Precious faith considered in its nature, working, and growth

Secondly, The nullity of it is considerable, it is a nullity in its foundation, and at last it proves a nullity in the consequence. It is a nullity in its foundation; the Socinian believes the Scriptures not as a divine testimony, but as congruous to reason, and so trusts not in God, but in himself and his own heart. Thus Socinus expresses himself, Non generalem comprobandi rationem quaerimus, quod eam, qui dixit, ejusmodi esse appareat, ut nullâ in re mentiri posset, sed singularem quandam, quâ id nominatim, quod comprobandum est, per causas & effecia propria ita se babere demonstratur, adeò ut non modò quia Deum ipsum dixisse appareat, id verum esse constet, sed etiam quia verum esse appareat, id Deum dixisse nobis certò persuadeamus. Qaomodo poterat clariùs prodere ⟨p. 54⟩[Greek or Hebrew] suam, saith a Learned man? how could he more clearly betray his infidelity? he would not have us only believe a thing true, because God says so, but believe also that God says so, because it appears true to our own reason, where this is the foundation, faith is a mere nullity, and that which is a nullity in the foundation, at last proves a nullity in the consequence. Reason, corrupting it self in its own pride, casts away the found principles of the Gospel, and these being gone putrefies in abominable errors, like Herod assuming a Deity to himself, it is spiritually smitten of God, and eaten up of worms: I mean, those errors which are but the putrefactions of reason. How do the Socinians Paganize in worshipping a creature, a Christ whom they deny to be God; Mahometize in denying the sacred Trinity; Judaize in standing for an interpreting Messiah only, and not a satisfying one; Manicheize in undervaluing the old Testament; Arianize in denying the Deity of Christ; Pelagianize in denying original sin; Anabaptize in denying baptism to infants? how do some of them Divelaze in horrid blasphemies, calling the sacred Trinity tricipitem Cerberum; and to those who assert Jesus Christ to be Gods son; asking, An Deus habuit uxorem? Whether God had a wise? and such like hellish stuff, in which much of the devil appears. After all this fearful shipwreck of faith, what remains? too too little to denominate them Christians. Ignatius called the Ebionites, because they denied Christs Deity, men-worshippers; the ancient ⟨p. 55⟩Church styled the Samosatenians upon the same account God-killers;

Secondly, The nullity of it is considerable, it is a nullity in its foundation, and at last it proves a nullity in the consequence. It is a nullity in its foundation; the Socinian believes the Scriptures not as a divine testimony, but as congruous to reason, and so trusts not in God, but in himself and his own heart. Thus Socinus expresses himself, Non generalem comprobandi rationem quaerimus, quod eam, qui dixit, ejusmodi esse appareat, ut nullâ in re mentiri posset, sed singularem quandam, quâ id nominatim, quod comprobandum est, per causas & effecia propria ita se babere demonstratur, adeò ut non modò quia Deum ipsum dixisse appareat, id verum esse constet, sed etiam quia verum esse appareat, id Deum dixisse nobis certò persuadeamus. Qaomodo poterat clariùs prodere