object of religious worship, was the declarations in the scriptures concerning the kingdom and power bestowed upon him. The interpretation which he put on those passages which speak of angels and heavenly powers being put under him, and worshipping him; his having a knowledge of the secret thoughts of men imparted to him, and the like, which, with some presumed instances of the fact, of prayer being actually made to him, he maintained to be a sufficient though indirect signification of the divine will, that men should invoke Christ by prayer. But he constantly acknowledged that there was no express precept for making him an object of religious worship. Socinus allowed that the title of true God might be given to Christ; though all he meant by it was, that he had a real divine power and dominion bestowed upon him, to qualify him to take care of the concerns of christians, and to hear and answer their prayers, though he was originally nothing more than a human creature. There were some among the early Socinians who disapproved and rejected the worship paid to Christ, as being without any foundation in the holy scriptures, the only rule of christian faith and worship. At present it is agreed, both by Arians and Socinians, that the supreme God, in one person, is the only object of prayer. See Unitarians. Socinus was a strict Pelagian in his sentiments respecting human nature. See Pelagians. This denomination differ from the Arians in the following particulars: The Socinians assert that Christ was simply a man, and consequently had no existence before his birth and appearance in this world. : The Arians maintain that Christ was a super-angelic being united to being united to a human body that, though he was himself created, he was the creator of all other things under God, and the instru ment of all the divine communications to the patriarchs. The Socinians say that the holy Ghost is the power and wisdom of God, which is God. The Arians suppose that the holy Spirit is the creature of the Son, and subservient to him in the work of redemption.* For an account of the Socinian divisions, see Bidelians, Budneians, and Farvonians. *Mosheim, vol. iv. pp. 167-195. Lindsey's View of the Unitarian Doctrine, &c., pp. 175-393. Priestley's Disquisitions, vol, i. p. 376, Priestley's History of Early Opinions, vol. iv, p. 233. Toulmin's Life of Socinus. SOLDINS, so called from their leader, one Soldin, a greek priest. They appeared about the middle of the fifth century in the kingdoms of Saba and Godolia. They altered the manner of the sacrifice of the mass; their priests offered gold, their deacons incense, and their subdeacons myrrh; and this in memory of the like offerings made to the infant Jesus by the wise men.* Very few authors mention the Soldins, neither do we know whether they still sub sist. STANCARIANS, the disciples of Francis Stancarus, professor of the hebrew tongue, and a native of Mantua in Italy. The tenet which he most eagerly defended was, that Jesus Christ was a mediator in quality of a mere man, and not in quality of Godand-Man.+ This denomination took its rise in the sixteenth century. STYLITES, so called by the Greeks, and Sancti Columnarii, or Pillar Saints, by the Latins. They stood motionless upon the tops of pillars, expressly raised for this exercise of their patience, and remain ed there for several years,' amidst the admiration and applause of the populace. The inventor of this discipline was Simeon, a Syrian, who, in order to climb as near heaven as possible, passed thirty-seven years of his life upon five pillars of six, twelve, twenty-two, thirty-six, and forty cubits high; and thus acquired a most shining reputation, and attracted the veneration of all about him. Many of the inhabitants of Syria followed his example, though not with the same degree of austerity: and this practice, which was begun in the fifth, continued in vogue till the twelfth century.§. SUBLAPSARIANS, an appellation given to those Calvinists who suppose that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of that freedom which Adam had, into a state, in which all were to be left to necessary and unavoidable ruin, who were not exempted from it by predestination.|| SUPRALAPSARIANS, [a title given to those Calvinists who suppose that God intend * Broughton, vol. ii. p. 560. + Ibid, vol. ii. p. 561. It is said that Simeon imagined he saw an angel of light coming to him in a fiery chariot to carry him to heaven, and litted up his foot in order to enter the divine vehicle. Mosheim, vol, i. p. 391. History of Don Ignatius, vol. i. p. 31, ed to glorify his justice in the condemnation of some, as well as his mercy in the salvation of others; and to that end decreed to permit the fall of man, by which an occasion would be furnished for the display of both. We will here subjoin the account of Supralapsarianism as given by Dr. Gill, in his body of divinity, vol. i. p. 299. The question which he proposes to discuss is, "Whether men were considered in the mind of God in the decree of election, as fallen or unfallen; as in the corrupt mass through the fall, or in the pare mass of creatureship previous to it, and as to be created? There are some who think that the latter, so considered, were the objects of election in the divine mind. These are called Supralapsarians, though of these some are of opinion that man was considered as to be created, or creatable; and others as created, but not fallen. The former seems best; that of the vast number of individuals which came up in the divine mind, whom his power could create, those whom he meant to bring into being he designed to glorify himself by them in some way or other. The decree of election respecting any part of them may be distinguished into the decree of the end, and the decree of the means. The decree of the end respecting some is either subordinate to their eternal happiness, or ultimate; which is more properly the end, the glory of God; and if both are put together, it is a state of everlasting communion with God, for the glorifying of the riches of his sovereign grace and goodness. (Ephes. i. 5, 6.) The decree of the means includes the decree to create men, to permit them to fall, to recover them out of it through redemption by Christ, to sanctify them by the grace of the Spirit, and completely save them; and which are not to be reckoned as materially many decrees, but as making one formal decree; or they are not to be considered as subordinate, but as co-ordinate means, and as making up one entire complete medium: for it is not to be supposed that God decreed to create man that he might permit him to fall, in order to redeem, sanctify and save him; but be decreed all this that he might glorify his grace, mercy and justice. And in this way of considering the decrees of God they think that they sufficiently obviate and remove the slanderous calumny cast upon them with respect to the other branch of predestination, which leaves men in the same state when others are chosen, and that for the glory of God. Which calumny is, that according to them, God made man to damn him; whereas, according to their real sentiments, God decreed to make man, and made man neither to damn him nor save him, but for his own glory; which end is answered in them some way or other.-Again: They argue that the end is first in view before the means; and the decree of the end is, in order of nature, before the decree of the means; and what is first in intention is last in execution. Now as the glory of God is the last in execution it must be first in intention; wherefore men must be considered in the decree of the end as not yet created and fallen; since the creation and permission of sin belong to the decree of the means, which, in order of nature, is after the decree of the end. And they add to this, that if God first decreed to create man, and suffer him to fall, and then out of the fall chose some to grace and glory, he must decree to create man without an end, which is to make God to do what no wise man would: for when a man is about to do any thing he proposes an end, and then contrives and fixes on ways and means to bring about that end; and it cannot be thought that the all-wise and only-wise God should act otherwise, who does all his works in wisdom, and has wisely designed them for his own glory. (Prov. xvi. 4.) They think also that this way of conceiving and speaking of these things best expresses the sovereignty of God in them, as declared in Rom. ix., where he is said to will such and such things, for no other reason but because he wills them: and hence the objector to the sovereign decrees of God is brought in, saying, "Why doth he yet find fault; who hath resisted his will?" And the answer to it is taken from the sovereign power of the potter over his clay; to which is added: "What if God willing," &c. to do this or that, who has any thing to say against it? He is accountable to none. (v. 15--22.) And this way of reasoning is thought to suit better with the instance of Jacob and Esau : "The children being not yet born, and having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,” (v. 10.) than with supposing persons, considered in predestination, as already created, and in the corrupt mass; and particu larly it best suits with the unformed clay of the potter, out of which he makes one vessel to honour and another to dishonour on which Beza remarks, that if the apostle had considered mankind as corrupted, he would not have said that some vessels were made to honour and some to dishonour; but rather that, seeing all the vessels would be fit for dishonour, some were left in that dishonour, and others translated from dishonour to honour. They further observe, that elect angels could not be considered in the corrupt mass when chosen, since they never fell; and therefore it is most reasonable that as they, so those angels that were not chosen were considered in the same pure mass of creatureship; and so in like manner men to which they add, the human nature of Christ, which is the object of election to a greater dignity than that of angels and men, could not be considered in the corrupt mass, since it fell not in Adam, nor never came into any corrupt state; and yet it was chosen out of the people: (Psal. lxxxix. 19.) and consequently the people out of whom it was chosen must be considered as yet not fallen and corrupt, and who also were chosen in him, and therefore not so consider ed. These are hints of some of the arguments used on this side of the question. "On the other hand, those who are called Sublapsarians, and are for men beingconsidered as created and fallen in the decree of election, urge John xv. 19: I have chosen you out of the world. Now the world is full of wickedness, it lies in it, is under the power of the wicked one, the inhabitants of it live in sin, and all of them are corrupt and abominable; and therefore they who are chosen out of them must be so too. But this text is not to be understood of eternal election, but of effectual vocation, by which men are called and separated from the world, among whom they have had their conversation before conversion, and have lived according to the course of it. They further observe, that the elect are called vessels of mercy, which supposes them to have been miserable, and sinful, and to stand in need of mercy, and must be so considered in their election: but though through various means the elect are brought to happiness, which are owing to the inercy of God; such as the mission of Christ to save them, the forgiveness of their sins, their regeneration and salvation, and so fitly called vessels. of mercy; yet it follows not that they were considered as in need of mercy in their choice to happiness.-It is also said that men are chosen |