good earnest they own not Christ though they dare not Openly yet Really do they deny Jesus to be the Christ Besides Vujekus upbraiding the Socinians with the Opinion and fatal end of Jacobus Palaeologus who with Johannes Sommerus Matthias Glirius and many others opposed the Adoration of Christ and was at last Burnt for his Heresies at Rome Socinus in his Reply tells them his Sense thus But as to Palaeologus Resp ad Vujek p. 42. whom they take for granted to be One of Us I answer that his being Reconciled to the Church of Rome was so far from being a Token of God's Favour unto him that it was a due Reward of his Impiety For besides his not sticking to Traduce our Party how Innocent soever as the most Arrant Knaves whom in the mean time he Blushes not to call Brethren He also was one and if I mistake not a leading Man among them who now a days affirm that Christ is neither to be Adored nor Invocated And yet they Impudently Profess themselves Christians a Device to deprave our Religion in my Opinion so Wicked that there could hardly be a Worser invented And as they could not Oppose the Adoration of Christ and Remain Christians so this their Principle leads 'em to Judaism For saith Socinus ever since I saw what Franciscus Davidis had Written against the Invocation of Christ I openly declared my Sentiments touching the Tendency of his Notion to Judaism and how it exalted Moses above Christ For this Reason more especially because if they hold that Christ may not be of Right Invocated he is not Really but only in Name Christ Socin Praef. ad Resp F. David And I Remember very well that in the Presence of Franciscus Davidis I pressed Glirius freely to tell me whether he believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ But he would give me no Answer c. What Socinus hath on this occasion delivered doth sufficiently evince that he Condemns not only Franciscus Davidis but all whosoever they be that are against the Rendring Divine Worship unto Christ even our English Socinians themselves if they do so for being far worse than Hereticks who in Reality deny Jesus to be the Christ and therefore can't be Christians nor clear themselves from the Charge of Mahometanism nor their Principles from a Tendency to Judaism Now that the Generality of the English Socinians do Reject the Adoration of Christ and are for giving him no other sort of Honour than they do to Men in Civil Power to Prophets or Saints in Glory is manifest from what they avouch There are Answ to Milbern p. 50. say they no Acts of Worship ever required to be paid to the Lord Jesus Christ but such as may be paid to a Civil Power to a Person in High Dignity and Office to Prophets and Holy Men or to such as are actually possest of the Heavenly Beatitudes Though some may be otherwise minded yet the Generality of them fall in with Palaeologus Sommerus Glirius Davidis and Others in their Rejecting the Adoration of our Blessed Redeemer as appears further from what is Reported of them by their own Historians who Represents their Opinion to the utmost Advantage he could page 33. intimating that the most Learned of the Ancients Reject this Invocation that Christ Himself when consulted about the Object and matter of Praver directed his Disciples to God that he forbad them to pray to Himself and that to make Christ himself the Object of Prayer is to destroy his Mediatory Office Thus much and abundantly more is urged by the English Socinians against our Adoring and Invocating the Lord Jesus Christ whereby they make themselves in the Esteem of the Foreign who are the more learned Socinians to be worse than Hereticks even Destroyers of the Chiefest and most Principal Foundations of the Christians Hope and Faith in God who in Reality deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ and cannot clear themselves from Mahometanism nor their Principles from Judaism Thus we see what manner of Men our Socinians are what Enemies to Christian Religion and whither their Principles do lead the Chief among themselves being Judges And when I consider what manner of Notions the most Ingenious of their way are Advancing I cannot but think on what Mersennus did intimate to Ruarus Epist Ruar 50. page 239. about the Attempts of some to bring all that part of Religion which is necessary to Salvation unto one Article There are saith he some Men and I doubt not but there are such amongst you who contend that this one Article of Faith only namely That Jesus is the Messiah is necessary unto Salvation that they who believe it may be called the Children of God that this is the One Article the Apostles urged To which others add that a Believing this Article with the Heart is not required as necessary a Confession of it with the Mouth being Sufficient That is to say if there be a rendring Obedience to the Magistrates Commands Thus we see whither Men when left to themselves will run They 'll suspect all Religion to be false and a Politick Contrivance then turn Atheists not only denying a Providence but the very Being of God Himself Mersennus writing thus much to a Grave and Learned Socinian who in his Answer taking no notice of it though very careful to rectifie the most inconsiderable Mistakes in other Instances moves me to conclude the Charge was true and the Atheistical Consequences too manifest to admit of a Penial which I the rather suggest to the end I may stir up the more sincere amongst our English Scocinians to consider the Tendency of their Notions SECT V. They fall in with the Papists in some momentous Points They imitate the QUAKERS in their crying down LEARNING a LEARNED MINISTRY and in REVILING THEIR ADVERSARIES § 1. THE Papists we confess that they may support their Temporal Grandeur and Dominating Will when pressed by the invincible Arguments of Protestants lower the Mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation and level them with their Vnscriptural Vnreasonable and Nonsensical Doctrine of Transubstantiation rather than Hazard their Temporalties which they do by placing Transubstantiation and these Mysteries in the same Rank Now altho' the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are most firmly believed by Protestants as supported by the clearest Revelations in Holy Writ yet the English Socinians as if their Design had been to prepare the Minds of the People Acts of Great Athanasius pag. 3. to close with the most pernicious part of Popery are bold to declare that the whole of Popery hath as much Evidence for it as these Foundations of Christianity Biddles Catechism Pres They do not only press us with the Assertion of the Popish Doctors that the Doctrine of the Trinity is Founded not in the Scriptures but on the Tradition of the Church and with the Charge that we Blasphemously make the Holy Scriptures a Nose of Wax But are I cannot forbear saying so Impudent as to tell us Letter of Resolu concerning the Trinity and Incarnation p. 1◠That the Supremacy of the Pope was the First-born of the Trinity that from the Doctrine of
gross But to follow the Deist in his way of Arguing He makes a Mystery to be an unintelligible Doctrine that can only puzzle and amuse because in it there is somewhat above our Reason whereas it 's very clear that the Doctrine may have somewhat unsearchable in it and yet be intelligible enough thus when it 's said Man's understanding is Finite but God's is Infinite I clearly and distinctly enough perceive the meaning hereof and have as good reason to believe God's to be Infinite as I have that Man 's is Finite and tho' there is somewhat included in Infinity that is above my Reason yet the Revelation which saith that the Divine Understanding is Infinite and unsearchable is to instruct and not to puzzle or amuse Once more seeing God whose Perfections are Infinite in creating all things hath left such impresses of his Infinity on the things Created that the profoundest Philosopher in his Closest searches into their Nature sees enough to conclude there is somewhat in them unsearchable and past finding out which to me is an uncontroulable Argument that an Infinitely wise Agent is their Maker Even so when I read the Holy Scriptures look into the Doctrines therein contained there are such clear and distinct Revelations of sundry Glorious Mysteries touching infinite Wisdom and the other Divine perfections that I cannot but with strongest Assurances conclude that God is their Author too An Anti-Trinitarian in a Letter to the Clergy of both Vniversities pag. 33. concerning the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed doth I confess hope to extricate himself out of this difficulty by distinguishing between the things themselves and the manner of them affirming that the things themselves that is God's Eternity Infinity Omnipresence are intelligible but the manner of them is impossible to be apprehended The Idea's saith he we have of God's Eternity Infinity Omnipresence Omniscience and all that we are required to believe concerning them are so clear and distinct that an ordinary Capacity apprehends what we mean when we say God is Eternal Infinite Omniscient Omnipresent though these things themselves are intelligible yet the manner of them is impossible to be apprehended and as we are now framed we are not capable of having it revealed to us and none but a blind Metaphysician who pretends to know all things but really knows nothing would be so vain as to attempt to explain the manner of God's Omnipresence or his Omniscience It is no wonder there are insuperable difficulties about the manner of things of this Nature when there are as great difficulties in apprehending the manner of Nature's Operating in the most common things which things none disbelieveth because he does not apprehend how they are done Who disbelievth there is such a Creature as Man though he does not know how he was formed But it is quite otherwise when we cannot apprehend the things themselves there is then an absolute impossibility of believing them A perfect Idea of the things themselves that is of Eternity Infinity c. he saith we may have but not of the manner whereas if the Reason why we can't have a perfect Idea of the manner of Infinity Eternity c.. can be no other than what makes it as impossible to have an Adequate Idea of Infinity Eternity c. the things themselves it cannot be more possible to apprehend Eternity than the manner of it And it 's manifest that the difficulty of apprehending the manner arises from its Infinity we cannot have a perfect Idea of the manner of Eternity because of the Infinity is in it and as we can't comprehend how God is Eternal neither can we have a perfect Idea of Eternity It 's true the Doctrine of Eternity Omniscience c. is intelligible we know what we mean when we discourse of Eternity c. But then must add that we mean by Eternity somewhat with respect to duration that exceeds the Bounds of the most enlarged Create understanding of which we cannot have a perfect Idea This Distinction then between the things themselves and their manner is in this Case insufficient to solve the difficulty for there is as much of Infinity in the things themselves as is in their manner and therefore equally above our Reason and the impossibility to frame a perfect Idea of either is the same The Nature of God is as unsearchable as his ways are past finding out Besides if we apply this distinction to the Doctrine of the Trinity it must be acknowledged that the Idea we have of a Person in the Blessed Trinity is as Intelligible as any one of the Divine Attributes and that the difficulty in Controversie is about the manner how three persons can be in the unity of Essence not in the things themselves A Trinity of Persons is as intelligible as a Variety of Attributes and the manner of Conciliating a variety of Attributes with absolute simplicity is as impossible as the conciliating a Trinity of Persons with Unity of Essence The Error therefore of these Men lyeth in their insinuating that it 's not impossible to have a perfect Idea of Eternity Infinity Omniscience c. the things themselves but of their manner when as the one and the other is equally impossible and that touching the Trinity the Controversie is not about the manner but the thing it self and yet nothing more evident than the thing it self to wit the Trinity hath nothing more insuperable in it than a variety of Attributes and that in reality the objections are in this Case raised from the manner of the thing not from the thing it self It is about how it can be not what it is Another therefore is more bold averting that he can comprehend Infinity and whatever is truly predicated of God but not being able to comprehend the Trinity it cannot be true whereby his own understanding is not only made the measure of Divine Truths but according to what I have already suggested he himself made equal with God or the Infinite God made such another as himself When I read that great is the Mystery of Godliness 1. Tim. 3.16 God manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory Prov. 8.22 to 31. And when I reflect on those Sacred Texts which speak of the Eternal Generation of the Son his being in the Bosome of the Father from everlasting his Revealing the Father to Us clearly that we with open Face beholding Mat. 11.27 2 Cor. 3.18 1 Cor. 13.12 as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord are changed into the same Image from Glory unto Glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord And now tho' we see but through a Glass darkly yet shall we hereafter see face to face I say when I meditate on these Parts of the Holy Revelation whilst I am convinc'd that these and such like Texts speak of things Mysterious and Vnsearchable past finding out yet
time Further their vacating and making void the Fourth Commandment which is attended with a neglect of the Lord's Day is an in-let into all manner of Vice and the very Notions they frame of God to support their other Errors are such as lessen the Fear Men ought to have of God's Judgments And as Dr. Edwards hath well observed Socinus by denying the Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ hath plainly over-turn'd the Foundation Preser against Socin p. 42. 43. upon which the Christian Church and Religion have been built and by his other Methods hath given a shrew'd blow to all Religion whatsoever whether Natural or Revealâ—d 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 contriv'd the Matter Vt lector prius sentiat Doctrinam istam sibi jam persuasum esse quam suaderi animadvertat When I most impartially weigh these things I mean their deceitful Attempts to ensnare the Unwary to favour their Opinions their Contemptuous Treatment of the Blessed Mysteries of the Gospel and its Advocates together with their assuming to themselves the Character of being the most Rational Divines and Men of Excelling Piety and Holiness even when none do more contradict the plainest Maxims of Reason and lay a surer Foundation for the utmost Immoralities When I lay these things together I am so far from thinking as those great Men do who represent them to be the fairest Adversaries that I rather incline at least to fear that the Account given of them by the despised Lubbertus which I will lay down in his own Words is most true They are saith he Arrogant and Proud who measure all things by vaâ—n Glory and empty Names of Honour when they see that those who in other Disciplines invent some new Notions to be Commended they think it will be Laudable in them to Innovate in Sacred Theology And being unskill'd in true Divinity they despair of gaining a Name by Explicating or Defending the Orthodox Doctrine But burning with a desire of Praise they disturb every thing that they may be Famous and had rather be talk'd of for breaking of Churches than grow old without Fame in the true and Orthodox Religion When they perceive other Learned Men to be preferr'd before them they are angry and what is most base they Dissemble and Counterfeit the Orthodox Religion pretend to a Zeal for defending sound Doctrine Lubbert Praef. ad lib. de Jesu servat cont Socin p. 2. swear to our received Confessions and Catechisms and with their own Hands subscribe to what they swore and yet they with utmost Endeavours oppose the Sound and publickly embraced Doctrine and craftily instill a new and wicked One into their Disciples and carry about Calumnies against the Orthodox Thus much touching the Methods used by Foreign Socinians to insinuate and spread their Errors I will in the next place show how exactly they are followed by the Remonstrants and then acquaint the Reader with the Arts of out English Socinians SECT V. The Arminians imitate the Socinians They pretend an Agreement with the Orthodox THE Arminians to the end they might with the greater Success insinuate their Errors do also their utmost to cover them Nothing therefore they say can be found amongst their Assertions but what is conform to the Holy Scriptures the Heidelberg Catechism established A. D. 1578. by a Synod of Dort for the publick use of their Churches the Belgick and other Reformed Confessions Armin. Epist ad Hypolit Arminius in his Epistle to Hypolitus à Collibus protests that he never either in the Church or University taught any thing but what was according to the Holy Scriptures the Belgick Confession and Heidelberg Catâ—echism In a Letter to Johannes Matthisius These things which I have at this time delivered as they do agree with the Holy Scriptures so they are not contrary to our Confession and Catechism for which reason I do the more freely express my self In another to Sebastian Egbert I do publickly preach to a numerous Auditory and frequently dispute when my Reverend Collegues are present at which times I have used the greatest freedom in the Answers I have return'd to Objections Besides I have a private College at which thirty Students or more attend and yet never hath there been the least mention that I ever uttered any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures or our Confessions and Catechism although some of my Collegues whose Zeal is such for the Purity of Doctrine that they would never have been silent had they whereof to accuse me have been instigated thereunto And whereas it 's spread abroad that I direct my Pupils to Read the Writings of the Jesuits and Coornhertius the slander is so gross that I cannot find softer Words to express it by than to say It is a down right Lye for I never advis'd so much as one to any such thing But this indeed I do after the Reading of the Scriptures which I do most earnestly press yea more than any other as the whole Academy can testifie I do direct to the reading of Calvin's Commentaries which I praise much more than Helmichius himself ever did as he hath confess'd For I do esteem them to excell all others so much in the Interpretation of Scriptures that there are none to be compared with them in the Bibliotheca Patrum that there was a more excellent Spirit in him than in any other As for Common Places I Recommed his Institutions to be read after the Catechism as containing the best Explication of it For the truth of this I can bring a multitude of Witnesses In a Declaration of his Sentiments made to the States of Holland and West-Frâ—ezeland wherein are the Reasons why he declin'd to give any Answer to the Questions propos'd by Lansbergius Fraxinus and Dolegius Deputies from the Synod of South-Holland and by Eogardus and Rolandus Deputies from the Synod of North-Holland his endeavour is to show an Agreement between his Notions in each of the controverted Articles and the Belgick Confession and Catechism I will give you what he saith touching the Grace of God in Conversion and the Justification of a Sinner in the sight of God What concerns the Grace of God I do first of all saith he believe it to be that gracious and free Affection whereby God doth take pity on a miserable Sinner by which he doth in the first place give his Son that whoever believes in him may have Everlasting Life then doth he justifie him and give him the Privilege of a Child by Adoption even a Right to Salvation 2. This Grace is an infusion of all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which are for the Regenerating and renewing of the Vnderstanding as well as Will and Affections such as Faith Hope Charity c. without which Gifts of Grace no Man is able
in his Bodecherus Ineptiens his answers to Homnius and his Apology oft strenuously endeavour'd to clear himself and Remonstrants from the charge of Socinianism yet in his answer to the Specimen of Calumnies and elsewhere is bold enough to own that he cann't condemn them as guilty of Heresie Episcop Resp ad specim Calum ad Caâ—al The reason saith he why we are not fully perswaded that the Socinians are to be condemned for Hereticks are these 1. Because it 's certain that in the Holy Scriptures neither expresly nor by manifest Consequence was any Anathema denounced against such as err'd only as the Socinians do 2. That they seem to have some weighty Reasons for their Error securing them from a Pertinacious adherence thereunto and consequently from the Fault of Heresie The Reasons that seem to favour them are 1. Many places in Holy-Writ at first view appear to be for them 2. That what is urged against them from the Holy Scriptures Councils or Writings of the Orthodox are either so confounded by the variety of Interpretations given by the Orthodox themselves or feebly prest or so as to be accommodated to Socinian Errors 3. They who write against them freely yield that the Socinian Notions are more conform to Humane Reason than their own 4. That in every age from the first rise of Christian Churches they mention Christians not a few even Doctors and Bishops Eminent for Learning and Holiness of Life that have thought and spoke differently of this matter And many wholly ignorant of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God from the Father even most of the Fathers before the Nicene Council such as Irenaeus Justin Tertullian Oreign and many others 6. Because there have arisen incredible Dissentions Inexplicable Questions Innumerable Controversies not only about the Doctrine it self but the terms and words used to explain it which after utmost endeavours they could never understand 7. Because out of Justin the most ancient Writer who lived next the Apostles times a Martyr for the Truths of Christ they have reason to believe that the most Primitive Church held Communion with them who profess'd to believe that Christ was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer Man begotten only of Man and made Christ by Election These are some of the Reasons adduced by Episcopius but learnedly answered by Dr. Bull for Vindicating their refusal to condemn the Socinians as Hereticks in which abating the words Error given the Socinian â—nd Orthodox given to their Adversaries he insinuates as if the Socinians had the better of it in the Controversie What the Orthodox offer to explain their Sense is said to be with so much obscurity and Confusion that it 's not easie to be understood they are divided amongst themselves and give different Interpretations of Texts are loose in their Arguing and do oft in their opposition fall in with their Adversaries whilst on the other hand the Socinians have the Holy Scriptures in their first appearances and the most reason the Orthodox themselves being Judges and all the Fathers till the Council of Nice for them all which is about the very Doctrines wherein the Socinians differ from the Orthodox But touching the Points wherein the Socinians fall in with the Orthodox the Calvinists are not to be compared with them We cannot saith Episcopius forbear giving in our Testimony on behalf of Sociâ—â—s Episcop Bâ—decher Inepti p 65. and let the whole World if they please consider it He disputes most closely giving the Adversary scope enough granting whatever may be without prejudice to Truth and his Cause Where he is to press hard upon him there he fastens his Foot and with much Pungency brings home his Arguments to the Conscience he will rather urge plain Scripture than insist on other Hypotheses and brings Reasons without prejudice and not argue after the manner in the Calvinian Schools nor hide himself in Clouds of Sophistry nor seek Evasions but hasten to the Merits of the Cause So far Episcopius whose farther endeavour is contemptuously to expose the Calvinistâ—s having just before boldly asserted that the Socinians do really agree with the Orthodox touching the substance of these following Doctrines viz. The Authority Perfection Episcopius ubi sup Perspicuity the Reading and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures the Nature Properties and Actions of God the Creation of Men and Angels Providence and Predestination the Precepts Promises Lords Prayer Discipline Church c. In all these things saith Episcopius as to what belongs to their substance Socinus agreeth with the Orthodox And about these very points lyeth the Vitals of Socinianism even their denying the necessity of the Old Testament their confirming the whole of Christian Religion to the New as if Christ had never been foretold Praefigur'd or Promised in the Old The Scripture's so perspicuous that we may attain to the saving knowledge of them without the help of the Holy Spirit That there is but one Person in the Nature of God That God is not Immense Omnipotent Omniscient as in the Holy Scriptures 't is declared and asserted That Man was not created in Knowledge and Righteousness that the Image of God on Man lyeth only in having Rational Faculties and Dominion over the Creatures That in his first make he was Mortal and should have dyed tho' he had never sinned That future Contingents cannot be known by God himself That on the admitting the Infallible Praescience of all things Future there could be no withstanding the Calvinian Doctrine of Praedestination That the Precepts given Adam were adjusted to the Infant state of Mankind and were imperfect that Jesus Christ gave new and more perfect Laws That he enlarged the Obligation of some of the Moral Laws abolished others and added three new Moral Precepts to the Old given by Moses That the Promises of the Old Testament were only of Temporal Blessings and that Men under it were not sav'd as we are under the New by Faith in the Messiah Whatever Episcopius means by the Socinians Agreement with the Orthodox these are the Doctrines of Socinus and his Followers most opposite unto and inconsistent with what is held by the Orthodox and cannot be sound and true in the Judgment of Episcopius himself unless he himself be a Socinian And sure I am that whatever they suggest to the contrary about their being in suspence and doubt in this Partitâ—cular they look on the Socinians to be good Christians as appears further by their holding Communion in Acts of Religious Worship with them amongst the Mennistâ—s What I have taken out of these Arminian Writers doth as any one may easily perceive make it clear that it hath been their as well as the Socinian Method by the use of Orthodox Phrases and Subscriptions to sound Catechisms and Confessions of Faith to hide for a while their erroneous Opinions and when they have gainâ—d a Reputation with the People then to open themselves and appear above board slily insinuating a New and
look to themselves SECT IV. The Difference there is between the English and Foreign Socinians The Foreign Socinians Represent the Principles Embraced by the Generality of the English to be Heretical tending to Mahometanism and Judaism THE English Socinians do not make us so bad but Socinus and his Partizans abroad are even with them making their Case the same with the worst of Hereticks Mahometans and Jews To clear thus much I must show what the Foreign Socinians hold touching Christ's Divinity and the Worship due unto him together with the Representation given of such as do herein differ from them When Vujekus charged the Socinians with Mahometanism Socinus in his Answer declares Resp ad Praef. Vujek p. 8. Ed. A. D. 1624. That they held Jesus Christ to be that Man who was by the Holy Ghost Conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and Born of her that this Man is the only begotten Son of God whom the Holy Scriptures Recommend unto us nor is there any other besides or before him To this Man is given by God the Father such a Divine Power and Authority that the Name of God and Divine Worship is Deservedly and Necessarily perse given unto him This is their Doctrine the Foundation of their Religion the Great and Glorious Mystery of their Gospel without the Belief of which no Salvation can be had Although say they Christ never Expresly said He was the true God Sâ—â—in ubi sâ—p p. 19. yet from what he has oft declared it may Easily yea Necessarily be inferred that He is that is to say as he is really and truly Invested with Divine Power and Authority And there are several Texts in the Holy Scriptures which make it most clear that not only the One God p. 26. but that Jesus Christ also as he is distinguished from that One God is to be Adored with Divine Worship Time would fail me to enumerate the many Texts that are not only in the New Testament but also in the Old for the Worshipping Jesus Christ as distinguished from that One God with Divine Adoration They then ubi sup p. 27. who deny it to be Lawful to give Divine Worship to Two Gods whereof One is Subordinate unto the Other and wholly depends on him may as well deny the Sun shines in the clearest Day and do moreover discover their Ignorance of the Greatest Mystery of Christian Religion and if Treated with Rigor must be Deprived of the very Name of Christians That they who are against rendring unto Christ Divine Worship or oppose the Invocating him are to be Condemned for Hereticks yea for worse than Hereticks in that truly they deny unto him the Care of the Church which is the same with their Denying him to be Christ This is the Notion they have Espoused of Jesus Christ They Affirm him to be a True God a True Subordinate God entirely depending on that One Most High God A True God because this One God hath given to him Divine Power and Authority or as they sometimes Express it because God hath by his Inhabiting Word or Power given to the Lord Christ a Faculty of Knowing all things and an Ability to Relieve all Wants This Divinity in Christ they make to be the Ground and Reason of their Adoration and Invocation They do also make God's dwelling in Christ by his Spirit a Ground of Worship Socinus in the Defence of his Animadversions on the Theological Assertions of the Posnan College Cap. 8. p. 250 251. Ed. A. D. 1618. against Gabriel Eutropius tells us To justify our Adoring Christ it 's sufficient that God doth in an Eminent manner by his Spirit dwell in him speak in him give Answers whence he is called the Image of the Invisible God and they who have seen Christ are said to have seen the Father and they who Adore him do in him Adore the Father If then the Israelites who Worshiped before the Ark of the Covenant because God shewed himself in it present to them and as from his proper and peculiar Place There gave Answers and after a sort There dwelt were free from the Guilt of Idolatry much more may we be so tho' we Worship Christ of whom the Ark was but a Type or Shadow and infinitly below him This way of Arguing tho' used by a Man of Note amongst our selves was so turn'd by Vujekus and Bellarmine two Jesuits against Socinus as to Confound him That Christ is worthy of Divine Worship say they because God dwells in him Res ad Vujek p. 418. is by no means to be Allowed For then 't would follow that the whole World may be Worshiped especially the Angels and â—oly Men in whom God doth in a more peculiar manner dwell And as the Socinians do make this sort of Divinity the Reason of their giving Divine Worship unto Christ even so their Ascribing this Divinity and giving Divine Worship unto him makes the Discriminating Character Animadv in Assert p. 49. by which alone they hope to clear themselves from being of the Religion Invented by Mahomet which doth not Invocate nor Worship him No One saith Socinus who is in his Wits will affirm that False Notion Mahomet had of Jesus of Nazareth Vid. Defens Animadv p. 373. is what Paulus Samosatenus held For Samosatenus acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the True and only Begotten Son of God and our Lord affirming that he ought to be Worshiped c. which things Mahomet denyed They insist so very much on the Adoration of Christ that they esteem those who are against it to be such Hereticks as subvert the very Foundations of Christianity and deserve not the Name of Christians I do not saith Socinus see any thing throughout the whole Christian Religion of more Importance to be Published De Invocat Christ ex Epist ad Quend Tom. I. p. 353. than a Demonstration that Invocation Adoration or Divine Worship belongs to Christ altho' he is a Creature If this be but once fully proved all the strong holds of the Trinitarians will fail them For they lean on this one Foundation viz. That that Adoration and Invocation which is due only to the Most High God must be given unto Christ And on the other hand the True Power and Majesty of Christ will hereby be cleared and firmly fixt in the minds of all whereas without the Knowledge of it neither God himself nor any thing Divine can be Rightly Understood nor the way of our Salvation clearly Known but what is said in the Holy Scriptures of the Expiation of our Sins by Christ will be strangely mistaken the whole of Christian Religion brought into Doubt or at least be expos'd to a sudden Change if not to utter Ruin and the Chiefest and most Principal Foundations of our Hope and Trust in God destroyed And elsewhere he saith Socin Christ Rel. Instit Tom. I. p. 656. That they who are against the Worship of Christ cannot be Christians because in
Frieseland for the supp essing all Socinian Prints and Conventicles which they sent out in pursuance of the Supplication made unto them by the Deputies of the Synod of South and North Holland approved of by Triglandius Heidanus and Cocceius Professors at Leiden I say in this Apology he doth his utmost by using Orthodox Phrases to make their Errors look as though they differd but little from the Common Faith For saith he 't was never in our thoughts to deny the Unity of the Trinity that we do with our whole Heart Believe and openly own the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One that we confess Christ to be God ascribing to him that Divinity which appertains to the Son of God the like of the Holy Ghost And whereas we are charg'd for Denying Christ's Satisfaction Apol. pro verit accusat p. 12. if it be meant of the thing which in the Holy Scriptures is assigned unto it we do most firmly believe that Jesus Christ to the end he might obtain for us the Remission of Sins hath so far satisfied the Divine Will P. 24. that there is nothing wanting to a most full and Compleat Satisfaction As to the Merit of Christ if by it they mean his Perfect Obedience and Righteousness we do freely confess that Christ's Obedience for our obtaining Eternal Life doth much more abound to us than Adam's Sin to our Condemnation Apol. 25. not excluding our Obedience which all that have received Faith and the Spirit of Christ have more or less whose Defects are through the Grace of God supplyed by Christ's most Compleat and Perfect Obedience We acknowledge that we are Sinners Apol. p. 53. and fall very short of the perfect Rule of Righteousness and therefore sly unto Christ that we may be justified by him without the Deeds of the Law nor do we by the Faith of Christ destroy the Law as it respects Moral Precepts which is the true Righteousness but establish it That Conversion is by the Power of the Spirit we never denied unless as held by such as make Men to be but as Stocks utterly rejecting and banishing from the Christian Religion all Vertue and Vice Reâ—â—ards and Punishments P. 26. leaving it destitute of all Encouragements to true Piety P. 87. We trust not to the Strength or Power of our own Will knowing that unless it be excited cherished and helped by a Heavenly Power we cannot so much as Will much less Perform any thing and seeing we can neither begin P. 65. nor finish any thing without the help of God's Grace we lift up our Prayers and Thanksgivings unto God â—or do we deny the Resurrection P. 76. but with the Apostle we have our Hope in God touching the Resurrection of the â—â—â—d both of the Just and Vnjust believing that the Just shall be raised to the Joys of an Eternal Life and the Unjust to the Punishment of Everlasting Fire wherefore knowing the Terrour of the Lord we perswade Men. â—ruâ—peorius a â—niâ—ht and Counsellor of the Flector of â—randenlurg Przipâ—â—v Apol. 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—cen in his Apology for afflicted Innocence directed to the Fâ—â—â—lar and Supreme Prince of Prussia seems to speak as Ortho loxly as any one could wish For saith he we with due Honour receive the Doctrine of the Triatry the Father Son and Holy Spirit in whose Name we are Baptized Concerning the Divinity of our Lord We acknowledge him to be properly and truly speaking the only Begotten Son of God not meerly because of the I ominion and Omnipotence given to him but because of that Divine Nature which he received by the voluntary Generation of his most loving Father in which the Character and Image of the Divine Sub stance of the Father shines and so we Worship Adore and Invoke him as the True God even by Nature in a proper Sence now and for ever Blessed Then of the Holy Ghost he says Nothing can by any Man be said so sublime concerning the Holy Spirit which we do not willingly admit so that the Name and Title of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ remain peculiar to the Omnipotent Person of the Father Then concerning the Merit of Christ's Death We acknowledge the Merit of the Death of Christ and our Redemption effected by his most precious Blood poured out but so as that the Grace and Favour of Forgiveness remain owing to his most merciful Father He is positive that touching Magistracy they confess with the Apostle Paul that the Magistrate is the Minister of God to Punish by the Sword evil Doers and protect the Innocent and that they are not to be removed out of the Church of Christ that in the other Articles of Religion they hold nothing Blasphemous Heretical or Absurd not daring to deviate in the least from the Apostle's Creed and Holy Scriptures Whoever considers that what is here delivered by this Author is done Apologetically to put a stop to the troubles they endured or at least to get 'em mitigated cannot but concur with me in concluding that He uses these Orthodox Phrases to the end He and they might be esteemed as Men Sound in the Faith far from holding the Heresies they were charged with and therefore no way deserving the Severities that were only due to Blasphemous Hereticks and yet as we shall hereafter shew as there is a mixture of Unfound Expressions even in the Places where he speaks thus of the Trinity and Christ's Divinity so doth he otherwhere deny these Doctrines â—nyedinus Superintendent of the Vnitarian Churches in Transilvania in his Preface to his Explication of those places in the Old and New Testament produced by the Orthodox to prove the Trinity doth positively aver Enjed. Praesâ—ad explicat Loc. V. N. Test That the whole they believe is owned by Papists Lutheran and Calvinist Namely That Jesus Christ called the Son of God the Father Almighty Maker of the Heavens and the Earth even he who was conceived by the Holy Ghost and Born of the Virgin the Man Christ Jesus is the One and only Mediator between God and Men by whose Death Salvation is procured for us and through whom both Jew and Gentile have Access to the Father and in whose Name by the Holy Ghost we obtain a Pardon and an Assurance of Eternal Life This is the summ of the New testament-Testament-Doctrine and the Faith which we constantly Profess and Defend And who dares deny it Do the Papist Lutheran or Calvinist No by no means I could easily add many other Socinian Authors speaking after this very way as if they Dissented not from the Orthodox in any Important Points But these being enough to Evince the Truth of my Assertion I will go on to shew that notwithstanding these seeming Approaches towards the Truth they are at the utmost distance from it denying those glorious Doctrines they would be thought to embrace SECT III. The real Distance there is between the Socinian and Orthodox That
the Difference lyeth in Fundamentals THAT they deny the Trinity of Persons in the God-head the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Personality of the Holy Spirit is the Burthen of all their Writings Who can cast his Eye on Socinus Slichtingius Crellius Wolzogenius and Smalcius and not see how much they expose these Doctrines Enjedinus hath a large Quarto to prove that not one Word either in the Old or New Testament can be found to favour the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ Franciscus Davidis and George Blandrata in their Refutation of George Major insinuate that this Blessed Doctrine is a Papal Antichristian Invention The Blasphemies of Servetus may be seen in Calvin's Refutation of them but too vile at this time to be mentioned And in Calvin's Explication of Valentinus Gentilis his Perfidiousness there is an account of his Opposition to the same Truths And whoever will may consult Sandius his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec where is a large Catologue of Socinian Writers against the Trinity c. And Christ's Satisfaction which is really subverted by the denyal of his Divinity is also expresly Exploded Though they grant a Satisfaction the Payment of a Price the enduring a Punishment a Punishment equipollent to what we have by our Sins deserved yet they mean quite another thing than what is generally understood by us which as soon as they have by the use of Orthodox Expressions ensnared their Readers to put a favourable Sence upon their Writings they discover Insinuating that the Satisfaction they and as they will have it the Holy Scriptures are for is not to God's Justice it is not properly by paying a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price a full Price nor an Equivalent to what we deserved It is only a Satisfaction improperly and in a Figurative a Metaphorical Sence and that only to the Divine Will and called Satisfaction for no other Reason than because God is pleased freely to accept on 't as such Ruarus therefore having called Christ's Sufferings a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price Equipollent to what our Sins deserved adds Not that it is so any otherwise than Exclementi Deâ—â—â—cceptatione that is to say Christ's Sufferings are Satisfactory through God's Gracious Acceptation not to his Justice but Will which Smalcius in his Answer to Smiglecius his Preface to his Discourse about Christâ—s Satisfaction doth thus explain We do acknowledge that Christ did satisfie in all those things imposed on him by God Smal. Fraef ad Smigl de Satisf for the procuring our Salvation but Christ did not satisfie that Justice of God which cannot suffer any Sin to go unpunished and appease God's Anger reconcâ—le him unto us by enduring those Punishments in our Stead that were due unto us and meriting Salvation for us Though there can be no Redemption without a full and satisfying Price and notwithstanding the Holy Scriptures speak much of Redemption and of a Price a full Price and of Christ's Redeeming us by his Blood as the Price which Expressions can import nothing less than a proper Satisfaction yet have they the Confidence to assert not only that Christ's Redemption may be but must be without Satisfaction that such is the transcending Mercy of God in our Redemption that it cannot be otherwise That the Righteousness of God exacting Satisfaction in order to the Pardon of our Sins is not so much as to be mentioned that there is no such Righteousness in God That it 's inconsistent with the Excellency of his Grace and Mercy So Smale ubi sup To put the best Colours they can upon this their odd Notion they having granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Price and full Price doth signifie a proper Price paid for the Redeeming a Slave out of Captivity they averr that in the Holy Scriptures it must be taken otherwise viz. improperly and Metaphorically Wolzogenius in his Commentary on Matthew interpreting these Words Chap. 20.28 The Son of Man gave his Life a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ransom for many confesseth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wolz. Mat. 20.28 Ransom doth properly signifie the Payment of a Price for a Captive and a Liberation or Deliverance from his Captivity However it is taken amongst Prophane Writers and almost every where in the Holy Scripture Metaphorically for a Liberation without respect to the Payment of any Price for it cannot saith he be proved That Christ did make any Payment to the Justice of God by his Death for there is no such Justice in God as doth exact Vindictive Punishment for Sins Crellius in his Answer to Grotius de Satisfactione Crel Respons ad Grot. de Satisf c. 6. Socin Praelect Theol. 6.19 argues after the same manner Wolzogenius doth and what both urge was more fully done before by Socinus himself in his Theological Prelections As Redemption which properly is the Paying a full Price for the Deliverance of a Slave carries in it Satisfaction and therefore by the Enemies of Christ's Satisfaction the Scriptures which speak of Redemption without the least shadow of a Reason are turn'd into Metaphors so Christ's â—earing our Sorrows though granted by them meets with the same Treatment For as Smalcius We confess that Christ did truly bear our Griefs and Sorrows Smalâ— contra Smigl de Satisf c. 6. p. 223. but we deny it to be in that manner which Smaglecius affirms it to be namely that Christ bore the Punishment of our Sins for as in this manner 't is Impossible Blasphemous and Pernicious so there are other ways in which Christ may be said to bear our Sins and they such as are more conform to the Holy Scriptures more worthy of God and safe for Men namely That Christ suffered Death by Reason of our Sins That he would never have Suffered if Man had not Sinned and that he himself bore our Sins that is abolished them it being most certain that the Word Bearing in Scripture signifieth a Power to take away Further God exacted not any Punishment due ex Justitia being an absolute Soveraign Smalc ubi sup p. 293. p. 300. who can as he pleaseth forgive the Sins committed against him nor did Christ offer up himself to bear the Punishment of our Sins nor if Christ had so offerd up himself might God accept it For if God had Punished the Innocent for the Nocent he would have been not only Cruel but Injust and Unwise And within a few Pages after this he insinuates as if the Doctrine of Satisfaction as held by the Orthodox makes God more Cruel than any Tyrant And whereas it is expresly asserted by the Holy Ghost in 2 Cor. 5. and last Verse That Christ is made Sin to take off the Force of the Argument we draw from thence Smalcius doth assert Smalc Refut Smigl de satisf c. 7. p. 229. That to be made Sin cannot signifie a Sacrifice for Sin but Christ is said to be made Sin because he was dealt with by God as if
only so deceitfully deliver his Sence as to bring the Truth in doubt but urges Arguments so closely in defence of Error as to give it the Advantage Though Sandius in his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec accuses Hoornbeck for misunderstanding Zarnovecius and Zarnovecius for misrepresenting Matters of Fact when in the Preface of his Answer to Socinus de Servatore he makes Ochinus to be his Master from whom he had his Errors Sandius is under the Mistake and Zarnovecius in the right Zarnovecius in his Preface Zarvov contra Socinum de servat Praef. having in one Paragraph shown too great an Agreement between Socinus the Jews and Turks doth in the next assure us That Socinus had not his Blasphemies against the Son of God out of the Holy Scriptures nor from the ancient consent of godly Men professing the Orthodox Faith from the Apostle's Days to our Times but out of the Dialogues of his Country-Man and undoubtedly his Master Ochinus who had written at large thirty years before By Master Zarnovecius cannot well be supposed to mean any more than One from whom Socinus took his Notions which is freely confessed by Socinus himself Socin Epist Vadovit in an Epistle to Vadovita Professor at Cracovia where he is positive That as he never Published any thing but by the Importunity of others so the very Notions complained or had been long before propagated by others both in Poland and elsewhere particularly by Ochinus as Zarnovecius had observ'd For really that Opinion saith Socinus is clearly asserted and inculcated in those Dialogues and it is in short this That Christ did indeed by his Blood wash away and expiate our Sins but in another Manner than that vulgarly received viz. That he by pouring out his Blood paid to Divine Justice all that we by reason of our Sins were indebted to it or that he made Satisfaction for us and our Sins for neither was there any need of it nor would God require the Punishment of our Sins from another or transact our Debts on him but freely forgive them This Passage of Socinus doth at once clear Zarnovecius from Sandius his Charge and prove Ochinus to be for the very Notions Socinus most heartily espoused which compared with the Profession Ochinus makes of the Orthodox Faith and his manner of handling it may convince an Unbyassed Mind that he made the first Publication of those Errors in that deceitful way since taken up by his Socinian Followers for tho' Socinus himself asserts That Ochinus openly delivered and inculcated the same Notion about Satisfaction he was charged with yet Ochinus doth it by his Friend Jacobus the other Dialogist pretending an Answer to the Arguments he had urged as if he had been a Zealous Asserter of the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction SECT IV. A Reflection on the deceitful Methods of the Socinians THESE few Instances are I presume sufficient to Evince that the Socinians are not the Fairest and most Candid Adversaries nor ever can be justly so esteemed except Deceit double Dealing and Hypocrisie be made the Ingredients of true Candor and a generous handling of Controversies For as you have seen their Method is first to make their Heresies look most like the Doctrines they oppose and as soon as they find their ensnared Proselites able to bear it they take of their Mask acknowledge the difference to be great and then go on to treat the Doctrines that just before they would be thought to be for to use Dr. Edwards his Word most n = * See Dr Edward's Preface to his Preservative against Socinianism scurrilously and with the greatest Impudence insinuating as if they had been the only Masters of Reason and sincerest Professors of true Piety and Holiness They are so humble and modest that it 's become impossible for them to forbear either the Despising others or Applauding themselves Socinus therefore could not but write a Treatise on purpose to prove That it 's the Duty of every good Man among the Reformed in Poland Socin in Append. to separate from them as from Persons too Impious to be Communicated with and joyn themselves to the more Holy Assemblies of those falsely and undeservedly to use his own Words called Afrians and Ebâ—onites He takes it for granted that the Reformed were very Vicious and Debauch'd and assigns the Reason partly to their Doctrines and partly to their Neglect of Discipline And glories in the Holiness of their own Assemblies pretending that such are their Principles and such the exactness of their Discipline that it could not well be otherwise This Book of Socinus was answered by Balthazzar Meisner Slicht cont Meis p. 485. a Lutheran but defended by Slichtingius who to expose the Reformed enumerates many vile Practices observed in common by them And in Vindication of Socinus and his Followers makes no scruple to assert That their Glorying not being Rash but well grounded is no more than what the Apostle hath done before them Ubi sup p. 488. nor did the Pharisee Sin in Publishing his Vertues but in Exalting himself and Contemning others when he should humbly have sought for the Pardon of his own Sins a thing they endeavoured even when they modestly mention the things done by their Assemblies that were worthy of Praise But though they usurp to themselves this Title viz. Great Masters of Reason they will not allow Reason the Privilege of being Competent enough to discover the plainest and most necessary Truth in the whole of our Religion namely That there is a God and in some of those very Instances in which they ascribe most unto it they oppose its clearest Maxims which is most effectually done in their Essays to destroy the Divine Nature of our Blessed Redeemer where struggling between plain Scripture and their own Error to maintain the latter which lyeth in their making him but a Finite Creature and own what is the burthen of the former that Infinite Perfections belong unto him and he the proper Object of our highest Adoration and Worship They contradict the clearest Reason as grosly as ever the Papists do by making a Finite Subject the Seat of Infinite Perfections Of this Przipcovius being aware he roundly asserts That Jesus Christ is truly God in a proper Sence and truly Man but not at the same time when on Earth he was properly Man and after his Resurrection and not till then truly and properly God A Notion as gross as the former a true God in a proper Sence and by Nature and yet a God but Sixteen or Seventeen Hundred Years ago Nor are they more happy in their Morals for beside their Hypocrisie their denying all secret Assistances and the certainty of God's fore-seeing all future Events that depend upon the freedom of Man's Will as a very learned Person hath lately observed must cut off the Exercise of many Devotions and much weaken our Confidence in God our Patience under all Misfortunes and our Expectations of a Deliverance in due
Account thereof The Ministers and Elders of the Church at Vilna were much movâ—d at Calvin's writing against him and therefore after they had reprovâ—d him do advise him to reconcile himself unto Blandrata who was to their Knowledge Ubi sup 258. a most sincere Man free from the least Suspicion of Errors For they believed not a word of what Calvin had said to the contrary However Calvin persists in the Opinion he had of Blandrata and can by no means be taken off from exposing his Heresies and evil Practices expressing his Trouble to observe him by his crafty method to get such an Interest in the favour of so eminent a Person as his Anonymous Friend was In his Letter to Stanislaus saith he I cannot but observe how all men in a manner as if they had been under a Fascination admire Blandrata 't is you alone who begin to suspect the Truth of what is said of him but that you may obtain a more certain Knowledge of him I must tell you that Valentinus Gentilis whose wild Notions I have confuted is of the same Faction and another Blandrata altho the one will not give place unto the other If his Frauds his Ensnaring and crafty Courses had not been taken notice of in Poland it might have been more tolerable but I am amaz'd to think that a Man who hath nothing else but Pride and Ostentation to recommend him should get such a Reputation amongst you as to be esteemed the Atlas that bears the Church on his Shoulders In his Answer to Felix Cruciger and his Collegues and other faithful Pastors and Ministers in Lesser Poland There is oâ—e thing I cannot but suggest unto you saith he that they who did with so much Humanity and Respect entertain Blandrata were not so cautiâ—ns and wary nor did they consult your Reputation as they should have done and am more surprized that some of the Chiefest Rank are greatly offended because I did as it became me discover the Man I beseech you not to believe that I have hastily taken up any Reports I have written a Narrative which will clear the Truth of Matter of Fact And to the Ministers and Elders of the Church at Vilna Tho you saith he have no Suspicion touching Blandrata his Errors and Practices yet with me he is clearly convicted and so he is before this Church Ye believe not what I say why then should I believe what you say You have much time to spare to call Synods about such Tristes You admire him as if he had been an Angel dropt down from Heaven but he is in other Nations a Man of no Account A brief History of him I will give you and lest you should have no regard to what I say it is attested by the Elders of the Italian Church with us and by the Renowned Peter Martyr The History they give of him is to this purpose 〈◊〉 â—â—orge Blandrata a Physician demeanâ—d himself amongst us for some time very peaceably and with much Temper desirous of Instruction so that we innocently receivâ—d him into our Number At length he began to talk as if he designed to call in question the Article of Christ's Divinity and privately spread this Notion amongst the more ignorant Then would he weary Calvin with his Enquiries and seem abundantly satisfy'd with his Answers but carry'd it so that at last Calvin discover'd his persidious and deceitful Courses and his Carriage to be such as made it necessary for the Senate to deal with hâ—m where altho he was convicted of notorious Falshoods against Calvin yet never blush'd His intimate Friend and Companion was Johannes Paulus Alciatus who said that we worship three Devils much worse than all the Popish Idols because we hold Three Persons There arose a fresh Complaint of the Italian Church against him for using Clandestine Arts to ensnare the Vulgar to a Closure with his Dotages Thus this Man a real Enemy to the Fundamental Doctrines of Christian Religion the great Patron of Socinus and his Partizans to the end he might the more effectually propagate his Errors pretends a Zeal for the Truth joyns himself to the Orthodox subscribes sound Confessions gains a Reputation amongst the châ—efest of the Orthodox for being sound and sincere This deceitful Method of â—landrata hath been exactly observ'd as by many of the same Principles abroad so by the Socinians in our Country who notwithstanding the Contradiction there is in the Doctrines by Law established to their Tenents and the strict Subscriptions required of all that enter into the Ministry get into the Church and fix their Communion there That they may pave the way for the Consciences of others their Attempts are to make the Subscription to the Thâ—rty-nine Articles to signify nothing The Belief of the Athanasian Creed not requiâ—ed by the Châ—ef Eng. p. 2. Those Thirty-nine Articles say they are not Articles of Faith but Peace As several of her most learned Bishops have declared and in a word the Title of the Articles says as much and the Preface before them And yet in the Title 't is declared that these Articles were agreed upon for the avoiding Diversities of Opinion and for the Establishing of Consent touching true Religion And in the Preface 't is declared That the Articles do Contain the True Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods word And the Charge his Majesty gives is That no Man shall either Print or Preach to draw the Article aside any way but shall submit to it in the Plain and full meaning thereof And shall not put his own sense or Comment to be the Meaning of the Article but shall take it in the Literal or Grammatical Sense So that whatever any Bishops have declared The Import of the Title and Preface is That the Subscribers Agree in Believing the Doctrines contained in the Articles to be True that the Articles taken in the Literal and Grammatical Sense are agreeable to God's word How can a Socinian then subscribe the first Article where 't is said There is but One Living and True God and in Unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Doth this Article contain in it the Truth If it doth the Socinian Principle is False If it doth not they subscribe to a Lye And tho' the Church did not Require the Belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as delâ—vered in the Athanasian Creed as Necessary to Salvation Yet seeing it Requires the Belief of this Doctrine as True they who deny this Doctrine can't without being guâ—lty of grossest Hypocrisy subscribe it But what can't a designing English Socinian do Thus you see that tho' the Thirty-nine Articles are as expressly against the Dogmata of our â—nglish Socinians as words can make them yet can they not keep an English Socinian out of the Church And having broken their Subscriptions they go on to tell us Trinitar Scheme
not the Essence of the Son and Holy Ghost These Essences they said were Caused the one by an Eternal Generation from the Father the other thro an ineffable Procession from the Father by the Son Thus by a deriving distinct Essences from the Essence of the Father they rejected the Autotheiry of the Son and Spirit and with their Causalities brought in such dependencies of the Son and Spirit on the Father as interfered with a being absolutely Infinite in every Perfection and thus in a more Artificial manner they ran the same length with the Arian and Socinian as to the Inequality For that Essence which is not of it self is not cannot be in a strict Proper Sence God for the Essence of God is only from it self uncaused unoriginated an Essence that hath a beginning and is caused cannot be Absolutely Eternal for what is Absolutely Eternal never had a beginning never was caused never receiv'd its Essence from another There is a Great difference between Causing a Distinct Essence and a communicating the same Individual Essence to another for though the causing another necessarily implies that the Caused Essence was from another a communicating it doth not so The Father 's communicating his own Essence unto the Son doth not argue the Son's Essence is from another for 't is still the same it was before it was communicated But the Father's causing an Essence distinct from his own imports Imperfection in the Caused Essence even the want of a truly proper and absolute Eternity and Independence and necessarily infers an Inequalâ—ty of Essence which is the thing the Arians and Samosatenians saw and asserted and the Pinczovians intended who as they observ'd their Disciples prepared to embrace this Error insinuated it This appears from Blandrata's Endeavour in an Epistle which Beza had of his â—pâ—st 81. p. 364 〈◊〉 to perswade Gregorius Pauli a Tritheist to close with the Opinions of Samosatenus and from what Petrus Statorius a Companion of Blandrata when he dwelt at Pinczow from which Place the Tritheists had their Name of Pinczovians with whom Franciscus Lismaninus Martin Crovicius Schomannus Gregorius Pauli â—relius Biblioth Antitrin p. 48. Tricessius and as Sandius observes Ochinus Stancarus Alciatus c had their Habitations did offer in a Synod at Pinczow about the Insufficiency of the Answer which a Synod held in the same place did some time before give unto Remianus Chelmius about what he wrote against the Invocation of the Holy Ghost The Story is thus Remianus Chelmius sent to a Synod held at Pinczow the 12th of November An. 1559 a Letter in which several things were objected against the Invocation of the Holy Ghost Peter Statorius who Biblioth Antitrin p. 48. as Sandius suggests instilled this Opinion into Chelmius doth with Gregorius Pauli and others move that the Doctrine of the Trinity might be diligently examined and tryed by the Holy Scriptures An Answer is sent from this Synod unto Chelmius But Statorius in a Synod held at the same place November the 19th 1561. declared that Chelmius was not satisfied with the Answer sent unto him The Synod therefore obliged him to return a fuller one which he did but in such a manner Epit. Hist Orig. Unit. in Pol. that no one could tell what it was he himself held Stoinius who was Grandson to Statorius represents matters of Fact thus In this Synod Anno 1561 Statorius was directed to write an Answer unto Chelmski which he did but so that it did not appear what he himself believed of it He only said that Blandrata was Represented by Calvin as one who had drank in the Poyson of the Serverian Impiety As for the Opinion which he proposed to the Synod 't was acceptable to all but Question'd by him whether the Relief that the Father was one Vnbegotten and the Son Begotten did not infer a Plurality of Gods But all they they are Statorius his own Words that dwell with Blandrata are suspected for holding some Heresies But if they are Hereticks who according to the Holy Scriptures Believe the Father Son and Holy Ghost I do chearfully saith he acknowledge my self to be of that Number c. Lubieniescius passing by what Regenvolsâ—ius in his History of the Sclavonian Churches saith of Statorius doth out of Budzanius tell us That Statorius succeeding Paulus Orsacius in the Government of the School at Finczow Professed the True Faith affirming that The Invocation of the Holy Ghost is Idolatry That there is not one Text in the Holy Scripture either for the Deity or Invocation or Adoration of the Holy Spirit Lulâ—en Hist l. 2. c. 8. p. 149. or for Faith in him That the Holy Ghost is not the third Person of the Deity nor God but the Power and Gift of God On this occasion there arose several Disputes amongst the Learned at which time Statorius perswaded many to embrace this Opinion notwithstanding which and altho Alexius Rodecius told Statorius to his Face that he Learned this Principle from him yet did he in the Year 1567 openly deny it declaring that the Spirit is God and to be Worshipped as God and whoever taught otherwise was of his Father the Devil for which Reason Budzinius look'd on him as a Proteus forsaken of the Holy Spirit And Orphinovius saith God Entrusted him with Sundry Talents which he did not Imploy in defence of the Truth but the Trinitarians being the stronger Party he did at last turn unto them Thus these Pinczovians vid. Lismaninus Gregorius Pauli Ochinus Statorius Stancarus Alciatus c. their Partizans did not only set up Tritheism with a Design to bring in the Samosatenian Heresie but formed themselves into sundry Shapes and were unwearied in their Attempts first to turn the Three Persons into Three distinct Essences insinuate an Inequality amongst them ascribing to the Father a Preheminence and then bring the Deity of the Holy Spirit into Doubt and make the Lord Christ a subordinate God and thus establish their Socinianism That Learned Doctor therefore who hath confuted this Pinczovian Heresie of Three distinct Essences in the Trinity deserves greatly from the Church of God For by turning his Strength against the Notion of Three distinct Infinite Essences Substances Spirits or Minds he hath taken an Effectual Course to break those Socinian Measures which were most likely to expose the blessed Trinity and prepare the Minds of many to take in their Vnitarianism or rather Bideism And they who have condemned the Assertion of Three distinct Essences or Minds for Heretical have done honourably to their Eternal Praise When the old Socinian Game is Playing over again and some who pretend a Zeal for the Trinity walk in the same Path and plead for Three distinct Essences as the Italian Hereticks heretofore did it is time for the Orthodox to look to themselves They cannot be too cautious in a matter of such Consequence and what Persons soever are industrious in their Endeavours to propagate this Doctrine
Titus 3. vid. Sommerum Lib. 2. cap. ult pag. 171. Besides whatever else is in the Holy Scriptures ascribed to the most High God or to his Son Jesus Christ or to the Holy Ghost which thro' haste we may have omitted we do most readily and with the Profoundest Submission ascribe to them most sincerely confess and without the least Hesitation believe I will add but one Authority more to clear this which you may see in the Polonian Catechism where they do not only acknowledge Sect. 3. c. 1. p. 18. that Mat. 28.19 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6 7. and 1 Joh. 5.7 do shew there is the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that they are Vnited but they constantly assert it So that say they we declare that he who is ignorant of this Doctrine or doth not believe it cannot be a Christian This Notion after much Deliberation had of it is Published as theirs by Crellius Sclichtingius a Bukowiec Martin Ruarus and Andreas Wissowatius and not only embraced by the Foreign but by the English Socinians as appears from what is in their Vnitarian History and in Biddble's Confession which by Reprinting and Placing it in the Collection of their Writers they have made their Own In this Confession it 's declared that they believe there is one most High God Creator of Heaven and Earth and that this God is none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the first Person of the Holy Trinity They believe there is one Chief Son of the High God and this Son of the most High God is none but Jesus Christ the Second Person in the Trinity They believe that there is comprized in the Holy Trinity the Holy Spirit the Minister of God and Christ But tho' they believe a Holy Trinity yet they cannot agree about what this Holy Trinity is They are Three Persons as Ruarus Przipcovius John Biddle and his Followers affirm They are but Two in the Judgment of Socinus Sclichtingius Crellius and the Generality of em both at home and abroad whose Sentiments I will examine and begin with what they say of the Holy Ghost 1. The Holy Ghost is in their Opinion one of the Three but not a Person nor God nor a Creature In their Attempts to Explain this Notion they heap up Mystery upon Mystery even such Mysteries as seem to our dull Understandings as full of Contradictions as a Mystery of the grossest sort can be For they Acknowledge that what is Peculiar unto God is Artributed to the Holy Ghost yea his very Eternity That the Holy Ghost is a thing truly Divine and Eternal and the Third in order with Respect to the Father and the Son and proceeding from the Father and the Son we shall Cont. Meis p. 604. saith Sclichtingius easily agree with them in but yet deny him to be God And altho it's natural for us to suppose that Being which is not God and yet exists to be a Creature they are express that he is neither God nor Creature In Grawerus Pol. Sacr. p. 635. the Controversie about the Spirits being the Third Person in the Godhead is fairly stated where among other Things he accquaints us with a Dispute between Ostorodius and Tradelius In this Dispute Tradelius arguing against the Socinian Notion said That in his Opinion if the Holy Spirit be not God seeing every Thing that is is either a Creator or his Creature he must necessarily be his Creature To him Ostorodius thus replied 1. T is one thing to say that an Absurdity flows from such a Man's Notion another to say that this Man holds the Absurdity For Doctor Tradelius doth not only endeavour to draw from what I hold that the Holy Spirit is a Creature but saith Categorically that I am of Opinion That the Holy Ghost is a Creature A thing that never came into my Mind For on the contrary I affirm that if the Holy Spirit be the Power of God he is not a Creature for the Power of God is not Created 2 I further say that tho' the Holy Spirit be not God 't will not immediately follow that he is a Creature for that Maxim Omne quod Creator non est est Creatura is Uncertain For the Justice Love Grace and other Properties and Attributes of God are not Creatures nor are they God in that sense Tradelius will have the Holy Spirit to be God Thus far Ostorodius who delivering the Socinian sense saith That the Holy Spirit is neither God nor a Creature but a Somewhat between them boeh tho' the Opposition between God and the Creature is so immediate that non datur Tertium Yet contrary to the Plainest Reason the Socinians Affirm the Holy Spirit to be an Eternal Somewhat that is neither Creator nor Creature A Contradiction so gross that it cannot be either solvâ—d oâ— covered by Ostorodius his Allusion to the Attributes of God for tho' they are not God in the Sense Tradelius saith the Holy Ghost is God that is they are not God Personally yet they are Essentially and are Infinite and whatever is Infinite is God Infinite Justice is God and yet not many Gods but One because there can be but One Infinite If then the Holy Ghost be the Power of God it is either Finite or Infinite If Finite it can't be Eternal it must have a Beginning receive its being from another and be a Creature If Infinite it is God or somewhat besides God is Infinite that is to say there are Two Infinites the One God the other not which to our understandings is Contradiction all over How they can come off I cannot see especially considering another Opinion of theirs which is That tho' it be a Sin to Worship the Holy Ghost yet it 's not Idolatry to do so Sclichtingius doth I confess Con. Meis p. 11 12. with much Candour towards us endeavour to Vindicate our Worshipping the Holy Ghost from being Idolatry tho he be not God But thus much he doth by affirming that there is so close an Union between the Holy Ghost and the most High God that the giving Divine Worship to him cannot be either Impious or Idolatrous And in his Answer to what Meisner urged from the Attribution of the Divine Properties to the Holy Ghost in Proving him to be God he turns it all off by saying That doth not Evince the Holy Ghost to be a Person but it is sufficient to my Purpose that they Acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be as Divine as Infinite and Eternal as the Attributes of God are seeing hereby they must either own him to be God or that somewhat besides God is Infinite II. As they say the Holy Ghost is neither a Creature nor God so on the other hand they make Christ to be but a Creature and yet to be God also 1. They affirm Jesus Christ to be a True God True in Opposition to the False Gods of the Gentiles who are indeed False Gods because they are Gods without a