1 " Pi'imum igitur quod attinet ad priorem rationem dico, diversam illam lectionem non cxtare, ut arbitror, neque ia ullo pi'obato codice, neque apud uUura pi'obatum scriptorem, quod vel ex eo coustare potest, quod Erasmus in suis Annotatiouibus quamvis do hoc ipso loco agat, ejus rci nullam prorsus mcntionem facit. Qui Ei'asmus, cum hoc in genere nusquam non diligentissime versatur; turn in omnibus locis in quibus Christus Deus appellai-i videtur, adeo diligcnter omnia verba expendit, atque examinat, ut non immerito et Trinitai'iis Ariamsmi suspectus fuerit, et ab Antitrini- tariis inter eos relatus, qui subobscure Trinitati rcclamaverint." — Faust. Socin. Ep. ad Tranc. David, pp. 186, 187.
OF Christ's kingly office. 877
deserted him when he was cast into prison by the prince of Transyl- vania, where he died miserably, raving and crying out that the devils expected and waited for his company in his journey which he had to go (Florim. Rem. lib. iv. cap. xii.) ; the account whereof Smalcius also gives us in his refutation of Franzius, Theses de Hypocrit. disput. 9, p. 298.'
After these stirs and disputations, it grew the common tenet of Socinus and his followers (see his epistle to Enjedinus) that those who denied that Christ was to be worshipped and invocated were not to be accounted Christians (which how well it agrees with other of his assertions shall instantly be seen). So Socinus himself leads the way, Respon. ad Niemojevium, Ep. 1 ; who is followed by Volke- lius.^ " Unless," saith he, " we dare to call on the name of Christ, we should not be worthy of the name of Christians."^ And he is attended by the Racovian Catechism, De pra3cept. Christi, cap. i., whose author aflSrms plainly that he esteemed them not Christians who worshipped him not, and accounted that indeed they had not Christ, however in word they durst not deny him.*
And of the rest the same is the judgment; but yet with what consistency with what they also affirm concerning this invocation of Christ, we shall now briefly consider.
Socinus, in his third epistle to Matthias Radecius, whom he every- where speaks honourably of, and calls him " excellent man," " friend," " brother," and " much-to-be-observed lord"® (because he was a great man), who yet denied and opposed this invocation of Christ, lays this down in the entrance of his discourse, that there is nothing of greater moment in Christian religion than the demonstration of this,
' "Exempluin denique affert nostrorum, Thes. 108. Quomodo se gessevint in Tran- sylvania in negotio Francisci Davidis, quomodo semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos agant vafricia;, perfidite, ci'udelitatis, sanguinarite proditionis, etc., sed his primuni regeio: non excmplis, sed legibus judicandum esse: si nostri ita se gesserunt ut scribit Frantzius, etc. Deinde dico false ista objocta fuisse ab autoribus scripti, quod citat Frantzius nostris : nee cnim frateine tractarunt Franciscum Davidem, usque ad ipsum agonem, quanquam eum ut fratrem tractare non tenebantur, qui in Jesu Christi veram divinitatem tarn impie involabat, ut dicere non dubitarct, tantum peccatum esse eum invocare, quantum est, si Vii'go Maria invocetur," etc. — Smalc. Refut. Thes. Franz, disput. 9, p. 298.
2 " Recte igitur existimasti, mihi quoque verisimile videri, eum qui Dominum Jesum Christum invocare non vult, aut non audet, vix Christiani nomine dignum esse: nisi quod non modo vix, sed ne vix quidem, et non modo verisimile id mihi videtur, sed persuasissimuni milii est."
3 " Eum invocare si non audeamus, Christiano nomine hand satis digni merito ex- istimari possemus." — Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. iv. cap. xi. De Christi invocationc, p. 221.
* " Quid vero sentis de iis hominibus qui Christum non invocant, nee invocandum censcnt ? — Prorsus non esse Christianos sentio : cum reip.sa Christum non habcant, et licet verbis id negare non audeant, rcipsa tamen negent." — Cat. Rac. De prsecept. Christi, cap. i. p. 126.
* " Eruditione, virtute, pietate, pitestantissimo viro D. Matthteo Radecio, amico, et domino mihi plurimum observando, etc. Praestantissime vir, amice, frater, ac domiue plurimum observande."
378 VINDICIJi: EVANGELIC^.
" That invocation and adoration, or divine worship, do agree to Christ, altliough he be a created thing." ^ And in the following words he gives you the reason of the importance of the proof of this assertion, namely, " Because the Trinitarians' main strength and argument lies in this, that adoration and invocation are due to Christy which are proper only to the most high God."* Which makes me bold on the otlier side to afnrm, that there is nothing in Christian religion more clear, nor more needful to be confirmed, than this, that divine worship neither is, can, nor ought, by the will of God, to be ascribed to any who by nature is not God, to any that is a mere creature, of what dignity, power, and authority soever. But yet now, when this zealous champion for the invocation of Christ comes to prove his assertion, being utterly destitute of the use of that which is the sure bottom and foundation thereof, he dares go no farther, but only says that we may call upon Christ if we will, but for any precept making it }ie- cessary so to do, that he says there is none.
And therefore he distinguisheth between the adoration of Christ and his invocation? For the first, he affirms that it is commanded, or at least that things are so ordered that we ought to adore him; but of the latter, says he, " There is no precept, only we may do so if we will." The same he had before affirmed in his answer to Franciscus David.* Yea, in the same discourse he affirms, that "if we have so much faith as that we can go with confidence to God without him, we need not invocate Christ."^ "We may," saith he, " invocate Christ ; but we are not bound so to do." Whence Niemoje- vius falls upon him, and tells him that he had utterly spoiled their cause by that concession;^ to deliver himself from which charge,