learned can have. p. 22. So that in the Revelation which the Gospel affords us of the truths which concern our Salvation, God seems principally to have consulted the benefit of the weak and illiterate, of which the bulk of mankind is composed, who may now by the help of that clear Revelation afforded them, at first view behold those great truths, which otherwise would require Learning and Philosophy to inform them of; and all men are not fitted for such learned and laborious deductions. But when all is done, according to his opinion, Revelation instructs us in no new truths, which reason could not inform us of: only the former brings us in a more compendious way to the knowledge of our duty, and our happiness; which the latter conducts men to, as certainly, but with more leisure, and by going farther about. Lastly as to the Jews tho' there may be some difficulties which attend the case of these men, above that of the beforenamed Mahometans and Pagans; because they are not ignorant of Christ, as the Heathens are; nor do they only deny him to be the Son of God, with the Mahometans; but account him to be a false Prophet and an Impostor, whilst the former make an honourable mention of him as of a great Prophet, and the word and breath of God: yet for all this there is no reason why we should renounce their fellowship and communion. For as long as they embrace and practise the precepts of the Gospel, which as we observed before, are but the same in substance with the Laws of the two Tables; and believe the promises of eternal life, and are animated to obedience by that faith; they know and do, all that is necessary either for belief or practise. And therefore, for all their disowning and denial of our saviour, they may still be accounted true believers, and the Disciples of the messiah, as well as the Mahometans, who are sometime willing to be esteemed such, as we heard before. For ad verum Ut quis verum amplectatur Christum, non alia re opus est, quam ut praecepta& promissa illius recte cognita habeat: immo ne promissa quidem adeo exquisite pervestigata habere necesse est, modo summam eorum vitam aeternam& beatam esse constet, dummodo praecepta recte intelligantur. Socin. Epist. ad And Dudith. op. Tom. 1. p. 500. Ubicunque Jesu Christi doctrina, quod ad ejus praecepta attinet, illibata conservata fuit, ibi sine dubio ipse Jesus Christus fuisse vere dici potest. Id. Ep. 1. ad Radec. p. 373. Ad Christi aspect abilem Ecclesiam constituendam nihil aliud requiritur, quam vera cognitio praeceptorum Christi. Est quidem Deus& Christus fundamentum salutis nostra: said non quatenus eorum essentiam& substantiam recte novimus, said quatenus dei voluntatem per Christum patefactam tenemus. In sacris literis Christum cognoscere, non significat illius essentiam vel substantiam novisse, said voluntatem, eique se obedientem praestare. Ibid. 374. 375. Christum amplectendum saith Socinus, to embrace Christ, it is not necessary that you should know his nature, but that you should comply with his will: nay tho you blaspheme his person, yet if you obey his commands, there is no great harm in all that. In short to believe Christ to be the Messiah, is only to submit to his authority, and the best way of doing that is by observing his precepts; and they who do so, have a title to our fellowship, and should therefore be taken by us pro veris in Christo fratribus, true friends and brethren in Christ. For what concerns our duty and morality, that only is intelligible, useful and solid; all the rest are but mysteries, allegories, and useless speculations. Discourse of Hum. Reas. p. 51. And thus we see how at long run this notion of Socinus hath plainly subverted the Christian Church, which our saviour saith he would build, not only upon obedience to his Laws, but likewise upon the belief of his truths, and particularly that great truth, that he was the son of the living God. Withal we see that this account effectually overthrows the distinction between the Christian and natural Religion, except as we said before, in point of perfection and degree; which one would think should be an insuperable objection against it, among any who pretend to have any reverence for their saviour; or any regard for that Religion which is called by his name. But to this our men of Morals, as they would be accounted, the great pretended admirers of probity, but underminers of Christianity, have contrived a ready answer, viz. that the world hath been too long gulled with the conceit of I know not what regard that ought to be had, for opinions which have been universally received among Christians: but in order to find out the truth, we ought to lay aside all those prejudices which we have entertained for the Church, Antiquity, Fathers, Councils: nay you must go farther, for that alone will not do your business, except you likewise shake off all superstitious reverence But however if a mistaken respect for the name of a Christian do so overawe any mens minds, that they are afraid to admit the universality of this light I contend for &c. viz. the light of reason and the law of nature which he affirms is sufficient to guide men to virtue and happiness. And to bring into question the sufficiency of this light and knowledge is, he saith, to renounce even Christianity itself. Id. p. 81. 82. for the Christian name and religion, for which its true men generally, through the prejudice of their Education entertain a great, but it is as one of them tells us, a mistaken respect; which either casts a mist before the understanding, and hinders us from discerning the truth; or else so overaws the minds 1 What is it then that can frighten us from making use of that light which God hath given us to direct us in the conduct of our lives? I see nothing but that empty phantom of the pretended authority of the Church, which still presents itself to the troubling of weak minds, tho reason and common sense have long since chased it away from their habitation. But what is then that so venerable a Church for which I am bound to have so great a deference, that I must blindly receive her decisions? Id. p. 75.( vide Episcop. Th. Inst. lib. 1. cap. 1.) of men, that they are afraid to admit the universality of that light, which is designed to conduct men to virtue and happiness. There hath indeed for many Ages been a wide and unreasonable distance kept among men upon the account of some different persuasions in the affairs of Religion. But now we must know, and we are chiefly beholding to the Unitarians Is it the universality of a Church that denotes it to be a true one? All other professions are confined within the narrow limits of some country &c. But this universal Law of right reason is spread over the face of the whole Earth; and so far from excluding any from the hopes of salvation upon such frivolous accounts, that the followers of it embrace all persons that are truly virtuous with an equal affection, and do by no means exclude any man from the communion of the Church, for a mere contrariety of opinion. p 77. That is true comprehension which comprehends all mankind. Id. in the Preface. p. 3. for the discovery, that the partition-wall is broken down, and all the world is become but one fold under the great Shepherd, that invisible spirit that animates and governs the universe, whom the wiser Chinese, as we are told, the Disciples of the great Confucius, worship as becomes wise men, sine longo& operoso superstitionis apparatu, that is, without Temples, Priests, and Altars. The general Assembly and congregation of men throughout the world, is the only true catholic 1 Church: whatever other pale you may think fit to set up, if it be not wide and comprehensive enough to enclose all the Children of Adam, ought to be pulled down, as being contrary to that true spirit of Love, that universal charity which Religion and right reason recommend to the world. There is now no difference to be made between Jew and gentle, Christian and Mahometan, catholic and heretic. All these names of distinction, by which the peace of the world, and the quiet of mankind have been so long, and so unreasonably disturbed, ought to be laid aside. For tho' they may differ about matters of less consequence, of Opinion and Speculation; yet amid this variety of judgements, there should be no breach of affection between them, who all agree in the practise of the necessary and fundamental duties of piety and virtue. What now remains, but that according to the wise advice that is given us, we should at length rouse up our spirits,& human Reason. p. 8. chase away those vain terrors which have so long surrounded us, and shake off the tyranny of those prejudices, with which we have been so long, and so unhappily possessed. We have for many ages been kept in awe, under the apprehension and dread of I know not what frightful doctrines and mysteries; Socinus was a messenger sent from Heaven, like the angel to St. Peter, and hath knocked off those chains and fetters wherewith our apprehensions and judgements have been shackled, and hath set us at liberty: for hereby we have got rid of the troublesone and difficult task of believing; and that not only of what relates to the person and natures of Christ, but if you please, of what concerns the Existence and Providence of God likewise, if you find those notions irksome and sit uneasy upon your understanding. For since the end of all Religion is to regulate and govern our actions, if it be possible to arrive at the knowledge, and to be persuaded to practise those Moral virtues which perfect and adorn our nature, by the mere consideration of their usefulness and decency; why should it be thought necessary to have a belief, or to make the ack●owledgement of one true God? At this rate, as far as I can perceive, it will be but an indifferent matter,( moto vitae sanctimonia salva sit) whether a man deny the Existence of God, or aclowledge his Infinite perfections: whether he believes his Providence, or derides the conceit of it as a vain and superstitious opinion, fit to fright Children and weak Women, or weaker men: but not to move wise Men who will choose virtue for itself, as being agreeable to the dignity of their natures, and serviceable to the great ends of Government, viz. the preservation of human Society, and to keep up good order in the world. For so long as you can arrive at the End, there is no great matter what means you make use of to attain it. Epicurus was one of them of old who denied the providence of God; and yet in the mean time, if we believe the character which his friends V. id. Diog. Laert. Lib. 10. De vita& moribus Epic.& Petri Gassendi apologiam pro eodem. have given of him, was a man of a strict Life and severe Morals: recommending to his disciples temperance and chastity, justice and fortitude, not only in his discourses, but likewise by his example. And in short, he was, as they tell us, a person of great justice, virtue and probity. It is true, he did not seem so much concerned for that branch of Religion which consisted in the External worship of the Deity; but his forementioned virtues made a sufficient recompense for that defect: and the excellent Seneca hath very wisely, as some think, observed, satis Deum Epist. 95. Vis Deos propitiare? bonus esto, satis. &c. coluit quisquis imitatus est. Obedience is the best sort of worship, and he who complys with the Laws of his Creator, doth sufficiently own his authority, and thereby makes an abundant recompense for his care and government of the world. What need you lift up your hands or your eyes to Heaven, and look up unto God: look into yourselves, saith the same Non sunt ad coelum elevandae manus, nec exorandus Aedituus ut nos ad aures simulachri admittat, prope est ad te Deus, tecum est, intus est. Id. Ep. 41. Divine Author, Contemplate and Adore the mighty Deity that inhabits and resides there. And then, as to what concerns the Being and Existence of God, Socinus hath already stated that matter, viz. That as faith in Christ consists in the obedience to his Commands; so the knowledge of God consists in a good life, and a performance of those duties which the Law of nature and right reason prescribe. And therefore, he that doth so, may be said to know God, and to perform those things that are acceptable to him, tho' otherwise he be totally ignorant of his Nature and Being. Nay, this is a notion that Socinus is so fond of, that he repeats it once and again. In his Prelections Chap. 2d. and his Commentaries upon the fourth Chapter of the first Epistle of St. John, ver. 6. where he hath a long discourse on this subject, and thinks he hath plainly made it out, beyond all contradiction, That by the Cum igitur ex Deo esse, in ista Christi sententia( cap. 8. scil. Evang. Joh. v. 47.) Et consequenter in ipsa quam prae manibus habemus Apostoli sententia, nihil aliud sit quam esse probum& cupidum ea faciendi quae Deo placent, hinc concludendum est per ea quae modo dicebamus, Dei cognitionem de qua hic Apostolus loquitur, illud idem esse. Et merely nemo potest cupidus esse ea faciendi quae Deo placeant; said neque etiam ullo alio pacto probitatis studiosus, quin aliquam Dei cognitionem habeat; quandoquidem is qui animi probi est,& id quod rectum est amantis, posito etiam quod nullam certam notitiam habeat quod Deus sit, tamen potest iste suo modo dici Deum cognoscere, quatenus ea approbat quae Deo placent,& sic ipsum Deum quamvis ignorans approbat. Socin. Comment. in 4. Cap. Epist. Joh. v. 6. knowledge of God in that place, nothing else is meant but animi probitas,& studium ea faciendi quae Deo probantur, An honest disposition and endeavour to do those things, i.e., those Moral actions, which God approves of. And that every such person who is probitatis studiosus, possessed of those virtuous dispositions, may be said to have Dei cognitionem, the knowledge of God, posito quod nullam certam notitiam habeat quod Deus sit; tho' otherwise he he hath no certain knowledge or belief that there is such a thing as a God. And in his Prelections, Chap. 2. he repeats the same thing, in the like words. Qui rationi obedit,( which he calls verbum Dei interius) Deo obedit etiansi alioqui ipsum Deum non esse quidem aut sciat aut cogitet. That is in short, tho' a man be an Atheist, there is no great harm in it, provided that otherwise he be a person of probity. It is true, this probity he saith is not a perfect knowledge of God, and indeed it would be a miracle if it should: tho I am apt to think, that most other people are of opinion, that any the lowest degrees of knowing God, are inconsistent with the total ignorance of him, such as is supposed in this case; but however he is content it should pass under the name of cognitio Dei Cum considero eum locum praecipue quem supra citavimus, in Christi verbis Joh. 8. cum quo hic noster consentit,& ad illum prorsus respicere videtur, iis praeterea junctis quae superius hac de ne diximus, in ea potius sententia acquiesco, ut hic Apostolus de imperfecta Dei cognitione loquatur, non autem de perfectiore. Cum nihil impediat, quando alioquin phrasis ista ad utrumquo sensum accommodari potest, quo minus, licet Johannes alibi in hac Epistola, idque fortasse semper, cognoscendi Deum nomine perfectiorem hujus generis Dei cognitionem intelligat, nihilominus tamen hic iisdem verbis de imperfecta loquatur. Nam certe nullo pacto negari posse videtur, quin Christus in verbis illis suis, phrasim esse ex Deo ita accipi velit, ut non de perfectiore, said de imperfecta tali Dei cognitione eum loqui statuendum sit. Atque jam ostendimus& pro contraria sententia modo ursimus, Idem hic esse cognoscere Deum, quod esse ex Dea. Id. Ibid. We see how fond he is of this notion, in that he ventures to strain and wrest the words of the Apostle, quiter contrary to the plain, and as he himself acknowledges, to the constant sense and meaning of them every where in this Epistle, to give countenance to it. imperfecta, an imperfect knowledge of God. But yet as imperfect as it is, it is highly commendable in itself, and helps to recommend men to the favour of God, and to constitute them his Children. For these three phrases, esse ex Deo, esse Dei filium, natum esse ex Deo, signify the same thing. Again, cognoscere Deum,& ex Deo esse, are likewise equipollent terms. Lastly whoever is vir probus,& cupidus ea faciendi quae Deo probantur, is, saith he, ex Deo est,& cognoscit Deum. And now what hinders but that we should give the right hand of fellowship to those inhabitants of brazil, Soldania, and Paraquaria, among whom they say there is found no notion of a God? For tho they have no Religion, and some of them are bereft in a manner of common sense, yet there may be found among them such who are probitatis studiosi; and if so, then they may be said to know God, and consequently to be of God, and to be born of God; and then who can forbid us to own them, pr● veris fratribus in Deo, true friends and brethren in God; as the followers of Saturninus and Basilides, and the rest of that Antichristian tribe, were to be accounted and acknowledged by us for true brethren in Christ, as we heard before. And I think the former have as good a title to our friendship in one respect, as the latter have in the other. And thus we see where this popular and seemingly inoffensive, but really pernicious opinion, hath lead these men, who have pursued this argument I confess, with a very bold and extraordinary strain; but what commendations they deserve for so doing, must be left to God, and all Honest men to judge. In the next place I am to show, that this position is not only destructive of the Christian doctrine, but likewise of the Christian practise, having a very malignant influence even upon that, which our adversaries seem to be so much concerned for, viz. pi●ty and a good life. In order to make this out, I must rise a little higher, and lay down certain general propositions, which carry their own evidence along with them, and cannot well be denied by such who own any, or at least the Christian Religion. And here first I think, I may take it for granted, that the great end which God proposed to himself in the first creating, as he hath ever since done in the government of the world, is his own glory: and that all other ends are but subordinate as being subservient to this. 2dly, And consequently, that the design of all Religion whether natural or revealed, is to enable and instruct us how we may best bring glory to our great Creator, which to do, as I now intimated, is the principal end of our Creation. 3dly, That the first {αβγδ}. Epict. Enchir. cap. 38. Vide Simplicii Comment. in hunc locum. act of Religion, and indeed the foundation of all the rest, consists in our acknowledgement of his being, and in having just and honourable conceptions of his infinite nature, and adorable perfections. And this will necessary produce such actions in our minds, as are suitable and agreeable thereunto. That is, the consideration of his infinite power, wisdom, truth, goodness and justice, &c. will dispose us to love, reverence and adore him; to believe him, to place our hopes, trust, and confidence in him; to submit to his authority, to fear his displeasure, and in every thing to comply with his will, by what way soever that comes to be made known to us, whether by natural reason, or supernatural revelation. 4thly, That the exercise of Religion consists not only in the internal acts of hope, love, faith, and admiration; but likewise in the external expressions of those inward motions and dispositions of the mind, and particularly in those actions which make up that which is properly called the worship of God, such as are prayer, and praise, &c. which have him immediately for their object; and thereby are distinguished from those other acts of Religion, which more directly relate to, and are conversant about our neighbors or ourselves. 5thly, That God almighty best knows what kind of service and worship is most agreeable to his own nature and perfections; what most conduces to promote the great ends of his own glory, and the happiness of mankind, and consequently is most acceptable to him. For this reason it is highly fititng that we should observe his prescriptions, and govern ourselves by his directions in this affair. And for want of this observation and regard had to the directions of God almighty, with relation to his worship, men have run into innumerable, and endless extravagancies. For when they once put their own reason in opposition to his infinite wisdom, or their own humors and fancies, to the plain and open declarations of his will and pleasure; no man can tell how far, and whither they may wander; and into what desperate errors and mistakes they may plunge, and out of which it will be no easy matter to recover themselves; as the experience of all ages informs us. Now in this is founded the reasonableness and necessity of observing the positive institutions of Christ, as well as those moral precepts of the Gospel, in the obedience to which our Unitarians would have all religion to consist. The light of nature hath directed mankind, and informed them of certain duties which are of universal, necessary and indispensible obligation. But besides these revelation hath discovered, and superadded some new ones to the observance of which( since we are assured that they are the results of the divine will and pleasure) we should in all reason, and in all good Conscience( if we make any Conscience of the service of God) think ourselves strictly obliged. And therefore they who place all Religion, as we intimated before, in the practise of the moral and natural, and neglect the positive duties of Religion, instead of bringing glory to God, which is as we said, the great design of Religion, they really dishonour him▪ by despising and affronting his authority, and therefore may justly expect to find the effects. of his displeasure for so doing. We see how God of old guarded his own institutions( his positive ones I mean) with very severe sanctions, which were as severely executed, upon such who presumed to violate them. Witness the punishment that overtook Adam, and which still pursues all his posterity for his disobedience to one positive precept given him in Paradise▪ And in the Jewish economy, we find the violations of the Law, even in some small and inconsiderable instances, as we may imagine, were punished with unrelenting rigor. As in the case of the man who gathered a few sticks on the Sabbath day; who, for so doing was by the particular command of God, stoned to death, Numb. 15. 35. And Nadab and Abihu, only for offering strange fire, i.e. such as was not taken from the Altar, were themselves consumed by fire from Heaven, Lev. 10. 2. To omit other instances. By which it appears, how jealous God is of his honor, how tender of his authority, whatever slight apprehensions we may have of them. And if this were duly thought on and weighed as it ought, it would be a good means to stop the mouths, and silence the cavils of those gainsayers, who in former and later times, with most detestable pride and presumption, have arraigned the wisdom of God, have censured and condemned his proceedings with men in relation to his positive Laws and Institutions. For did they but seriously consider the supereminent and incomprehensible greatness of God, and their own despicable meanness, and thereupon reflect upon the infinite distance between both, sure they durst not propose so many bold and impious questions, relating to his dispensations with men, as have sometimes droped from the mouths and pens of these impertinent and profane Scoffers, They ought to believe, that all his actions and dispensations are conducted by an infinite and unerring wisdom, tho he doth not always think fit to acquaint us with the ends and reasons of them. And as they ought to admire his wisdom, so ought they likewise to have a due regard to his authority; which is seen in all his commands, all his orders and appointments. Of which when we are once assured that they have him for their author, nobis solum obsequii gloria relicta est, we have nothing to do but to show our subjection by a dutiful compliance. For tho the particular matter to which our obedience is required should be really small and inconsiderable; yet the authority of God is no such despicable thing, nor consequently is the obedience which we are to pay to it an indifferent matter: As God by many and terrible examples hath declared, especially in his dealings with the Jews, threatening death and excision to the violaters even of the ritual and Ceremonial part of his Religion. And the like consideration ought to extend itself to the institutions of the Gospel, such as are the Ministry, Sacraments, Church Assemblies, and Discipline, the observation of the Lords day &c. All which ought to be regarded by us with that respect and reverence, which is due to the authority of him, from whom they had their Original. It is not enough therefore for any man to say that he will serve God, but it shall be in his own way. That he is content indeed to pray to God, and praise him; but he will take his own time, and make use of his own methods, and in short in all the acts of religion he will govern himself by his own humour or judgement call it which you will. No, say I, if he will serve God, he must do it in Gods way, if he expects that that service should be acceptable to him. It is true if a man hath no other light to conduct him but his own reason, he must follow that and be governed by it. But on the other hand he who hath a better and brighter light afforded him, to wit, that of prophecy and revelation, must give himself up to the guidance and direction of it: and this he is obliged to do both in point of gratitude and prudence. otherwise if any man shall pretend to follow the dictates of his fancy or his reason, in opposition to the mind and pleasure of God discovered and revealed to him: all that service which proceeds from thence, tho' it may carry the appearance of piety and probity and I know not what, yet will really be no better than a sort of will-worship, and such obedience will be no reasonable service, whatever other appearance of sobriety and wisdom it may carry along with it. For is it not highly reasonable to allow, that he who is the Author and fountain of all graces and blessings should make choice of his own way of dispensing them? If therefore he hath appointed the preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments to be the way and means of conveying grace: ought we then to attend those ordinances to which the grace and blessing is annexed? And tho as the case stands we are able to give a good account of the end and reasons of these institutions: yet if we knew of no other than the bare command of God, that of itself should be a sufficient reason to engage our compliance. He can accomplish the greatest things by the most unlikely means, and oftentimes makes choice of such, to manifest his own power and wisdom thereby: that he may have all the glory, to whom of right it belongs; and that we may be taught to live in an absolute submission to, and an entire dependence upon him. As to some particular circumstances relating to the administration of these holy offices, my present design doth not led me to speak any thing of them: my business being principally with such who reject, or undervalue all established order, ministry, institutions, and make it their employment to bring the priesthood together with all those other offices which belong to that holy function into contempt; chiefly influenced hereunto by that pernicious principle, that all Religion consists only in the practise of virtue and morality; which is a prevailing notion among too many, and the great occasion of so many disorders in the lives of men, which at this day are too visible, and by which at long run, all Religion, even natural, may be in danger of being overturned, and all morality extinguished likewise into the bargain; notwithstanding the professions and pretences that may be made to advance it. 6ly. That God hath not only informed us of the material but likewise of the formal parts of our duty; that is, not only of the substance, but likewise of those principles and motives which must be the main springs of our actions; and likewise of the end to which they are to be directed. And these are as necessary to be regarded as the former; because if we should practise the duty as to the matter of it, and yet omit the right manner of the performance, such actions tho' they might be esteemed moral virtues, yet would not be acts of Religion. For every action of Religion must be done with respect to Gods authority, and must be directed to his glory. This is essential to the notion of Religion. Hitherto I have proceeded by such steps, in which we may reasonably expect the concurrence of all who own a revealed Religion. But I must rise one degree higher, and therefore must affirm in the 7th place that as some of the duties of the Christian Religion indispensably required of us, even as to the substance and matter of them cannot be performed without the knowledge of the doctrines of it:( such as are the invocation and worship of Christ, either as to the internal acts of hope, love, dependence, submission to him, or as to the external expressions of those acts by prayer, praise, &c. all which do necessary suppose his Divinity, as was said and proved before, and need not to be repeated again) so none of them can be practised in a right manner without the like knowledge of the abovenamed doctrines and mysteries; the belief of which is absolutely necessary to influence a Christians life and practise. And this will appear from a consideration of those circumstances which are requisite to constitute and specify the acts of Religion, so as to make them truly Christian duties. For 1st. as to the efficient cause, they must proceed from a higher principle than bare nature and reason, to wit, from the grace of God, and the operations of his blessed Spirit; without whose assistance we cannot perform any saving good. The reason of this is plain, because our natures in themselves are corrupted, and all our faculties depraved: so that no good thing, I mean that is perfectly so, can proceed from them, till they are sanctified and renewed: for who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? In short whatever actions do not flow from a love of God, a reverential deference to his authority, a firm lively faith and reliance upon his wisdom, power, and goodness: however good and laudable they may otherwise as to the substance and matter of them be, they cannot be pleasing to God, nor will be accepted of, or rewarded by him. For without faith, and the like we may say of the love, and fear of God, it is impossible to please him. Now these and all other the like divine dispositions, being above the power of nature,( and therefore by the Christian Church have always been accounted supernatural, not only with respect to the end to which they are ordained and directed, but likewise with respect to the principle from whence they proceed) must be implanted in us by the Spirit of God, who is the fountain of all holiness: and without whose special aid we cannot perform any such good, as I said before, as will entitle us to the favour of God and eternal life. For whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, 3. Jo. 6. what hath no higher principle than bare nature, tho' never so much exalted by the improvements of reason and philosophy, is but natural; but what is born of the spirit is spirit. A divine seed there must be before we can be born of God, and none that is not thus born of water and the spirit of God, can enter into the Kingdom of God. In a word, they who are lead by the spirit of God, they only are the sons of God, 8. Rom. 14. And they who have not the spirit of Christ, are none of his, 9. v. Now this circumstance of Christian duty, and without which it cannot be Christian, doth necessary suppose the belief and acknowledgement of this important article concerning the nature and o●ffie of the third person in the blessed Trinity, whose grace and blessing we are taught to implore in all the actions of Religion: and without which, whatever other appearances of piety those actions may carry with them, they will not be available to purchase for us eternal life, as we said before. I know the case of some virtuous Heathens and others, will be brought in opposition to what is thus said, who tho they had no knowledge of this holy spirit, yet were renowned for their probity, justice, and other virtues, which did adorn their natures, and shine forth in their conversations. But yet for all this we must say, that in all their most celebrated actions, there were certain not only gradual, but essential defects; and particularly they were deficient in the cause and principle from whence they did proceed; as not flowing from that perfect love and that faith without which itis impossible to please God. For which reason their brightest virtues, and the actions which flowed from them were by St. Austin styled splendida peccata: which tho by many hath been judged too harsh and uncharitable an expression: yet upon due enquiry it will be found such as may be levied both from scripture and reason. For, since bonum est ex integra causa, malum ex quolibet defectu; there being in all the most laudable actions of such infidels as we are now speaking of, a deficience as to the principle from whence they flow: they cannot therefore but be destitute of that essential perfection, which is necessary to render them acceptable to God. They do not proceed from that faith, which alone can enable us to overcome the world. And this is fully acknowledged by Quis est qui vincit mundum, nisi qui credit Jesum esse Christum? quasi dicat Apostolus: circumspicite& lustrate universum mundum,& ostendite mihi vel unum de quo vere affirmari posset, quod mundum vincat vel vicerit qui Christianus& fide hac praeditus non sit. Nuspiam reperietis alios, quam Christianos& fideles, qui d● mundo vel rebus mundanis triumphent. Soli hi unius fidei beneficio victores evadunt,& evaserunt hactenus. Reliqui omnes mundi hujus illecebris quoddle torrent● quodam vel abripiuntur vel obruuntur. Et utut aliquando praestare se aliis mortalibus castigatiore quodam vitae genere videantur,& nonnunquam etiam praestent, tamen interim semper manent mundani,& ultra terrenas cogitationes non adsurgunt. Ex quo colligitur, ineptos admodum esse eos, qui adfirmare non dubitant, fieri posse,& non raro factum esse, ut Gentiles expertes promissionum foederis, solius legis naturalis beueficio, absque ulla Christi& Evangelii illius notitia, non minus saint pieque vixerint, quam Christiani vixerunt. Et horsum varia exempla proferunt eorum, qui& sanctissima been vivendi praecepta sibi aliisque dederunt,& juxta ea etiam se suaque composuisse leguntur: quae propterea eousque etiam extollunt ut non dubitent eos in catalogo sanctorum beatorumque reponere& collocare: magno profecto cum praejudicio religionis Christianae& fidei, cvi soli eam vim, id est victoriam adsignat hoc loco atque aliis infinitis sanctus Dei Spiritus qui optime de rerum virtutibus& personarum actionibus judicare potest. Nostrum est calculum divinum potius sequi, quam ex proprio ingenio de illa re quicquam statuere. Etsi enim lubens fateor, non contemnenda, imo stupenda quaedam virtutis opera à Gentilibus praestita esse, taliaque cum quibus Christianorum multorum vita conferenda neutiquam est; tamen ea talia fuisse ut victores mundi propterea dici potuerint, persuadere mihi non possum. Mundanos enim, id est, mundani alicujus boni amore, vel spe vel sensu, vel imaginatione motos illos fuisse necesse est, quamdiu melioris, id est, coelestis boni notitia, quae per solum J. Christi Evangelium obtinetur, destituti fuerunt. Episcop. Lect. sacr. in primam Epist. Joh. v. 15. Episcopius himself: who tho otherwise he had as little favour for the doctrines of St. Austin as most men, and as favourable an opinion of the virtuous Heathens as their case would bear; yet by the plain declarations of Scripture, and the evidence of truth arising from thence, he was forced to aclowledge as much in this case as St. Austin or any of the other Fathers did who were concerned in opposing and condemning the errors of Pelagius; among which the principal was, that men by the strength of nature could perform bonum salutare, that which is a saving good, without the assistance of the spirit of God: which together with the other opinions of Pelagius have been picked up by Socinus and incorporated into his divinity. But whatsoever may be the case of those virtuous Heathens, and others, who have no knowledge of the spirit of God: and whatever allowances the God of all compassion may make them, besides and beyond any promise or covenant,( of which we have no information in the Scriptures, and therefore to the extraordinary and uncovenanted mercy of him we must leave them, whose goodness is beyond our conceptions and over all his works;) yet I know no excuse can be framed for those who after plain and clear information, are so far from making their addresses to God for See the discourse concerning human reason, before cited, together with that called the Trinitarian scheme of religion, with the notes upon it: where the Author, with his usual buffonery endeavours to expose the catholic doctrine concerning the impotence of mans nature( in this degenerate state) to perform any saving good, without the help and assistance of Gods grace. This he represents as an impious, and withall as a foolish, absurd, ridiculous opinion. And upon the head concerning the Sacraments, he not only denies that grace, which all good Christians say is annexed to the due use of them, but in a blasphemous manner he accounts it no better than charm and incantation. p. 23. 24. assistance, that they only fall down before that Divinity which is in them, their reason forsooth; to whom all their applications are made. This is the light that enlightens, this the spirit that animates them. But as for any grace or help from above, this they neither want, nor are concerned for. The Apostle tells us as we heard before, that as many as are lead by the spirit of God, they only are the Sons of God. But that this spirit, should direct, counsel, govern such who are so far from imploring his aid,( which yet is the necessary condition of obtaining it, as our saviour hath assured us) that they reject and deride it; cannot reasonably be imagined. I wish things may be found otherwise in the conclusion, and that this blessed spirit may by his mighty power sanctify and save these men, if it be possible, whether they will or no. But I am sure they have great reason to think themselves in extreme danger; and to suspect that piety and probity for which they have been so much celebrated and admired. For if it do not proceed from the true cause, it will be deficient in one of those circumstances which are necessary to render it acceptable to God. For in short; If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his, 8. Rom. 9. and whether they can be lead by that spirit, who blaspheme his person, and not only refuse his assistance, but scoff at, ridicule and deride it, will become them seriously and timely to consider. A second circumstance requisite to constitute an action of religion a Christian duty, is the end to which it is to be referred, which is now not only the glory of God in general; but the glory of the blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For it is not the Godhead barely considered in itself, or as residing in one single person, but as subsisting in the before-mentioned three glorious persons, which to us Christians is the true object of Religious adoration and worship. By the profession and faith of this Trinity are we admitted members of Christs Church; to their service are we solemnly devoted by baptism, and to their honor all our actions should be referred; otherwise they are not actions of Christian duty, nor consequently will they be accepted of or rewarded as such. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, let his pretensions be what they will, Jo. 5. 23. nay all men are to honor the Son even as they honor the Father, with the same religious worship; which yet they cannot, they must not exhibit to him, if he be not God as well as man. Otherwise that worship would be plain Idolatry, as we have shown before, so that the belief of the holy Trinity, is absolutely necessary to influence a Christians practise. Lastly the manner after which our duties are to be performed, requires the like knowledge and belief. For they are all to have a necessary relation to the mediation of our saviour, which is the great and fundamental principle of a Christian life and practise. It is not enough for us to offer up our praises to God for the works of creation and providence, but we must do it chiefly for that stupendous contrivance of his wisdom, in the redemption and salvation of mankind. It is not enough to cast ourselves at the feet of our offended Creator, and to implore his mercy for the pardon of our sins; but we must beg it in the name and by the mediation of his Son. It is not enough to forgive our enemies, but we must do it chiefly for this reason, that God for Christs sake hath forgiven us. We must be chast and temperate; but the motives to these duties must not be taken either solely or chiefly from the consideration of our neighbors or ourselves; but from the remembrance that we are bought with a price: that we are not our own, and therefore should glorify God with our bodies and spirits which are his. In short all our duties must be performed by the assistance of his spirit, all our services sanctified by his grace, and the defects of them pardonned by his merits. Our garments must be washed in his blood; our prayers and praises must be perfumed by his incense, being then only grateful to his father, when presented to him, by the gracious and powerful intercession of his Son. In one word, even charity which is the fulfilling of the Law, and to which the Apostle gives the pference above faith, must yet be influenced by it, otherwise we cannot rightly love God, nor expect to be beloved by him. For the great motive to our love of God, must be that amazing instance of his love in sending his Son into the world, first to instruct us in our duty, and then to die for us. How his Son? Was he only an adopted Son, a good man, who was honoured with that style; because he was sanctified and sent into the world, in order to discover the will of God to mankind, and afterwards laid down his life in confirmation of the truth of what he so delivered? What was there so great, so strange, so unusual in this that heaven and earth should stand astonished at it; that the Angels should stoop down and prie and peep into this mystery? Surely there must be something more in this affair, or else the whole world could not be filled with wonder and amazement at it. Indeed there was somewhat extraordinary: for God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son,( a title never assumed, never given to any the most glorious creature) into it, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. This consideration surely must be able to work upon our affections, and if that cannot, it must be absolutely impossible that any other motive or argument should prevail. By all which we see, that all the actions of a true Christian life must be influenced by, and one way or other have relation to the mediation of our saviour; and this mediation must receive its virtue and efficacy from the divinity of his person, without which he could never have performed the functions and operations which belong to that high office, as hath been shown at large in the foregoing papers. So that indeed, the belief of this single article concerning the Divinity of our saviour, is so far from being an indifferent matter, as some would persuade us, that it is absolutely necessary to the very Being and Essence of the Christian Religion: and the denial of it consequently must unavoidably occasion a fundamental change in the whole frame and constitution of it. So that a Religion with this doctrine, and another without it, are two Religions of a different species, between which there must be a vast and an irreconcilable disagreement: forasmuch as they cannot agree either in proposing the same articles to be believed, or recommending the same duties to be practised by their respective professors. For let the divinity of Christ be discarded, then you must be content to part with all the other doctrines concerning the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption of the world by the merits and satisfaction of our saviour. The like change will attend the doctrines concerning the Ministry and the Sacraments, both as to their nature, use, and efficacy. The whole covenant of grace will hereby be entirely changed: because there cannot be either the same promises on one hand, or the same conditions to be performed on the other, as are now supposed. And thus the alteration of the faith will necessary be attended with an alteration in the practise of Christians. Our prayers and praises must be different: we cannot have the same faith, nor the same hope, nor exercise the same charity. For these duties,( and the like must be affirmed of all other graces,) in them that believe, and in those who deny the divinity of our saviour must flow from different principles, must be influenced by different motives, and must be directed to different ends, and consequently occasion an essential change in those duties. In short upon the belief and profession of this doctrine Christ hath built his Church: and upon the same foundation we must build our comforts and our hopes, and there we shall find a sure bottom for them to rest on, against which the powers of hell shall not be able to prevail. And from this confidence nothing I hope shall be able to withdraw us. And thus I have shown how this opinion which denies the necessity of faith, plainly subverts the Christian Religion both as to doctrine and practise: which is the second pernicious consequence that flows from it. The third and last evil consequence that attends this position is, that it is highly dishonourable to the holy Scriptures, and tends directly to weaken that esteem and reverence which we should have for them. For as I observed in the beginning of this discourse, faith can for no other reason be thought unnecessary, but because the objects about which it is conversant are of no great importance. If the doctrines revealed in Scripture be such as that the glory of God, and the salvation of mens souls are concerned in them, then it is certain the knowledge of them cannot be judged an indifferent matter. But if it be said that those truths contained there are of that nature, as that the honor of God, and our own safety do not depend upon them; then the question that must arise hence will be, to what purpose were they discovered? and why do the Scriptures themselves lay such a stress upon that discovery, as to tell us, that they were mysteries, great mysteries, hide from former ages, and now revealed by the spirit of God, who only could find out and fathom these deep things, which he hath made known to the world? nay the Son of God who lay in the bosom of his Father, thought it worth while to come down into the world on purpose, to discover those secrets which otherwise must for ever have lain concealed there. And after all this, are these such trifling inconsiderable matters, that it is of no great consequence whether we know or are ignorant of them? whether we believe or whether we reject them? Can any thing be uttered that can tend more to the defamation of the holy Scriptures, and the Authors and penmen of them? For if the Socinian account of these things be true, then I say it must cast a dangerous reflection upon the wisdom and integrity of those divine writers which is hereby brought under a just suspicion: in that they should in such a grave and serious manner deliver what they had to say, under the notion of supernatural, important, sublime truths, which when they come to be narrowly examined, are found to be of such little use and benefit to mankind. Nay the reflection must rise higher, and be terminated on the spirit of God himself, who is said to have assisted, directed, and inspired them with the knowledge of those truths, which they afterwards committed to writing for the lasting benefit of the Church to all succeeding ages of the world. Perhaps it will be said, there are some things contained in the Scriptures of great importance to the souls of men; but these are only the precepts, and those promises by which we are encouraged to yield obedience to them. But for the rest, they are useless, or at best indifferent matters, which we may either know or be ignorant of, without running any hazard thereby. I answer, since the precepts and promises make up but a part of the writings, particularly of the new Testament which we are now chiefly speaking of, the other which is the greatest part of them must still lye under the beforementioned reflection, which cannot be wiped off by this answer. First, for the Gospels, we know they are in great measure made up of the account which is there given of the birth, life actions, miracles, passion, death, resurrection, ascension of our saviour; all which were carefully recorded by the Evangelists, with this design that we might be informed of them, and thereby be induced to believe that he was the Son of God, and that by believing we might have life thr● his name. And the Apostles in their preaching when they were sent abroad to teach and instruct all nations, were earnest in declaring and inculcating the main points of the Christian history as well as doctrine, opening and alleging out of the Scriptures, not only that Christ was the Son of God, but also that be was to suffer and rise again from the dead, and then to enter into his glory. This was the Gospel that St. Paul prenched, which his hearers received, wherein they stood, and by which they were to be saved, ●. Cor. 15. 2. 3. And 2dly, if besides the history we consider the doctrine which is recorded in the Gospel,( if we may be allowed thus to distin●●ish them, for to us now the historical parts of our saviours life and death &c. are become doctrinal points and articles of faith) we shall find that it consists not only of commands and precepts recommended to our practise, but likewise of certain truths of which it gives us information, and proposes them to our knowledge and belief. St. John's Gospel as we have heard was written on purpose to inform us of the divine nature and Godhead of our saviour. And our saviour himself, besides the instructions which he gives his hearers, for the regulating and government of their life and actions, is copious in giving an account of himself as to his nature, descent, and original; that and was the Son of God, that he came down from heaven; and of the errand upon which he came into the world, which was to purchase pardon and remission of sins for men, by laying down his life, and shedding his blood for their sakes, &c. Then for the Epistles; whether those that are styled general, or th●se wrote upon more particular occasions, as directed to certain persons or churches; but which as to their use are likewise general, and designed for the lasting benefit of the Church to all succeeding ages: I say in these we find the Apostles frequently and earnestly inculcating and recommending the doctrine as well as practise of Christianity: their business was to make their disciples and converts, not only good men, but likewise sound believers. To confirm and settle them in the faith, to guard them against those errors and heresies, which very early began to corrupt the purity of the Christian doctrine: by reason of which errors, and of that degeneracy of manners, and impurity of life, which is first or last the constant and inevitable consequence of such errors,( I mean which strike at the foundations of Religion) the way of truth was evil spoken of▪ To mention all particulars would be in a manner to transcribe the Epistles. I shall therefore content myself with what may be found in the directions given by St. Paul to Timothy, and Titus, the Bishops and Metropolitans of Ephosus and Crete. In these we find our Apostle had a particular and especial regard to the faith and doctrine as well as precepts and practise of the Christian Religion. He requires Timothy to be an example to believers in word as well as conversation, in faith as well as purity, 1. Ep. Tim. 4. chap. 12. In order to his being a good minister of Jesus Christ, it was requisite that he should be nourished in the words of faith and of good doctrine, v. v. That he should give attendance to doctrine, 13. v. and to that gift which was in him, 14. viz. his high function and office, together with those gifts of knowledge and wisdom in the mysteries of his holy Religion, whereby he was enabled to discharge it. He was to take heed to himself, and particularly to his doctrine, for in so doing he should both save himself and them that heard him 16. v. How by so doing save himself? doth the salvation of men depend upon their holding and maintaining sound doctrine? why I thought this had been a matter of speculation, and therefore that Religion was not much concerned in it: which consists wholly and solely in the practise of virtue and morality. Socinus indeed and his friends have told us so: but St. Paul we find was of another opinion. And therefore he once and again exhorts his Son Timothy, to hold fast the form of sound words, in faith as well as in love, 2. Tim. 2. 13. which latter is the effect and fruit of the former, and therefore both are to be preserved and maintained. we must hold faith and a good conscience, 1. Tim. 1. 19. the observation of all ages assuring us that it is seldom found, but that they who cast away one, do likewise make shipwreck of the other. And therefore a good conscience and a faith unfeigned are again joined together by the Apost. v. 5. of this ch. The like advice is given Titus, that he should not only show himself a pattern to his flock, in good works, but likewise that he should in doctrine show uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, together with sound speech which cannot be condemned, 2. Tit. 7. 8. v. And in the qualifications of a Bishop mentioned in the 1. ch. it is required not only that he should be sober, just, holy, temperate &c. but likewise that he should hold fast the faithful word, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince gainsayers, ver. 8, 9. Thus St. Paul delivers himself: but if what Socinus saith be true; we shall find that he hath taken a great deal of pains to no purpose, and hath shown, perhaps a well meant, but an ignorant and mistaken zeal in these his writings; and that both with relation to the sound doctrine which he upon all occasions recommends, and 2dly, the errors which are opposite to it. 1st, As to matters of faith and doctrine, it is certain our Apostle hath shown a great concern, and hath used abundance of zeal and vehemence in recommending that which in the conclusion, if, as I said, we believe Socinus, will be found to be of very small consequence, and in which Religion is little or not at all concerned. This knowledge and persuasion of the mind may indeed make us be esteemed and magnified by men, but it will not render us acceptable to God, who puts no value upon any actions of the understanding; and is only concerned for matters of practise, and those duties of morality which make up a good life. It is true the former without this latter will be really insignificant; but in conjunction with it, it is of necessary and indispensible obligation, in the opinion of St. Paul. I confess if this Socinian Position which we are now refuting be true, St. Paul was certainly under a mistake. He advised Timothy to take care of his doctrine and to hold fast the form of sound words, but he ought rather to have said, be an example in conversation and charity, but do not trouble thy hearers with discourses about Faith. Take heed to thy life, and then it is no matter what becomes of thy doctrine. Obedi& credidisti, true faith consists in obedience, and a good life is the end of all Religion, as hath been often said, and if that be attained, we have made sufficient provision for Gods glory and our own safety, and therefore need not disturb ourselves or others about matters of truth and speculation. All this may seem fine and plausible at first view, and may carry the appearance of truth to men of shallow understandings, or to others who tho they are not of such weak minds, yet for some reasons may be willing enough to be deceived, but can never prevail with any who are thoroughly conversant in the Holy Scriptures, and have any true sense of the Christian Religion as it is laid down and described there. What man is there who hath any right taste and relish of those weighty, solid, substantial truths which the sacred writings recommends to us, who can be content to exchange them for those thin, airy superficial discourses of morality which are to be found in the writings of our Adversaries. It is true these latter,( as we have always said, and must continue still to say, upon this and the like occasions) I mean exhortations and precepts to virtue and morality, ought to be attended to with a particular regard. They are incorporated into our Holy Religion, and make up a principal part of it, and without them all other pretences to Religion, are hypocritical and vain. But yet this must not be construed to the prejudice of that other part of Religion which consists in the knowledge and belief of those supernatural truths revealed in the Scriptures, which are worthy of all acceptation: and therefore should be received by us with all thankfulness, and entertained with all reverence, attention and esteem. Particularly St. Paul in his writings is still entertaining his readers with discourses about the faith, and with high eulogies and commendations of it, chiefly upon this score, that the objects and articles of it are Mysteries, above the reach and comprehension of reason, as hath formerly been observed. What doth this Mysteriophilus mean, may some of our Adversaries say, thus to trouble and perplex our understandings with such sublime and incomprehensible matters? Wherever we look into his Epistles we still meet with Mysteries and Revelations, and are perpetually pursued and haunted as it were by them at every turn. It is true, the writings of St. Paul are full of such sublime truths and doctrines, and except we are resolved to lay these writings quiter aside, those mysterious truths like so many phantomes will still be presenting themselves to our view, notwithstanding the attempts which some men have made, by reason and sound sense, as they call it, to chase them away from their habitations. But notwithstanding all their endeavours, and the success that either hath, or may attend such attempts, yet they will never totally prevail, as long as we can preserve our Bibles: our Bibles I say, which we still appeal to, and by which we are content all matters in dispute between us should be determined. For let them chase these truths where they please, and let them with never so much scorn and disdain discard them out of their new Schemes and Systems of Divinity; yet they can never drive them out of the Scriptures, nor particularly the writings of St. Paul, and there we shall be sure to find them. But some men tho they are content to be accounted Christians, yet perhaps are not willing to be esteemed Paulists. And I cannot wonder at this aversation: for light and darkness cannot be more opposite, than the writings of that great Apostle, and those of their master Socinus: what one esteems, the other undervalues; what the one thinks fit to be received with reverence, the other rejects with scorn. Witness that solemn asseveration, and that unusual preface of respect with which the Apostle mentions the truths of the Gospel, without controversy, great is the mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, &c. Why should the Apostle usher in what he had to say with so much pomp and solemnity, except he had judged these things to be matters of great and high importance? But what he thought so great a commendation, in the judgement of some others is accounted the greatest disparagement that can be to any doctrine; which for that reason, viz. for which it is adjudged worthy of admiration by St. Paul is slighted and despised by the Disciples of Socinus. But the notions of these two persons are quiter different, both as to doctrines, as we have already heard; and also in the second place, as to those errors which are opposite to them. It is plain St. Paul did not think so slightly of them as some men now do. Witness his Epistle to the Galatians, and those sharp expressions which are to be found there against the Judaizing Christians, who were for joining the observance of the Ceremonial Law with the faith of Christ. Tho this opinion was not inconsistent with morality, nor did it hinder them from believing that one only fundamental Article of the Christian Religion, as some account it, that Jesus was the Messiah; yet for all this he upbraids them with folly and stupidity, fascination and madness; charges them with the guilt of subverting the Christian Religion, by these impure mixtures; censures them with an Anathema, tells them roundly that they deserved to be separated for ever from the presence and favour of Christ, who denied the virtue and efficacy of his sufferings, and expected to be levied by any other means or methods, as I observed before. In his Epistles to Tim. and Titus he shows the same dislike of erroneous doctrines in Religion. And tho the men who owned and propagated these errors, did not want some specious and plausible pretences wherewith to justify themselves; and particularly did pretend reason {αβγδ}. Occum. in 1 Tim. 6. 20. {αβγδ}, Oppositiones scientiae, sunt axiomata, argumenta, objectiones contra fidei doctrinam, quas adferunt specioso scientiae titulo. Sic Men. Tirin. Est. &c. apud Polum. and demonstration against the mysteries of faith as some now do: yet for all this the Apostle doth not forbear to call such irreligious oppositions, by the name of profane and vain babblings, and lets us know that tho such persons thereby made an ostentation of science, yet it was falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the Faith( which cannot be much wondered at; the same fate still attending all such who oppose reason to revelation) that is, fell into sundry pernicious errors destructive of the faith, 1 Tim. 6. 20, 21. How, have erred concerning the Faith may some say, what tho they did, is there any such great harm in so doing? Yes there is great mischief that doth attend these errors, if we believe the Apostle, who therefore accounts them no better than so many loathsome infectious diseases, which upon that score, viz. of their danger and contagion, he compares to a Gangrene, 2 Tim. 2. 17. which putrefies and pollutes every thing that comes within its reach: intimating thereby that those errors by their venom and malignity did defile, and corrupt the true Religion, eating as it were into the very vitals of it, which must thereby in time be wasted and consumed. The Authors and promoters of these false doctrines he styles seducers, deceivers, unruly and vain talkers, who subvert whole Houses; whose mouths, he saith, ought to be stopped, and they themselves severely rebuked, that they may be sound in the faith. What is the matter may some say; what have these men done to deserve these hard words, and this severe treatment? Some of them it is true did deny the Resurrection of the Body, and said it was past already: but what then? they still held the necessity Factam esse resurrectionem dicunt in quotidiana animorum renovatione ac regeneratione à morte peccati ad vitam justitiae, ad quam resurrectionem ipse Apostolus possim fideles hortatur. Refert tertul. nec suo tempore defuisse qui resurrectionem mortuorum in imaginariam resurrectionem distorquerent, dicentes homines exinde resurrectionem consecutos cum Domino esse, cum baptisma induerint. Tales Haereticos sua etiam aetate extitisse testatur Thom. Aquinas. Ad hanc igitur Allegoricam resurrectionem revocasse videntur Hymenaeus& Philetus intentionem fidelium, ut quodam praetextu pietatis à fide verae resurrectionis eos alienarent. Est. Comment. in Epist. 2. ad Timoth c. 2. v. 18. 2 cap. 3. v. 10 of a Resurrection from sin, the belief of which may be adjudged much more necessary and of greater consequence, than of that of the Body; because the great end of Religion, viz. Piety and a good life, is sufficiently secured by the belief of this spiritual resurrection to holiness; whilst that other of the body, hath been scrupled and rejected by men of sense and probity; such as are Socinians and Quakers; which latter have revived the very same opinion which the Apostle here condemns in Hymeneus and Philetus; acknowledging no resurrection but that from sin, which must be begun and finished in this life. Besides, this error is consistent with the belief of that Capital Article that Jesus is the Messiah, and if so, instead of the bestowing upon them those hard words of deceivers and seducers, we ought to own them pro veris in Christo fratribus, as we heard before. But yet for all this they, and others of the like sort, are by our Apostle accounted proud, vain, conceited men, boasters and babblers, persons of corrupt minds, subverters of the faith: grievous wolves who would not spare the flock; whom every body therefore should avoid, as they would provide for their own safety. And therefore in his Ep. to Titus 2 he tells us, that such persons though at first they ought to be treated with admonitions, advice and persuasions, in order to reclaim them from their errors; yet if after sufficient warning, and admonition they will not repent, and lay aside their impions opinions, then they ought to be rejected, we ought to turn from such, and to converse no otherwise with them than we would with an Infidel or profane person. How may some say, what will you reject, and repel from your Communion those whom Christ will receive into his arms, nay, quos coelo,& solio suo dignabitur, whom he will admit into Heaven and place with him upon his Throne? will you condemn those whom their saviour will absolve; and such are all heretics in the opinion of Episcopius, let their errors be what they will, in quocunque dogmate sit error& dissensio, if they are otherwise men of probity and live as some call it, a good life? Yes such, even these high pretenders to virtue and righteousness, if after reproof, advice and other means of conviction; they will not be persuaded, and reclaimed; nay if instead of being wrought upon, they become hardened in their errors; like so many wild Asses lifting up their heels, kicking at instructions, and spurning away all the good advice that is given them: or like so many unruly swine, trampling these admonitions under their feet, nay turning about and rending those who cast these pearls before them: and in a word, if instead of submitting to the truth, they betake themselves to contradicting and blaspheming, railing at the persons, and reproaching the office of Christs Ministers, rending and tearing in pieces, as far as in them lies, their reputations, and exposing both them and their holy Function, under the notion of Priestcraft, to the scorn and derision of Libertines and Atheists; I say when they proceed thus far: then in compliance with the advice, and in imitation of the practise of Haereticum post unam& alteram admonitionem devita. {αβγδ} post Admonitionem, quae leniter sit, docendo& monendo ut resipiscat: vel Correptionem, Redargutionem, ab Episcopo seil. faciendam cum authoritate& potestate, qua etiam excommunicationem illi minetur nisi resipiscat. Hanc adhiberi vult( Apost.) tum ut via prius tentetur qua restitui posset: tum quia alioqui constare non poterat quod esset Haereticus, id est, in error pertinax. Talem devita, non amplius admit ad colloquium, not am illi enure ut homini qui Censurae Ecclesiae subjacet,& jube omnes familiar ejus con●ortium fugere. Sic Estius, Calv. Hamm. aliique hunc locum explicant. the Apostle, we ought to avoid and reject such, to withdraw ourselves from them, to note and mark them, to have no company nor fellowship with them: not to receive them into our Houses, and much less to admit them into the House of God; but to drive them thence by spiritual Censures and Excommunications; tho still with a merciful intention, to bring them hereby to repentance, and that they may learn not to Blaspheme. This I doubt not will be thought strange advice by some, as being quiter contrary to the meekness and gentleness of Socinus; and to that tenderness and compassion which is in a particular manner due to heretics, and which he and his followers have so often recommended to the world. To which I have this to reply, 1st, That Socinus,( and the like may be affirmed of many of his friends) notwithstanding the great pretences made by him to more than ordinary meekness, charity, and condescension; yet was a person of like passions with other men; tho' he had a particular, and more than ordinary command of them, which must be acknowledged to be no small point of wisdom. But for all this, being a person of quick and keen resentments, be found his passions oftentimes too headstrong to be governed, which would and did, upon some occasions break through all the restraints which his skill, art and cunning could lay upon them; as might easily be made out by many instances, if it were the business of this discourse to produce them. But 2dly, This moderation and gentleness, tho never so excellent and commendable, yet may( as some other excellent things too often are, the more is the pity) be abused to very evil purposes. We know in the Apostles days there were not wanting such who made use of their liberty, as a cloak for their maliciousness, and turned the grace of God into wantonness. And it is no wonder that the like abuse should overtake this meekness, charity, and moderation, which we must own to be necessary and eslential ingredients of a true Christian temper, and without which no man can be a sincere Disciple of Christ. But yet for as much as they are capable of being abused, and that crafty and designing men may, and often have made use of them, to cover, and thereby the more securely to compass some unlawful projects: we must say that the use and exercise of them is to be regulated by certain restrictions and qualifications, without which these excellent and divine virtues, will be so far from being serviceable to the interests of Religion, that on the other hand they will, or rather some men under the pretence, and by the professions of them, may do a great deal of mischief in the world. I am sensible I am now entering upon a subject, which might afford matter for a large discourse, and perhaps might not be unworthy of it, but I can at present speak but very briefly of the matter, and what I have to say, that I may not digress from my Subject, shall be reduced to these two Heads. 1st, That whatever tenderness and compassion we may have for persons overtaken with errors, yet we ought to have no such tender regard for those errors themselves, I mean which overthrow the frame, and tear up even the foundations of our Religion, such as are the Socinian tenets, which oppose the doctrines concerning the Trinity, Incarnation, and satisfaction of Christ; these being necessary and essential parts of our Religion, without which it will not only be imperfect, but indeed none at all. Here we must upon all occasions,( and such occasions do but too often offer themselves to us in the age we live in) show not only our soundness in the Faith, but our zeal for it; and contend earnestly for those doctrines, and that form of sound words which was once delivered to the Saints. Here is no room for treaties, and accommodations, and projects of reconciliation: we may as soon reconcile Christ and Belial, as make any agreement between these fundamental truths, and those capital Errors, which are directly opposite to, and totally destructive of them. And therefore if any are so far transported with the love of moderation, as that they will extend it indifferently to all parts of the Christian▪ doctrine, and those dangerous errors which plainly overthrow them: then I say, we may without breach of charity venture to affirm, that such persons, how much soever they may be otherwise celebrated for their abilities, parts, temper, virtue, &c. either have not such right notions of the Christian Religion, or so just concern for it as becomes them; and therefore they thereby bring either their wisdom or integrity under a just suspicion; but I shall say no more of this matter at present. 2dly, The best way of showing our charity and compassion to such persons, is by plainly and fairly laying before them their guilt and danger, their danger I say, while they continue under these fatal mistakes; which consists in these two things; 1st, That as the case stands, they can have no excuse for their infidelity; and 2dly, they cannot have any just and reasonable hopes of Salvation while they continue in it; I mean if they will be governed by the plain declarations of the mind and will of God contained in the Scriptures, and not by their own fancys and imaginations, which is too weak and unstable a foundation for any man to build his hopes of happiness upon. First I say they can have no excuse for their infidelity, they cannot pled ignorance or want of information; because these truths which we now contend for are written in such fair and legible Characters that he who runs may red them. And therefore there must be some corrupt lust, passion, or interest, lying at the bottom, which prejudices them against the truth, drawing a veil as it were before their eyes, and hindering them from seeing that, which all the world in a manner discerns beside themselves. It must not be denied that there are some points of Religion, debated sometimes with too great heat and passion, about which men Learned and Pious may disagree; and here there may be ground for the exercise of charity and moderation; partly because they are not so clearly revealed in Scripture, but that there may be room left for difference and doubting about the truth of them: and partly because tho they were clearly revealed, yet they are not of that importance, as that the ignorance or denial of them, can prejudice the principal and substantial parts of our Religion, which remain safe and entire notwithstanding those differences. But as for these other fundamental truths, no man can with any reason complain of the darkness and obscurity of Scripture about them. They are mentioned so often, and in such plain, positive express terms, that there is no place left for doubting or uncertainty. It is true men may wilfully shut their eyes against the light, and then tho it shine with never so much brightness and lustre, it is no wonder that they are not illuminated by it. Otherwise, if they will but open their eyes, they will find so little reason to complain for want of a convenient light, that in this case, they may rather fear lest they should be dazzled with too great a splendour. It is not possible for words to express any thing more plainly and clearly than these truths are delivered in the sacred writings; and therefore if any shall pretend that they cannot find them there; they must be told, that the fault is in themselves, and the Scriptures must be acquitted from all blame. Neither will it be sufficient to excuse such persons from the guilt of their infidelity; by saying they are men of good sense and great probity, and therefore if they are under any mistakes, it must rather be their misfortune than their crime, and that this must be owing to some such innocent causes, as will justify, or at least extenuate their errors. I know such Apologies are usually made for them, but yet for all that we may venture to affirm that their ignorance and unbelief, are owing to some cause that is highly criminal, and to which they must be ascribed. For tho the persons we are speaking of may be just, temperate, liberal, contemners of the world; yet we may say to them as our saviour did to that virtuous young man in the Gospel; one thing is still wanting, and that is humility; humility I say, and that meekness of understanding which will dispose men to bend the whole soul and all the faculties of it to the authority of God; and that without hesitation or reluctance, notwithstanding any suggestions that flesh and blood, sense or reason may make to the contrary. Perhaps it will be replied, is it not uncharitable to think so ill of men celebrated for their virtues, as to imagine that some corrupt motive, and particularly pride, should be the cause of their incredulity in these points we are speaking of; since in their conversation and behaviour, they seem to show all the humility and in their writings about Religion they pretend to all the sincerity in the world? I Ans. this is no groundless, nor consequently uncharitable surmise, for all this. And this I shall make appear from the words, and out of the writings of our Adversaries themselves. Socinus of old hath often declared that the Scriptures, in the matters debated between them and us, are so plain and clear that no man, who is not plane See his words before cited p. 15. of this Discourse. stupidus, bereft in a manner of common sense can mistake their meaning; and therefore if they do so, their mistakes must be owing to malice and impiety. Herein you see, we both agree in assigning the true cause of mens ignorance or unbelief of these great and fundamental truths; tho we differ vastly in the application of it; however we have gained this point, that in the opinion of Socinus, the real ground of mens ignorance of divine truths, is some corrupt lust or passion; and that without breach of charity, this may be charged upon them notwithstanding their pretensions to a sincere and impartial enquiry after truth. For these pretensions are made on our side as well as theirs, and yet they are not thought sufficient to acquit us from the imputations of pride, malice, and impiety, even in the judgement of this moderate man. And therefore if we affirm the same of them, we may not be accounted uncharitable, barely for this reason( provided that otherwise we have truth and reason on our sides) that they make great professions and protestations of their uprightness& sincerity in the search after truth. Again, A late Unitarian in his Exhortation to a Free and Impartial Enquiry into the Doctrines of Religion, assures us that when the Scripture sets down any Capital doctrine, it doth it in such plain terms, p. 10. that none can be deceived if he be sincere. And again, that the p. 15. doctrine of Christianity, as revealed in the Scriptures,( and especially as to what concerns that primitive and capital truth, that Jesus is the son of God, who is, as he stiles him, his Interpreter, and messiah, and hath revealed the will of his Father to the world) is proposed with that clearness and evidence, and confirmed by such irrefragable proofs, viz. Miracles, &c. that with relation to this truth, men shall be accountable for the errors of their understanding, as well as for the vices of their will; because here is as much evidence as is requisite to satisfy an honest reasonable mind. So saith another Unitarian in his Treatise called Some thoughts upon Dr. Sherl. Vindication of the Trinity. p. 21. The want of Faith or understanding in this respect, is the want of probity and uprightness, and therefore the fault is inexcusable. And yet for all this we find the Deists, who by the same Author are said to led stricter lives than most of those who boast so much of Christianity, do not admit the truth of the Christian revelation concerning the messiah, but reject it as a fable and a cheat. What shall we say to this? Are not the Deists, men of probity and understanding? yes sure, we shall do them a great deal of injury if we did not own them to be sincere honest hearted men, who as the same Author tells us do good by the impulse of their natural Religion, Honesty, and a good Conscience. What should the cause of their infidelity then be? It is not to be ascribed to want of information, for they have the Scriptures at hand, and do sometimes peruse them, as appears by what they say and writ in order to ridicule and expose them. But how comes it to pass, that they do not receive and embrace the truths contained there? This cannot be owing to stupidity, because they are said to be judicious persons, men of good sense and understanding: and yet for all this one would think that they were not such Masters of right reason, as some pretend, since the same Author tells us, that the primitive truths of the Gospel, which relate to our saviour, are of such evidence and certainty, that no rational man can deny them. But if their infidelity be not owing to the want of reason, it must therefore be ascribed to their want of sincerity and uprightness,( if we believe the Author of the Free and Impartial Enquiry before mentioned;) notwithstanding their high pretensions to morality, virtue, and probity: For in the Scriptures there is enough saith he, to satisfy any honest reasonable mind, provided he brings along with him those virtuous qualities of humility, meekness and sincerity, which are absolutely requisite to dispose the minds of men for the reception of divine truths. But when all is done, the account which this Author gives of the Deists, is contradictory and inconsistent with itself, and how we shall be able to reconcile these contradictions I cannot well tell. Sometimes they are said to be men of judgement, honesty, and sincerity. At other times we are told that no men of common reason, or common honesty can disbelieve the truths of the Gospel, which yet the Deists we know do, and pretend-reason for so doing. These differences cannot easily I think be solved, except we should say, that in civil matters the Deists are men of sense and probity, but in the affairs of Religion, they act like men, that have no regard to honesty, conscience, or honor. If this solution doth not please them, then I must leave it to our Unitarians to find out some other ways for their excuse or vindication. Now what this Author saith of Deists or atheists, call them which you will, that we must say,( and we may say it upon their own principles without breach of Charity) of the Socinians, who deny the mysteries of the Christian Religion; which are delivered in the Scriptures in such Plain clear expressions, that no words can make them more evident; there is no deficiency in the Sacred writings, as to perspicuity and clearness; but there is wanting meekness and humility in them that red them: and this is the true cause of their unbelief. And this among other things, is the reason why they who err in those points styled fundamental, can have no reasonable hopes of Salvation, I mean while they obstinately continue in those errors; which is the second thing, as I said before, in which their danger consists: because pride, pertinacy, and presumption, which are at the bottom of those errors, are in themselves damnable sins, and destructive of Salvation. The Scriptures positively and peremptorily require the persuasion of the mind, and submission of the understanding to these great truths; and that under the same penalties, as they require of us obedience and submission to the moral laws and precepts of Religion. Doth the Scripture say, that without holiness no man shall see God? The same writings, do in as express terms say, that he that believeth not on the son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, Jo. 3. 36. If you farther inquire why unbelief should bring men into so great danger: I answer, Besides the reason now mentioned, two others may be assigned for it. Ist, Because it is highly dishonourable to God, and consequently destructive of the main end of Religion, which is to bring glory 〈◇〉 him, as I have shewed before. It is a direct opposition to the veracity of God, for which reason the Apostle highly aggravates the guilt of it, particularly with relation to that great truth concerning the Divinity of our saviour, viz. that he who believeth it not makes God a Liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of his son, 1 Jo. 5. 10. nay it is not only a denial of the veracity of God, but is a high disparagement to his wisdom, and withall bids plain desiance to his authority; which is discovered as much in what he hath proposed to our belief as what he hath recommended to our practise. And therefore it being an instance of our submission to God, to give our assent to what he affirms, it must consequently be an high presumption, and therefore as dangerous an act of disobedience to refuse our assent to what he hath revealed, as not to practise what he hath commanded. In short, if we will be thought truly to honor God, we must yield an entire submission to him without exception or reservation, we must make the whole Soul with all the powers and faculties of it, the understanding as well as the will and affections stoop and bend to him, without which we cannot practise that self denial, which is the indispensible duty of the Gospel, and without which we cannot be Christs Disciples. But 2dly, Another reason of the danger of Infidelity is, because it hinders us from practising the dutys of Christianity, which are the necessary conditions of the new Covenant,: some of which as to the substance cannot, and none of them as to the right manner of performance, can be practised by us without the knowledge and belief of certain supernatural truths revealed in the Gospel, as we have said, and proved before, which need not be repeated again. For these and the like reasons, when we have to deal with such persons as we are now discoursing of; one of the best ways of showing our kindness and charity to them, is, as I said, by laying before them, honestly and fairly, their guilt and danger, and not to soothe them up in their infidelity, by Commendations and eulogies of their virtue, justice and probity, to the great disparagement and detriment of Religion, and their own sad and fatal disappointment in a matter of high concernment, viz. the Salvation of their own Souls. And indeed the condition of those speculative delinquents seems in some regards to be more full of hazard, than that of many practical sinners, if I may be allowed so to distinguish them; chiefly for this reason, that generally speaking it is more difficult to reclaim the former, than the latter from the error of their evil ways. In the practise of sin whatever other pleasure attends it, men find themselves often disturbed by the accusations of their own reason and conscience, which is still upbraiding them with the folly, and terrifying them with the guilt of their evil actions; which often proves, by the assistance of divine grace, an effectual means to led them to repentance. But in the profession of error,( I speak of such who do not act against their conscience, as some heretics it is to be feared have done, being influenced by secular motives and designs) a man goes on in his course with pleasure and security; and his reason is so far from checking and controlling him, that it rather strikes in with his error, not only approves, but applauds and encourages him in his opposition to divine trugh; so that he is not only under a mistake, but hereby is put almost under an impossibility of being cured of his delusion; which is one of those fatal mischiefs which attend an erroneous Conscience, and especially when infected with those errors which concern the foundations of Religion; which are observed to jockey and benumb the Conscience, so that it shall be past feeling, nothing shall work upon it: men in this condition being too often found so hardened against all conviction, that neither reproofs nor admonitions, nor arguments, nor even inspiration can make any impression; they set themselves into a posture of hostility against the spirit of God himself, oppose their reason to his revelations, which with a pride like that of Antichrist, they exalt against every thing that is called sacred and divine. Now when men have once arrived to this pass that they resist the holy Ghost, it is no wonder that he should retire from them, and leave them to their own pride, folly, and vanity, and whither that will led them in the conclusion no man can foretell. We have seen too many examples of this in the age we live in, viz. of men having once forsaken the common and received truths of Christianity, that have afterwards fallen from one wild and wicked opinion to another, until at length they have shaken hands with all Religion: and have exalted themselves above Law and Gospel, Ordinances and Revelations; to the dishonour of God, the scandal of Religion, the reproach and blemish of our State and Nation; all which have highly suffered by the wild and frantic opinions of these men, and the lewd pranks which they have played in pursuance thereof. All which should caution, and affright men from giving way to errors in Religion, which considering the mischievous consequences of them, should not be accounted such slight and inconsiderable matters as some men have represented them; who out of a well-meant perhaps, but mistaken notion of meekness, charity and moderation, have given too great countenance and encouragement to such erroneous opinions, and thereby may be said to have occasioned some inconveniencies, to say no worse of them, which have happened thereupon, and which are much easier complained of than remedied. Instead therefore of soothing such men in their errors, we ought as I said before, to lay before them and others the great danger they are in by reason of them; and tho we may have no great hopes of doing any good upon such persons themselves, who think themselves too good and too wise to be taught, and make but a jest of all that is charitably offered for their instruction; yet possibly it may make some impression upon others, and prevent their being perverted; especially when they are informed, that the condition of such who are infected with these Heretical Opinions, is not only deplorable, but in a manner desperate; there being but very few of them who when they are once entangled in these errors, have ever recovered themselves out of this snare of the Devil, as the experience of all Ages assure us. And thus I have at length finished what I had to say upon this important subject, concerning the necessity of Faith, both as to the objects and act of it, in opposition to the contrary opinion of Socinus who makes it an useless or at best an indifferent matter. And I have insisted the longer upon it, because I think it strikes at the root of that infidelity which too much prevails, especially among weak and unwary men, who are influenced thereunto by this principle, that morality and a good life, are the only useful necessary parts of Religion. I should now proceed in the next place, to give an account of that second way and means, whereby Socinus and his Disciples undermine the Christian Religion, and that is by advancing Reason above Revelation, and making that the sole both rule and judge of what we are to believe and practise. But this discourse having already, besides my first intention, grown to too great a Bulk; I must reserve what I have farther to add upon this and the other Heads mentioned in the beginning of this Treatise, for the next and fourth part. And now to sum up all that hath been said upon this subject, in a few words. If we consult the Scriptures, and rely upon them for information in that important question, what we shall do to inherit eternal life; we shall find that the answer will be this, that we must not only obey the Commandements of God, but likewise believe his Revelations, and especially that part of them which concerns the Divinity of our saviour; because otherwise we cannot rightly believe him to be the Messiah, which is on all hands acknowledged to be a necessary Article of Faith. 2dly, The same Scriptures will inform us that this Faith except it be attended, and indeed adorned with a suitable life and practise will be really useless and insignificant; without this our Circumcision will become uncircumcision, and our Faith will be no better than infidelity. Indeed they are both necessary, both indispensible; and therefore no man without great presumption and Sacrilege, can separate those things which God hath joined together; both being by him made the necessary parts of our Religion, and the indispensible conditions of our happiness as I said before. 3dly, That though the practise of moral virtues, and those dutys which right reason instructs us in be incorporated into our holy Religion, and are essential parts and ingredi●nts of it, without which all pretences to Piety and godliness, are hypocritical and scandalous; yet there are some other dutys farther required of us, which are only discovered by Revelation; and the right manner of performance even of those moral duties, with relation to their Principles, Causes, Motives and Ends, depends upon the knowledge and belief of certain supernatural truths, revealed in the Scriptures. And particularly they are founded on the Doctrine of our saviours mediation, as that is on the Divinity of his person. 4thly, That these Christian duties are the great conditions of the new Covenant, upon the performance of which our Salvation depends; which for this reason, makes Faith absolutely necessary. It is not indeed required of all in equal degrees, and it were extremely uncharitable and unreasonable to think it should, it being sufficient that it should bear some proportion to the capacities of men and the means of information. But in some degrees it is required of all, at least so far as it is necessary to influence a Christian life and practise. Lastly, that the Honor of God, the Authority of the Scriptures, the Welfare of the Christian Religion, both as to doctrine and dutys, knowledge and practise depends on this persuasion, concerning the usefulness and necessity of Faith: as on the other hand, all these are overturned by the contrary Opinion. And now if notwithstanding all this that hath been said, we can by any pretences of peace and moderation, or any shows of Piety and Probity, be prevailed with to think otherwise, and thereby be gulled out of our Religion, or out of our zeal and concern for it( which in time must end in the ruin and extinction of it) then all the world will condemn us, and think that we justly deserve to be deprived of that greatest of blessings, viz. the light of the Gospel, which upon such slight reasons, trifling motives( scarce fit to work upon Children,) we did undervalue and despise. In short, we may expect to fall under that heavy sentence which our saviour passed on the Jews for their obstinacy and infidelity, The kingdom shall be taken from you, and given unto a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, Math. 21. 48. This was the sum and upshot, the compliment and indeed the cause of all those miseries, which afterwards overtook, and overwhelmed them. When this was gone, their Glory then was departed from them, and their safety with it. For then they were set apart and devoted to destruction; the decree was gone forth, and mercy itself could not rescue them from ruin. May God open the eyes of men to see the things that belong to their spiritual, and indeed their temporal peace and security likewise, which can never by any other methods be effectually provided for, if Religion which is the great bulwark of a State and Nation, be neglected and despised: It being the irrevocable decree of Heaven, uttered by the mouth of him who is truth itself, who cannot lie and will not repent, 1 Sam. 2. 30. Them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. The End of the Third part.