THE SOCINIAN Controversy TOUCHING The Son of God, REDUCED.  
In a brief Essay, To prove the SON one in Essence with the FATHER, upon Socinian Principles, Concessions and Reason.  
CONCLUDED With an Humble and Serious Caution to the Friends of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, against the Approaches of Socinianism.  
By F. F. D. D.  Quomodo Pater genuit Filium, nolo discutias: expete primo, si potes, quomodo mens quae intra se est generet verbum quomodo coelestis ignis generet ex seipso splendorem Lucis. St. Hieron. Sempiternus Deus sapiens, Sempiternam secum habet sapientiam. St. Aug. 

IMPRIMATUR.  
Geo. Royse, R. R. in Christo Patri ac Dom. Dom. Johanni Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest. December the 9th. 1692.   
LONDON: Printed for A. and J. Churchil, at the Black Swan in Pater-Noster-Row, near Amen-Corner, 1693.   

TO THE Right Reverend Father in GOD, GILBERT Lord Bishop of SARUM.  
May it please your Lordship,  
YOU cannot but remember in how difficult a Post I stood, when you came to Exon with the Prince of O. (our now most Gracious King) I being, with some of my Brethren, the first Clergymen that were summoned to appear before him. And I cannot forget, but shall ever, with all due Gratitude, acknowledge your Lordships then great Tenderness and Care of us, when in those new and strange Circumstances, we did not readily observe the Orders sent us.  
But seeing I soon afterwards (perhaps the First that in Print) endeavoured to persuade my Brethren to recognize this Happy Government, may I not with the more Freedom observe the Prejudices it yet labours with, and that the least of them are not the Fears of too many among us, that the Church of England may suffer under it.  
I have read over your Lordships late Excellent Treatise, called, The Pastoral Care, with no small Satisfaction, and presume to take this Occasion to give you my particular humble Thanks for the same▪ verily believing, that if the Rules therein given us, were in any good measure observed and put in practice, it would Cure most of those Fears.  
Since your Lordship's greater Wisdom saw no necessity, in a Treatise of that nature, of taking much notice of the Socinian Leven, 'tis not fit for me to wish you had done so; yet if I may have leave to judge by my own Experience, I fear, not the least of our Danger is threatened from that Quarter: However, I doubt not, but in the Exercise of The Pastoral Care, your Lordship, with the rest of our Venerable Fathers, will, by the Blessing of God, timely prevent it, after the Example of the Ancients.  
I know your Lordship will pardon this Boldness of,  
My LORD, Your Lordships much obliged and humbly-devoted Servant, Fr. Fullwood▪ Litton, near Dorcester▪ Octob. 14. 1692.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
THE Crude Notions of Cerinthus, Ebion, the Currier, Artemon, and Samosatenus, about our Saviour, which were more Jewish and Blasphemous, were at last digested and refined by Photinus, with the help of his Master Marcellus, into that which is now pure Socinianism, viz That our Saviour had no Being before, or but ex Maria, from the Virgin Mary: For which very Doctrine, as appears by the Sentences of the Councils, (so strange and horrid it then was to all Christian Ears) the said Photinus, tho' Bishop of Sirmium, was condemned in a Synod in his own City, both by the Arrians, Semi-Arrians, and the Catholics.  
Photinus, and this his Heresy, were condemned in six several Councils; probably, first, as Bishop Pearson observes, with his Master Marcellus, by a Synod at Constantinople. 2. By the second Synod at Antioch. 3. By a Council at Sardes. 4. By a Council at Milan. 5. In a Synod at Sirmium he was deposed by the Western Bishops. 6. He was again condemned and deposed by the Eastern Bishops in the same City. He was so generally condemned too afterwards, that his Opinion was soon worn out of the World; So suddenly, saith Epiphanius, was this Opinion rejected by all Christians, applauded by none but Julian the Apostate, who railed at St. John for making Christ to be GOD, and commending Photinus for denying it. Vid. Pearson on the Creed, new Ed. p. 119, 120.  
Now we heard no more of this Doctrine, except one P. Elebardus stumbled upon it in the 12th Century, until the Reformation; when the blasphemous Servetus, and some others not unlike him, began to revive it; and at last by Faustus Socinus it was form and perfected into the Body of Socinianism, as now it is. The said Socinus died about 88 years ago; such is the Pedigree and Antiquity of Socinianism.   

THE Socinian Controversy TOUCHING The SON of GOD, Reduced, etc.  
WHEN we have to deal with men that allow no other Principles but those of their own Sect, we may endeavour to fetch our Weapons out of the Adversaries Store. Whence I propose these Arguments following.  

ARG. I. JESUS CHRIST is to be Adored.  
THE Only GOD which brought Israel out of Egypt, that is, the only God of Israel, or the only, true and chief God, is to be Religiously adored and worshipped; Thou shalt have no other Gods but me.  
But Jesus Christ is to be religiously adored and worshipped; therefore Jesus Christ is the only God which brought Israel out of Egypt; that is, the only God of Israel, or true and chief God.  
This is David, a very strict Socinian's Argument against Socinus himself: Not that he approved, but hereby intended to destroy the minor, by showing its absurdity in the Consequence of it; That if Jesus Christ was so to be adored, he was the true and chief God which they both denied.  
'Tis besides my design to enter upon the Proof of either of these Propositions, but I observe and pronounce, that Socinus and his Followers have so plainly proved the second [That Jesus Christ ought to be Religiously Adored] out of the Holy Scriptures, that his two great Opponents in that Point, namely, Frankin and that David, nor any of their Followers, have, or can, or ever will be able to answer them.  
On the other side, these Adversaries of Socinus have as irrefragably and invincibly maintained, That the Only God which brought Israel out of Egypt, etc. aught to be Religiously Adored. And 'tis David's own (otherwise Socinian) Reason against Socinus, That we cannot adore the Son, unless we suppose Christ to be in the Father, and the Father in Christ, Vnitate Essentiae, by unity of Essence.  
The Arguments of both sides you have at large in the Vol. of the Fratres Pol. where you may see how these Learned Socinians fight, and conquer each other, and make way for this Orthodox Truth, that Jesus Christ is that only God that brought Israel out of Egypt, etc.  
And methinks Schlectingius comes very near it, in those remarkable words in Rom. 1. 15. If GOD, saith he, give Man Divinity, so as that He may be religiously worshipped, that man, ratione divini & religiosi cultus, is not divers, and another from God himself, but aught to be esteemed unus idemque cum Deo, one and the same with God.   

II. Christ is True God.  
GOD the Father is the only True God, Jesus Christ is true God, therefore Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same God, otherwise there would be two true Gods, which would be repugnant to the only true God. That God the Father is the only true God, is expressly the Doctrine of our Saviour, Joh. 17. 3. That Jesus Christ is true God, is so plain in the Holy Scripture, that Socinus and his Followers frequently (they say an hundred times) assert and maintain it. The Argument therefore is as strong as our Saviour and Socinus can make it.  
1 Note. To obviate some trisling Evasions, when we say Jesus Christ is true God, we consider him not strictly under those Denominations; for his Name Jesus was given him as the Son of Mary, and he is Christ as anointed to his Office by the Holy Ghost. We do not say, that in either of these senses Jesus Christ is true God; but he is so, as he is the Son by eternal Generation, as he existed before his Incarnation, as he was with God, and was God in the beginning of Time, and consequently from Eternity, the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, Rev. 1.  
2 Note. 2dly, Jesus Christ, as Man and Mediator, may be distinguished, though never divided, from the Eternal Son of God: So the Scripture speaks of him here, as Jesus Christ sent by God, and as he in 1 Cor. 8, was that one great Lord of Christians, distinguished from One God the Father; which sufficiently solves the Difficulties which Socinians raise from these two Texts especially considering, that so many other Scriptures unanswerably prove the Deity of our Saviour.  
3. It must be noted 3dly, and confessed, that the Socinians distinguish betwixt the true God by, Nature, and a true God by Office, and that God the Father is the true God by Nature, and our Saviour a true God by Office.  
But the Text destroys the distinction; for if God the Father be the only true God, though so by Nature, there is no room left for another true God by Office, or any other way. Who sees not the Term is exclusive, sees nothing  
2dly, The Scripture is express, that 'tis Idolatry to worship those that by Nature are no Gods; but 'tis no Idolatry to worship our Saviour, as Socinus himself desends, therefore our Saviour is true God by Nature.  
3dly I must challenge Proof either from Reason or Scripture that a God by Office only is, or ever was said to be true God, as our Saviour is confessed ot be. And seeing the Text before us speaks not of the Supreme, God, but of the only true God, and makes them all one, I must further challenge the great Distinction, and only Refuge of the Socinians in this Controversy, namely, of the Supreme God, and a true God, and if neither Scripture asserts it, nor Reason owns it, as certainly they do not, the Foundation of Socinianism is evidently subverted.   

III. Cheist made the World.  
The words were made by the Supreme God only: This the Socinians generally assert, and strenuously prove: but the Son of God made the Worlds; and this the Arrians unanimously maintain, as and unndoubted Truth, accordin to the Scriptures. From these two Propositions, so acknowledged and proved by our Adversaries, what Conclusion can be more natural than this, That the Son of God is one God with the Father, i. e. the Supreme God?  
'Tis confessed, that the Arrians say, that God first made his Son, and then by him made the Worlds.  
Sol. But who told them so? So fundamental a Point should have some ground either in Scripture or Reason; the Scripture is silent in it, and plain Reason abhors it. Why should the great and wise God make one Creature to make the rest? Was not his own Fiat sufficient to make an hundred Worlds? Doth any Cause else appear at the Creation? Let the Arrians prove, (as they do unanswerably) that the Son of God did exist at the Creation of the World, and the Socinians will acknowledge his Eternal Generation: By their Reasons put together; the Orthodox Truth is established.  
Indeed, if all things were made by the Son of God, himself is excluded, he is not Deus factus, but Deus natus; and if he did exist in the Beginning, as before, he must exist from Eternity: Nothing was behind the beginning of Time but Eternity.   

iv Christ Equal to his Father.  
He that is not only like, but equal to God in Power Knowledge, and Wisdom, must have the same Essence or Nature with God.  
But the Socinians generally assert, That Jesus Christ is not only like, but equal to God, in Power, Wisdom, and Knowledge; therefore by this Reason Jesus Christ must have the same Essence or Nature with God. I know they will not grant the first Proposition, but these men of Reason, methinks, should nor deny it. They say indeed, that this equal Power, Knowledge, and Wisdom is communicated by God to his Son; But must there not be a Capacity and Faculty equal to God's, to admit such equal Power, etc. and to exercise the same? And consequently the Essence of God must be communicated, which only hath Capacity and Faculty to hold and exercise Power, Knowledge, and Wisdom, truly divine, or equal to God's. Is it not more agreeable to the Apprehension of a Man, to conceive, that the Root of all Power, etc. viz. the Divine Nature, is communicated to the Son of God, and with that all Power, etc. is communicated? Can equal Power be in any Subject but God himself? Will there not then be two Omnipotents, and two Supremes? Who can understand the Mystery, or dare defend it from senseless Contradiction?  
Minor. But perhaps it may be doubted, whether the Socinians do allow or affirm, that Jesus Christ hath Equal Power, Knowledge, and Wisdom with God himself; which is the second Proposition in this Argument; I shall therefore prove it by some pertinent Instances.  
Christ was made in Empire and Supreme Power in all things, like to God, immo aequalem, yea, rather equal to him, saith one: And they generally acknowledge, that the Father hath communicated to Christ his own Divine Power and Divine Wisdom. See Crell. in Ro. 1. 15. Rac. Cat. c. 1. sect. 4. p. 47. Stegman, in Joh. 10. 32. Wolzogenius, in Mat. 4. Schect, in 1 Cor. 4▪ 5. Volkelius tells us, the Apostle, Phil. 3. 21. attributes to Christ that most efficacious Power, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself. Ver. Relig. 63. c. 34▪ and that, He that can subdue all things to himself omnia potest, i. e. est Deus omnipotens, or Almighty as he is expressly called, Rev. 1. and therefore true and supreme God, or one with his Father▪ in Power, and consequently in Nature; as our Saviour himself concludes, I and my Father are One. Not in Will and Consent only, as they would gloss it, directly contrary to the Context, but in Power, which is inseparable from his Essence: None shall pluck them out my Hand, or 
John 10. 28, 29, 30.  my Fathers; I and my Father are one. Accordingly Wolzogenius acknowledgeth, that God made Christ in Authority, Power and Wisdom, like and equal to himself, that he, even equally as God, might be omnipresent, and be able to do what he will, by his own Power and Spirit upon Earth: So that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, equally with God the Father; which necessarily infers the Communication of the Divine Essence or Nature, as the Subject or Seat of such Supreme and Divine Attributes or Qualifications.  
'Tis confessed, that Wolzog. in Mat. 28. 20. adds, That though Christ be omnipresent, as is said before, 'tis not necessary that we should understand it of his Essential Presence. But we want a new Philosophy to prove that any thing, yea, God himself, can act physically, where he is not essentially present; and hence we have a new Argument of our Saviour's Deity. He is essentially present every where, and therefore true God; he is essentially present every where, because he can do what he pleaseth every where.  
I conclude this Argument with this note; That the Socinians must dash and break upon one or both of these two hard Rocks, that a mere man, who is circumscribed, is essentially present every where▪ or really omnipresent; or, that a mere Man is able to do what he pleases by his own Power, as Wolzeg. affirms, (tho' communicated) where he is not essentially, that is, really present; which is one of the Philosophical Mysteries of Socinianism.   

V Christ hath the Father's Glory.  
He to whom the Father hath given his own Glory, is the same God in Essence with the Father; for God the Father protests he will not give his Glory to another. But the Father hath given his own Glory to Christ; this the Socinians generally acknowledge: The Conclusion is necessary, therefore Christ is the same in Essence with God the Father.  
They tell us in answer, that by [another] is meant, an Idol or a false God.  
Sol. Where the Law doth not distinguish in a Point of so great concernment, who shall dare to do it? Besides, is not an Idol a Creature, as well as they say our Saviour is? And why should God give his Glory to one Creature rather than another? What Scripture or Reason will warrant it? Is it not Idolatry, to give GOD's Glory to a Creature? Or, will God dispense with Idolatry in himself▪ and not in us? Or, lastly, how can we in reason imagine, that God will frustrate his own ultimate End (to glorify himself above all) by giving his own Glory to any Creature?   

VI Reason is Truth.  
That which is most agreeable to Reason is the Truth: This is the admired Maxim▪ of the Socinians. But that the Father communicateth his Divine Nature with his Divine Attributes to his Son, is more agreeable to Reason, i. e. more conceivable, than that he should communicate them separately▪ without or divided from his Nature.  
Let us reflect upon their former Assertions, that the Father hath communicated his own Wisdom, his own Power, his own Honour, his own Glory, and thereby made his Son not only like, but equal to himself; and let the Masters of Reason tell us any thing more absurd and inconsonant to Reason, than to conceive such Qualities, which are acknowledged by themselves to be truly and properly Divined, to be actually separated from the Divine Substance: seeing they also acknowledge, that there is nothing in God that is not God himself; and his Proprieties can only ratione & inadaequato conceptu, be distinguished from his Essence. Is it not more agreeable to Reason, to conceive, that seeing the Father hath communicated his own Wisdom, etc. to his Son, he hath also communicated his own Nature to him, forasmuch as we cannot conceive how they▪ should be actually divided, for his Attributes and Nature are really one, and God's own Wisdom, Knowledge, Power, Presence and Glory, are nothing really but himself.  
Thus it is, if we consider the nature of God, but more grossly absurd and unreasonable it appears, if we consider the nature of Man; which they would make the Subject of these Divine Qualities.  
How monstrous is it to imagine, that a mere Man, as they say our Saviour is, should be wise as God▪ powerful as God, omnipresent as God, have equal Worship, and the same Glory with God himself, and be a mere Man still! where is the Capacity, the Powers, the Seat of these Divine Excellencies of a true God, as they acknowledge our Saviour to be, in mere Man, as they say he is? Activity beyond the proper Sphere of the Agent, Qualities and Endowments without a capable Subject, are as fit for men of Reach and Reason to conceive, as to imagine Reason and Religion in a Brute, with all the Attributes of the Humane Nature, and yet to be a Brute still.  
Let them follow Reason but one step farther, and acknowledge, that what the Father communicateth to his Son carries the Essence of God with it, according to Reason, as well as the Scripture; and we are agreed in a great Point.  
And now, what should put a stop to them, seeing their Principles bring them so near us, and so much Reason invites them home? They acknowledge the necessity of believing Christ to be true God, according to the Scriptures. They say, he is equal to God the Father; and Socinus is angry that it should be doubted, whether they believed so, or not▪ his words are remarkable.  
Falsissimum est, etc. He saith, It is most false, that we do not affirm Christ to be true God, yea, we profess the contrary publicly, and in our own, both in the Latin and Polonian Tongue, in not a few public Writings: And again, as if we did deny Jesus Christ, tho' he is Man, yet to be God. and equal to God, or the proper Son of God, and equal to his Father. According to Smalcius, our God, and the true God, summo jure, he is so to be called, and is so indeed. They do generally own his Title Ro. 9 God over all, blessed for ever. Schlectingius, in Joh. 4. 23. saith, We must understand by it, that Christ is Lord and God, not over some things only, but over all; God and Lord of Heaven and Earth, as Stigmannus adds, in Joh. 10. 33. I confess Schlect. his gloss hereupon is, He is true God, as true is opposed to false, not as it is opposed to non summo, or the Supreme God; but if the Text be well considered, and its proper sense allowed, I see not how he can be better signified to be the God of Israel, than by the usual appellation of the God of Israel, as the Learned note, God blessed for ever; or how the Supreme God can in other words be more fitly expressed, than by these words, God over all blessed for ever; especially seeing, as we have noted before, that there is no ground, either in Reason or Religion, for the distinction of the chief or supreme God, and a true God,  
These Advances seriously weighed, methinks, while we grant and acknowledge the subordination of the Son to the Father, as his Original and Beginning▪ with the unanimous Consent of the Ancients, as Dr. Bull and Bishop Pearson have observed, and that the Divine Perfections of the Father and the Son, are in the Son not co-ordinately but subordinately, and communicated to him from the Father; and in that sense the Father may be said to be greater than the Son, in that he is the Origo and Principal. Methinks, I say, they should see reason enough to meet us, and acknowledge the Son, with the Nicene Fathers and the Catholic Church, to be God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.  
I shall conclude this Argument with the pertinent and forcible Reasoning of Dr. B. in his Second Edition.  
If we consider, saith he, the thing itself, it appeareth much more credible, that the Eternal Son of God should descend to the nature of Man, than that a Man should be made God, endued with a new Omnipresence to hear, and Omnipotence, to grant the Prayers of all the Supplicants, that in all places of the World should invoke him. Again, saith he, if we regard the Dignity of his Person, it is plainly more Honourable, to believe him God the Creator, than a Creature Deified: If we consider the Fruits, our Thankfulness must be greater, etc. So that, upon all accounts, were the Scriptures doubtful, we ought rather to carry our Bias towards our Lord's Eternal Divinity, than against it.   

VII. Authority, the Ground of Faith.  
That Belief, which hath no Authority, but is against all Authority competent in that Case, ought not only to be suspected, but to be rejected, as groundless and false. This is not to be questioned, for seeing Authority is the only Reason and Ground of Faith, that Belief that hath no competent Authority, is groundless; and that which is against such Authority, must needs be false: But the Socinian Belief, that the Son of God had no Existence or Being before he was conceived, and born of the Virgin Mary, hath no Authority, and is against all Authority competent in that Case; therefore such Belief is groundless and false.  
Now, that such Belief, that our Saviour had no Being before he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, is without and against all competent Authority in the Case, will easily appear, by considering what is such Authority, and the Socinian Concessions about it, and the Evidence of the thing▪ itself.  
1. What can be supposed competent Authority to ground the Christian Faith upon, but the Holy Scriptures, as they are in themselves, or as they are expounded and understood by the Primitive Fathers, Ecclesiastical Councils, or the Universal Church.  
2. Now, that the said Belief of Socinus and his Followers is without and against all this Authority, 'tis not my province to argue here, (which hath been done an hundred times invincibly by others) only from the Socinians own Concessions, and the Evidence of the thing itself.  
1. For the Holy Scriptures, as they are in themselves, tho' the Socinians make great Pretences that they are of their side, yet 'tis plain, they dare not trust to them; yea, by two Observations 'tis very apparent, that they more than suspect they are against them.  
The first Observation is, That they pre-judge, and indeed enervate all the Authority of the Holy Scripture, by their bold and dear Proposition, which they resolve shall serve them as an Asylum and Refuge; where they cannot otherwise escape the Light and Force of the Text. The Proposition I mean is to this purpose; That tho' the Holy Scripture speak a thing never so plainly, i. e. that the true and proper sense cannot be evaded, yet if the Matter thereof be contrary to their Sentiments, or cannot be apprehended by them, they are not bound to believe it, but their own Reason. To this purpose it is generally observed, that Socinus and his Followers (as particularly a late Socinian Pamphlet boldly consents) declare themselves; which, if they were not jealous, at least, that the Scripture is plain against some of their Opinions, such cunning Gamesters would not affirm, to so great Reproach of their Profession, and Scandal of the Christian Religion.  
My other Observation is, their playing and trisling with the Holy Scripture, their straining their Wits, and wracking their Fancies (of which 'tis confessed they have good store) to coin new and unheard-of Glosses for the wresting and bending of the Text to their new Hypothesis, so strange to the plain Letter and Sense of the Text, so impertinent to the Context, so contrary to all ancient and other modern Expositions, that we cannot have so much Charity for them, as to think they believe themselves, or have any Veneration or Respect to Divine Revelation. Not here to dispute the Particulars, or to enumerate all their finenesses of Criticism, Wit, and Fancy, I shall only remark some Instances that carry a Confutation in their Foreheads.  
When they tell us, That (in Joh. 1.) in the Beginning is not in the Beginning of the World, but of the Gospel: When they interpret, the Word was made Flesh, it was so, in the Infirmities, i. e. Qualities of the Flesh, not in the Substance. When in the words following he is said to dwell among us, they say, it was after his Resurrection. When upon the Text [Before Abraham was, I am] they comment thus; Before the Gentiles were actually called, and became Abraham's Children. When they observe, that the words of St. Thomas, My Lord and my God, were spoken by way of admiration to God the Father, and not to our Saviour; when by Thrones, Principalities in Heaven, they would have us understand Men on Earth, tho' the Text saith they are Invisible, Col. 1. 16. When it is so frequently and plainly written, That the Son of God made the Worlds, and that all things are upheld and subsist by him, they will have it meant, only of Regeneration, or the new Creation. When our Saviour affirms, I and my Father are one, they say, he meant so only in Will and Consent; contrary directly to the scope and sense of the Context, which speaks of their Power to keep his Disciples from Violence: When upon that famous Scripture, In him dwells all the fullness of the Scripture bodily, they restrain it to his Doctrine, and exclude his Person: When by the Mystery of Godliness God manifested in the Flesh, upon a Criticism, they will have it, the Gospel manifested in the Flesh; which makes brave sense, especially if you consider the words following. And lastly, to crown all, when Socinus was puzzled with the frequent and plain Assertions that our Saviour came down from Heaven, into the World, he becomes Enthusiast, and dreams of a Revelation he had, That Christ, after his Incarnation, was taken up into Heaven, to learn his Father's Will. When, I say, we revolve and weigh these and suchlike wild and unreasonable, unaccountable Figments of theirs, to avoid Scripture Arguments, we cannot imagine, either that the Scripture should favour them, or they the Scriptures; or, in plain English, that they allow the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule. or Foundation of their Faith.  
2ly, As their Belief, that our Saviour had not a Being before his Incarnation, is without and against the Authority of the Scriptures, so they confess, and seem to glory, that all the Ancient Fathers (tho' some of them were contemporary with the Apostles) and Councils were against them in this great and fundamental Point. Accordingly Socinus enters his Protestation against them all, The heap of Authorities and Testimonies out of the Fathers and Councils, have no force, especially against us, that are not diffident to descent from them, 5 Tom. 2 Resp. ad 2 C. Wick. p. 618.  
3ly, As for the Catholic Church, it in no Age, in the Times of, or since the Apostles, ever received this Opinion [That our Saviour did not exist before he was born of the Virgin Mary] but hath in all Ages rejected and exploded it, as the Madness of Heresy.  
For Fifteen Hundred Years together the Catholic Church stood quiet in the possession of the contrary Truth. Indeed, the Arrians vexed Her a considerable time, about the Eternal Generation, and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; but at last, the truth of those Points, by diligent search into the Holy Scriptures; was so well settled by Fathers and Councils, that the Church continued quiet and free from those Arrian Disputes, for Twelve or Thirteen Hundred years together.  
But what was this to our upstart Socinianism? The Arrians never dreamt of this Conceit; they believed, that the Son of God was made a God before, and was the great God's Instrument in making the Worlds, joined, as the Learned Bishop Pearson hath noted, with the Orthodox in Council, to pass an Anathema against one or two that in that Age vented that Point, [That our Saviour had no Being before he was born of the Virgin] and it being so early knocked in the Head, we never read it took Life or stirred again (except one Abelardus hit upon it) before Servetus' Time.  
Whence should this new Light spring in Polonia so late, to the disturbance of the Church, the reproach of the Fathers and Councils, and the weakening or nulling the Authority of the Holy Scriptures? Who can choose but reflect hence upon the Presumption, Pride, Confidence and Impudence of this Novel-Attempt to ridicule the Christian Faith, and to subvert the Foundation of the Christian Religion? If we have any deferrence to the Word of God, to the Primitive Fathers, and the whole Church, we must conclude Socinianism is intolerable.  
Indeed, two Arguments render it hardly Christian; 1. That they are gone out of the Catholic or Christian Church, which is founded in the Trinity, both for her Faith and Worship. 2. That it makes another Foundation for her Faith, viz. her own corrupted Reason, besides and contrary to the only Doctrinal Foundation of the Christian Religion, viz. the Holy Scriptures; as we noted before.  
Have they Doubting, or something like Faith in this Matter, why do they not follow the Apostle's Rule, and keep it to themselves? They do not think that all are in a damnable state that are not of their Opinions: Is there then no Regard to be had to Peace? I fear, neither their Charity nor Prudence is better than their Faith. Why must the World feel that they are Firebrands as well as Heretics? If we may judge by their modern Writing, as they exceed their Fathers the Arrians in their Principles, so they succeed them in their Fierceness.   

VIII. Faith intelligible.  
Obj. But I must not neglect the great Obstacle. They say, they are against Mysteries and things unintelligible: God hath given us Faculties of Reason and Understandings, and by these only we conceive and judge of things to be believed; and God cannot expect we should believe without Reason, or act beyond our proper Sphere, or believe we know not what, or what we cannot conceive or apprehend.  
Sol. I am not against Aquinas' Description of Faith, Fides est actus animae rationalis, quatenus rationalis; I know Reason is the Form of Man, and the very Principle of Human Actions, as such; and we must in some measure conceive and apprehend by our Reason, both what and why we believe: But tho' Ratio be Judex, Scriptura est Norma, and the Scripture, as the Rule of Faith, presents us with due Objects to be apprehended by our Understanding, and with sufficient reason from God's own Word why we should believe them.  
Hence let us take occasion to inquire, what it is these Gentlemen mean when they say, they cannot conceive or apprehend the Objects of our Faith; Do they not understand the state of the Controversy? Do they not know themselves what we would have them, and what they refuse to consent to? Can any man more distinctly and plainly express the Orthodox Faith about the Son of God than Socinus himself, to this purpose?  
All the Father's dissent from them, (saith he) as they would have Christ exist of the Substance of his Father before the World was made; and, That he often appeared to the Fathers under the Old Testament; yea, and the One God, his Father, made the World and all things by him; and whatever he would have us know, he hath revealed by him.  
Now, did not Socinus understand and conceive what he wrote? Did he not then know what we believe? And is yet this great Object of our Faith an unconceivable Mystery?  
Again, the Rule of our Faith is as conceivable as the Matter of it. If the Text propose such a thing to be believed, these men of Apprehension are sagacious enough to search into the meaning of the Words, and the coherence with the Context, and to conceive the true Sense, and how to avoid it, as any men living. And thus also they may understand why we believe, as well as what.  
What's the matter then? Where lies the Mystery? O they cannot apprehend how it should be, that the Son of God should be eternally begotten of, and One in Essence with the Father. And, what if they cannot? I think it's no great matter, as to their Salvation, whether they do or not; believe what is revealed, and leave the Mystery some Objects of Faith here, are reserved for Objects of Vision hereafter. If we are to believe nothing but what we know of the manner of their Being or Working, we must be Infidels in Nature, as well as in Religion.  
But to come a little closer to them, there are two unconceivable Points, (they say, which cannot go down with them, the Trinity and the Unity of our Saviour, or his having the same Essence with the Father. I shall consider both of them.  
As for the Trinity, what is there in it that they cannot conceive, either as to the Object, or the Rule of our Faith about it?  
Cannot they conceive what the Scripture reveals, That there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; that these are Three; and that the Father is the God of Christians, the Son is the God of Christians, and the Holy Ghost is the God of Christians? Certainly the Socinians, as well as the Arrians, may apprehend the matter so far. And further, That they are all True God; for we are not baptised in the Name, to the worship of any false God. And lastly, That, as the Apostle saith, To us (Christians) there is but one (true) God.  
Yes, all this they can apprehend as 'tis revealed, but they know not how to understand three in one, and one in three: Here I cannot give them better Advice, than not to lean to their own Understandings, but to believe the Revelation, and with Modesty and Humllity to adore the Mystery, Quomodo Pater genuit Filium, nolo discutias. St. Hierom.  
Yet I must remark, that the Mystery, as to the Matter of it, was conceivable, and upon a plain Text (not then disputed) believed too, before the Council of Nice; and though I know such Authorities weigh little with our Adversaries, and Dr. Bull and Dr. Whitby might have spared their Excellent Pains in evincing such Authorities, seeing they protest against them, (I mean, as to them) yet I have some reason to mention Two of them.  
The first is that of Tertullian, Ex Conscientia scimus, etc. Of Conscience we know, that the Name of God, and Father, and Son, and Spirit do agree, so as the Connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes Three cohering, alterum ex altero, which Three are One; Vnum non unus, as it is said, I and my Father are One for Unity of Substance, not for Singularity of Number, De anima, c. 14.  
The other is St. Cyprian, De Vnitate, etc. The Lord said, I and my Father are One. And again; Of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it's written, And these Three are One; Hanc unitatem, Those that hold not this Unity, hold not the Truth to Salvation.  
These I have noted to shame the Scoffer, that shall say, We had but two Gods before the Council of Nice; as well as to show, that wise and good men, of old, understood the Object and Rule of our Christian Faith in this great Article, and what was then thought of the Oppugners of it.  
Obj. So much for the Trinity; but the Eternity of the Son of God, and his Co-essentiality with the Father, they say, is unintelligible.  
But, can they conceive how God should be a Father from Eternity without a Son? Can they not conceive that which their Brethren the Arrians believed, according to abundance of Scriptures, that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation? And then, that being supposed, their own Reason assures them, that He must, from Eternity; as before was observed. Can they not conceive, that if all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made, that was made, that he existed before any thing was made, and therefore was a God born, and not made? Can they not apprehend, that seeing whatsoever is in God is God, and therefore the Wisdom and Power in God is the Divine Nature, and that if God communicate his own Wisdom, etc. to his Son, he communicates with it his Divine Nature? Can they conceive, that God was ever without his Wisdom? Can they not conceive, that Thought is the proper issue of a Mind, and that God's Mind is eternal, and Thought or Wisdom, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Son of God, are eternally begotten of him?  
Have these men peculiar and distinct Faculties from all Mankind? The World is divided into Jews, Turks, Infidels, Heretics, and the Church of God.  
1. As to our Saviour's Eternal Divinity, the Apprehension and Faith of the Church of God is sufficiently manifest, for Fifteen hundred years after our Saviour, before Socinianism was form. And 'tis well observed, that those supersine Colours that Socinus and his Followers put upon those Texts, by which the Catholic Church ever defended the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour, were at least most of them never thought on by the Ancient Heretics, and never heard of before Socinus' time.  
2. The Jewish Doctors hold, that the Messiah is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Jehovah is a Name given to him, that he is the Eternal Character of God; therefore the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour was no inconceivable Mystery to them.  
3. As for the wiser Heathen Philosophers, they speak a great deal plainer, tho' it is fairly supposed they had their Light from the Jews. The Indefatigable and Learned Dr. Whitby, after the famous Dr. Cudworth, hath given us a great deal to this purpose, and observes (what Socinus himself insinuates, when he tells us we have our Doctrine out of Plato's School) That the words of St. John, c. 1. taken in their familiar and proper sense, do exactly agree with the Say of the Platonists and Pythagoreans, and other Philosophers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about the Word.  
1. The Philosophers acknowledge a Second Hypostasis, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Mind, Word, and Son of the First.  
2. That this Second Hypostasis did exist from Eternity, and declared him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sempiternal Word, Mens temporis expers, & sempiterna.  
3. They pronounced this Word to be a Second God, to denote his dependence upon the First.  
4. They asserted him to be the Cause, Principal, and Maker of all things; such Conceits had these great Philosophers, who, we may imagine, were Masters of as much Reason as the men we deal with.  
Thus our Faith in our Saviour's Divinity was not abhorrent from the Reason of the learned Jews and wisest Philosophers.  
3. What Apprehension hath the Mahometan part of the World in this mysterious Article? Indeed, I was much taken with some Passages in The Turkish Spy, when I first saw his Letters, which I shall transcribe out of his 31st Letter of Vol. 2. to the Mufti: ' Tell me, saith he, why it is Blasphemy to say, that God hath already taken Flesh, since our holy Prophet avoucheth, that GOD shall assume a Body at the Resurrection. If a Body be compatible with the Divine Essence, it seems not to me a Blasphemy to assert the Incarnation of the Word, whom our Prophet calls the Breath of God. If this Breath or Word of God be not of the Essence of the Divinity, why is that part of the Christian Gospel had in such reverence by the faithful Mussulman, In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God, and God was the Word? If the Word be of the Essence of God, than it will necessarily follow, that God has taken a human Body; since our holy Prophet calls him the Word of God, whom the Christians adore for God Incarnate.  
Thus we have the sense of the Turkish Religion itself, not the Authority of the Spy, whoever he was, but Reason grounded upon the very Alcoran.  
Now, seeing there is nothing in the Point of our Saviour's Eternal Divinity, that is jarring or dissonant to the Reason of Mankind, either among Jews, Infidels, Turks, or the Church of God; if the Socinian yet say he will not believe it, because he cannot apprehend it, what remains, but that another would be tempted to number him with the last sort of men in the enumeration, that is, with unreasonable and singular Heretics.   

IX. The Conclusion; a Caveat against Socinianism.  

1. To the Laiety.  
I crave Leave to conclude with some serious Advice to the Friends of our own Church, both the Laiety and Clergy, that they would beware of entangling themselves in the Socinian (tho' seemingly Silken) Net.  
I beseech them to consider, and take a Prospect of the Consequences, whether it's now brisk Efforts obtain, or not.  
1. Suppose it should not prevail among us, but dwindle away, as it hath hither to done, blessed be God, yet let our Friends of the Laiety consider the danger they run upon, in their own particulars, by tampering with this intricate Controversy, and tempting God beyond their Calling. Methinks you should have deference to the Church wherein you were born, baptised, and educated, and in whose Faith and Worship you may undoubtedly be saved, especially in those great and fundamental Points of which She hath kept possession ever since her first Conversion to Christianity, and wherein She hath had Communion with the Catholic Church in all Ages. Methinks a Gentleman should have a reluctancy, and abhor from Novelty in Faith, and a Religion that was born but yesterday.  
Besides, by prying into Socinian Books, you will find a great many Points of our established Faith, as well as these we have discoursed of, such fundamental things as our Redemption by Christ, Santification by the Holy Ghost, the Nature and Efficacy of the Christian Sacraments, and almost every thing that is Evangelical, is struck at, undermined, and endeavoured to be altered, yea, utterly subverted by Socinian Attacks. And if you like not, as I know you do not, Anabaptism and Independency in others, you will be sure to meet these in most of the renowned Socinian Authors, who with subtlety and spite enough endeavour to ruin our Ecclesiastical as well as Spiritual state, the external form of our Church in Baptism and Episcopacy, as well as our internal state, which with the whole Catholic Church is founded in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Deity of our Saviour, etc. both for Faith and Worship.  
Consider then what Tools you have to deal with, before you cut your Fingers and ensnare your Souls: What Advantage can you expect to reap by these intricate Disputes? They may stagger, unsettle, disorder your Faith, distract and confound your Worship, of which you may repent, but never recover to a settled and comfortable. state, as it was before. I have no more to add here, but to tell you a sad Story, which I had from a person of singular Learning and Probity, and the Truth of it is not to be doubted; 'tis this:  
This worthy Gentleman met with his Friend in Paris, and observing him to be very melancholy, to look sadly, and much disordered, who used before to be of a pleasant and brisk Behaviour, asked him what was the matter that he found such an Alteration in him; besides, you were constant at our Prayers heretofore, and of late I have found you wanting. ' O that Hobbs, that vile, damned Hobbs, said he! O that I had never seen his Face! He hath so spoiled my Faith, by his Discourses about our Saviour, that I am undone as to my former religious course of Life: I know not what to do, or how to pray; what would I give, that I could go to Church, and say my Prayers, as you do, and I have done formerly. To this purpose that poor Gentleman complained of the Mischief he received from Hobs' Socinian Insinuations. Pray God our Gentlemen may escape the Danger, by avoiding, not running into, the Labyrinth.   

2ly, To my Brethren of the Clergy, I must speak more plainly.  
Give me leave to admonish you, that if you should be so unhappy, as to suck in the Socinian Venom, and it should not generally diffuse itself, as I hope in God it never will, yet what a case are you in? You have gained Principles contrary to your Obligations, and what work will they make both in your Consciences and Practice, both as Members and Ministers of this Church!  
1. Let us reflect a little upon our Obligations, as we are Members of the Church of England; and the rather, because some are bold to say, that we are let in and out of this Church at our Baptism and Death, only with the single Creed, called the Apostles; and are therefore not concerned in the Faith against Socinus.  
Sol. But it ought to be well considered, that we are baptised in the Name, i. e. into the Faith, Doctrine, and Worship of the Trinity, in the sense of the Church, into which we are admitted by Baptism.  
At our Baptism we vow, and promise by our Sureties, (which when we come of Age we are bound to perform) to believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith: And in her Exposition of the very same Creed, she tells us, That we believe in God the Father, and in God the Son, and in God the Holy Ghost; and when we were catechised, we profess, and say directly, that we so believe.  
And as often as we are present at the Prayers of the Church, especially upon Sundays and Holy days, we either join with the Creed, and Public Worship, or we do not; if we do, the Matter is clear; if we do not, we dissemble with God in our Faith and Prayers, and while we openly profess we secretly Renounce our Interest in the COVENANT of GOD.  
Lastly, Though the Articles may be thought only Articles of Peace and Concord to those that Subscribe them, yet nothing is more plain, than that they are Articles of Religion, as they are called, and contain and express the Faith of the CHURCH of ENGLAND most emphatically and directly against the Socinians; the first positively asserts her Faith in the Holy Divinity; the second, the Eternal Generation of the Son of God, and his being one Substance with the Father; the third, That the Three Creeds ought throughly to be received and believed, because they may be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture. Now, of whom doth this Church intent these Creeds should be received and believed, if not of her own Members?  
Obj. But I know 'tis frequently objected, that there are such hard and damning Sayings in Athanasius' Creed, that we cannot assent to it in Faith or Charity, especially in the Conclusion; that this is the Catholic Faith, which except a man faithfully believe, he cannot be saved.  
Answ. 'Tis true, this Sentence seems very severe, but may it admit of no Qualification? He cannot be saved, according to the ordinary terms or way of Salvation, because, as the Fathers say, they are out of the Catholic Faith; not but that they may be within the Mercy of God, in some secret or extraordinary way.  
I see no reason to take the Sentence so strictly, (whatever Athanasius thought) as to damn every one that believes not every word in his Creed: There is a large and lax-sence, that may be admitted, to save the Charity of our Church from denouncing Damnation against the Greek Church, for want of the word Filioque; He that doth not believe faithfully, he doth not say literally, or every Word or Saying in't, but rather the Substance of our Christian Faith touching the Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of God. This seems to be better allowed us, because though it bear the Name of Athanasius' Creed, yet 'tis no formal Creed, as the other Creeds are, which begin thus, I believe, etc. but only a Declaration or Exposition of those two great Articles: In which sense our Church may be supposed to say, this Creed may be proved by the Holy Scripture. In this large sense, I doubt not, but as we are bound to repeat it, so we ought to believe it.   

2dly, As Ministers,  
Let it be well considered, that Socinian Principles being once sucked in, how trouble some and uneasy they will be, and what inward Gripes they will cause, as so much Poison in our Bowels, as inconsistent and repugnant to the Obligations that lie upon us.  
Not here to insist upon the 39 Articles which we have read before our People, and subscribed ex animo, which some take to be only Articles of Peace and Concord. though that Consideration should be a Bridle to the lose and extravagant Raillery of some among us; Did not we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, at our Institution? Were we not admitted into our Office, and unto the Profits of our Places, upon these Terms? Is not the Common Prayer the Rule and Measure of our public Duties?  
Now let it be considered how agreeable such Principles as we have discoursed of are with our necessary public Offices in the Book of Common Prayer; how a Socinian can satisfy himself with so frequent a Repetition of Gloria Patri, etc. how he can in Conscience say the Nicene Creed, which he, if a Minister of our Church, is bound to do every Lord's-day, etc. how he can then also, with any Peace in himself, say the Litany, wherein he is to call upon God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Three Persons and One God; how he can give Thanks upon Trinity-Sunday, for Grace by confession of a true Faith to acknowledge the Glory of the Eternal Trinity, and to worship the Unity, and pray that God would keep us steadfast in this Faith; or administer the Holy Communion upon that day, when we are commanded to say, Everlasting God, who art one God, one Lord, not one only Person, but three Persons in one Substance, etc. Besides, I have noted above Twenty Collects, that occur to us in their proper turns, that conclude with express mention and Honour of the Holy Trinity, that we are bound to read as they come in their courses: Yea, lastly, how shall such Principles suffer us to do our Duty to Children, whom we are bound to teach, that by the Common Creed they believe in God the Father, and in God the Son, and in God the Holy Ghost.  
Now, my Brethren, if we are, or hereafter shall be tainted with such Principles as are light with our Offices and Obligations, we see our Case; for while we continue in our Places, and under the Obligations of our Ministry, we must either read the Creeds, Catechise our People according to the Form prescribed, and say the Prayers according to the Rubrics, or we must refuse to do so.  
If we refuse (I do not here censure many men's too frequent Omissions of some parts of our Service, for which they think they have some necessity) but if we constantly refuse to discharge our Duty upon Principle, especially in the great Parts or Members of it, as we have instanced before, I must pronounce, this is a plain Neglect of our Duty, a horrid Schism in our Church, a great Scandal and Temptation to our People and Neighbourhood, and an unaccountable breach of our Trust, and the Vows, Promises and Obligations formally made by us, and resulting from the nature of our Offices, a forfeiture of all the Profits of our Places, into which we were inducted, upon Conditions of Conformity, and cannot consist with a quiet or good Conscience.  
On the other side, if we do continue to perform all the Offices of our Ministry outwardly, contrary to our inward Principles, we prevaricate with Heaven: We cannot justify what some men dare to say, that we read the Service as we would read an Act of Parliament, or as the Burden of our Places; for we are at our Devotion in solemn Applications and Addresses to the Divine Majesty; and God and Angels, and Men are Witnesses of our Hypocrisy and Dissimulation.  
Thus we are entangled in a Snare, and how we should break it and deliver ourselves, I know not, but either by a voluntary leaving our Places, or by being deprived of them by Authority, as Criminals, Dissenters, Apostates, or Nonconformists.  
Hitherto we have proceeded to caution you upon a Supposition, that the Attempts of Socinians may prove ineffectual, or not gain much ground among us; but if they should, which the good God avert, the Consequences thereof give a sad Prospect to all the true Friends of this Church, though Her Enemies may please themselves with the premeditation of it.  
What Alterations, Distractions, Confusions would Socinianism bring with it? This duly pondered, I hope, will provoke all good men to Watch and Guard against all approaches of it. Who sees not, as this Novel-Heresie advances, our Faith, our Worship, and Ecclesiastical Government is in danger? If this prevail, we must have new Articles of Religion, new Creeds, and our Prayers and Common Service must be almost all new; and our Church must be quite another thing than now it is (if it shall then deserve that Name) when its Pillars are shaken, and its Foundation razed, which is laid in the Doctrine of the Trinity, upon which it stood firm in Communion with the Catholic, as before I observed, ever since it was a Christian Church.  
But that Good GOD, who by his wise and watchful Providence hath hitherto so wonderfully preserved this Church of Ours from all the subtle Designs and violent Attacks of Her other Enemies, and doth yet preserve it; I hope, will never suffer us to be swallowed up in the bottomless Gulf of Socinianism, for the sake of his Dear Son, and our Blessed Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, to whom with thee, O Father, and the H. Ghost, Three Persons and One God, be Honour and Glory in all the Churches, World without End.    
FINIS.