acknowledge but one supreme God by nature and that Christ is only a God by Appointment and Office not natus but factus not born but made and deifyed after his ascension by a communication of the divine power wisdom and goodness to him I Answer that this is so far from abating that it rather encreases the difficulty and makes the Socinian notion both absurd and impious as may be shewn more at large hereafter when we come to lay the charge of Idolatry at their door Indeed one would think it should be a debasing of the name and honour that is due to God to give either of them to any but him that is so from all eternity the same Wolzogenius will tell you you may if you please reproach them for so doing but he values it not a rush nos non erubescimus we are not ashamed to own that we worship Deum factum vel factitium a made God not made indeed by a Goldsmith or Engraver ab aliquo sculptore vel aurifabro but they acknowledge with St. Peter Acts 2. 36. that God hath made Jesus who was crucifyed Lord and Christ that is saith he deum eximium fecerit hath made him a great and eminent God Ibid. If this be not enough if you please to consult Smalcius he will give you all the satisfaction that you can possibly desire further in this matter For first he will tell you that whereas the Scriptures assure us that there is but one only true God yet that must be taken sano sensu not as if there were no other true God besides God the Father but that there is none that is God eodem prorsus modo just in the same manner as he is For otherwise the thing is certain and past all doubt that there are more true Gods then one and let the Inspired writers be never so positive yet he and his friends can and will with equal confidence advance this contrary position that the true God is not one only God Nay it is not an indifferent matter but a truth which they firmly believe and earnestly contend for And therefore pronounce it without any haesitation that there are more true Gods then one And indeed they have reason to contend earnestly for this opinion if it be true what he saith in the same place that to acknowledge and confess and adore one only chief and supreme God is purely Judaical and a renunciation of the Christian Religion Here he speaks as home to the point as you can possibly desire and it is enough in all conscience Thus whereas the Scriptures tell us there is but one God the Socinians say there are two one God by nature another by grace one Supreme another Inferior one Greater another Lesser one Elder and eternal the other a junior and modern God and this by Socinus is made the great mystery of the Christian Religion greater indeed if true and more incomprehensible than any other or than all the other stupendous and adorable mysteries of our Faith put together Now as the Socinians say there are two Gods so if you believe Curcellaeus he will confidently tell you there are three who tho he be no Socinian yet he agrees perfectly with them in almost all their other Errors except that which concerns the doctrine of the Trinity where he hath a peculiar notion of his own distinct as he tells you both from Arius and Socinus for he makes the Son and Holy Ghost to have a divine nature communicated to them from all eternity but yet such that is different in each of them so that they are thee distinct divine beings And to the objection made by Maresius that this notion must inevitably imply that there are three Gods he Answers that if by three Gods be meant three specifically distinguished from each other he disowns any such distinction between the persons of the Trinity but if by three by meant three persons agreeing in the same common nature yet numerically distinguished in each of them it is that which he owns and earnestly contends for that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are as much three Gods as Peter Paul and John agreeing in the same common nature are three distinct men And if you believe him he will tell you the Ancients were not afraid of the imputation of Polytheism in this sense and to think of the same individual nature being communicated to three persons was a notion that never entered into the heads of any of the Fathers in their disputes against the Arians as being against both Reason and Religion Curcell Dissert prima de vocibus Trinit c. cap. 105. deinceps And Limburg who publishes and recommends him to the world I suppose is of the same opinion The 2 d Attribute which the Scriptures ascribe to God is his immensity and omnipresence assuring us that his nature is infinite and consequently that it cannot be confined to any place or circumscribed within any limits Tho he is peculiarly and eminently resident in Heaven yet Solomon will tell us that Heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him 1 King 8. 27. and the Psalmist puts the question Whither shall I go from thy spirit or whither shall I flee from thy presence If I ascend up into heaven thou art there if I make my bed in hell behold thou art there also Ps 139. 7 8. So St. Stephen Act. 7. 48. the most High dwelleth not in Temples made with hands that is is not confined within those limits as many of the Heathens thought their Gods were for as saith the Prophet heaven is my Throne and the earth is my footstool And indeed not only the infinite nature of God but the belief of his providence necessarily supposes it Upon which account we are said in him to live and move and have our being Act. 17. 28. forasmuch as he is above all and through all and in all Eph. 4. 6. Now in opposition to this important Truth which is not only revealed in Scripture but dictated by the light of nature and acknowledged upon that score to be such by all sober Heathens as well as by sound Christians the Socinians will tell you that God is not infinite in his Essence or Nature but that he is so confined to the Heavens as not to be substantially present elsewhere or not to fill any places out of those limits And therefore when urged with those places of Scripture which say that God fills Heaven and Earth and that he is every where present Jer. 23. 24. Ps 139. They answer that they must be Interpreted only with respect to the vertue power and operations of God which extend to the remotest places where he is not essentially present As the Sun which is the Instance some of them give us to illustrate this matter is confined to the Heavens and indeed takes up but a small roome there in comparison yet may be said to be ubique terrarum because he
the ministry and the persons to whom Christ hath committed the care and government of his Church their distinction and authority to preach the Gospel and to exercise discipline in it concerning the Sacraments and the end of their institution and particularly concerning the nature and efficacy of Baptism and the Lords Supper lastly concerning a future state and the condition of men after this Life To which may be added some other doctrines which do not seem to have any connexion with the former but yet are of dangerous consequence to the peace and welfare of all civil Societies those I mean which he hath advanced about the power and authority of the Civil Magistrate the Lawfulness of War and Oaths in a Christian Commonwealth which have as mischievous an influence upon the order and peace of States and Kingdoms as his other opinions have upon Religion So that Socinus having observed what was wanting in the former Hereticks to make their attempts entirely successful against the Christian Religion being engaged in the same design but in order to make it more effectual he wisely resolved to correct what he thought was amiss in them wherefore laying aside what was more gross and absurd in the wilder and more extravagnt opinions of the ancient Hereticks and supplying the defects of the more subtile and refined who came afterwards he and his followers have at length given us a body of their divinity more compleat in its kind then ever the world was blessed with before their time Not but that in spight of all their art and skill such being the fate and folly of error they cannot avoid especially in the defence and maintenance of their opinions falling into many and those very plain contradictions Upon the whole matter I think it may be reasonably doubted whether Socinus any more than that grand Impostor Mahomet may be properly called a Heretick as being the Founder of a new Religion rather than the Author of a new name and sect among Christians For as the Alcoran of the former is as we are told a fardel of errors and absurdities arising from the impure mixture of Christianity Judaism and Paganism together with some idle and extravagant notions of his own so the doctrine of Socinus seems to be a composition of the errors of Arius Photinus and Pelagius c. together with some additions of his own not indeed so seemingly absurd as those of Mahomet but I am afraid no less dangerous to the Christian religion of which he hath retained only the name together with the empty sound of the words but with such false glosses such forced and malicious interpretations as have quite destroyed the true notion as the whole design of the Gospel in opposition to which he hath given us a kind of natural and new Religion not such as the spirit of God hath revealed in his word but such as his own carnal reason suggested to him in opposition to that revelation And that this may not be looked upon to be an uncharitable because a groundless charge I shall lay before the reader a scheme of the religion revealed by God in Holy Scripture and particularly that published by Christ and his Apostles in the writings of the New Testament and which hath bin embraced by all sound Christians in all ages of the Church from the first planting of one in the world to this day together with another of the new or newly revived opinions of the Socinians that by comparing of both he may be able to make a judgment of what is here suggested which upon examination I hope he will find to be agreeable to truth and not contrary to charity And first as it is fit we shall begin with the great object of our religion Almighty God in the knowledge and worship of whom together with an obedience to his commands consists the entire nature of religion And here upon enquiry I believe we shall find that what the Scriptures have revealed concerning the nature of God is widely different from the account which Socinus and his disciples give us of him As to what concerns the nature of God the Scriptures propose him to be considered two ways by us 1. Absolutely in his glorious and essential attributes or 2 ly Relatively in the great and adorable mystery of the ever blessed Trinity First if we consider God in his Attributes we shall find that the first great and if I may so call it fundamental attribute which the Scriptures reveal and indeed natural reason dictates concerning him is the unity of the Godhead Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord. Deut. 32. 39. See now that I even I am he and there is no God with me 1 Cor. 8. 5. 6. For tho there be that are called Gods whether in heaven or in earth c. But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is but one God and one Mediator between God and man c. Here undoubtedly it will be said that the Socinians are beyond all suspition orthodox all their studies and labors being employed in asserting and vindicating the unity of the Godhead in opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity which according to their apprehensions must infer a plurality of Gods But for all their boasts concerning this matter and assuming to themselves upon that score the name of Unitarians we must not be too hasty in acquitting them from the imputation of Polytheism for tho they deny the eternal generation and divinity of Christ and say that he had no existence before his being formed in the womb of the Virgin and appearance in the world and that the being which he then had was purely humane yet after his resurrection from the grave and his ascension into heaven they say that God the Father as the reward of his obedience and sufferings exalted him to the honour and dignity of a God not indeed to be the supreme and eternal God but however deus verus a true God distinct and separate from his Father and Socinus takes it ill of his adversaries that they should charge him with denying Christ to be God and complains against them that will not be brought to confess and worship him for their Lord and God who was once a weak and infirm man and herein he saith the power and goodness of God was discovered and his admirable wisdom displayed in extolling and deifying this man beyond what we can imagin And to the objection that might be made against this opinion as that which did unavoidably infer a plurality of Gods Wolzogenius will tell you that if by two Gods you mean one of whom are all things and we in him and one by whom are all things and we by him we are so far saith he from being ashamed of worshipping two such Gods that we rather glory in it But if it shall be farther said that to do them right they
a spiritual Body as appears by what Crellius tells us when he comes to describe God and to give the definition of a Spirit which is contained in that description When we call God a Spirit saith he we mean a substance free from all that thick gross matter which is the object of our senses shall I say no that 's too much but which can terminate our sight for a Spirit tho it be invisible you must know it may be palbable and such is the aer saith he to which the word Spirit is a genus common to it to God and Angels each of which are spirits but that which is most subtile is likewise most spirituous And by this explication of the nature of a spirit Crellius who calls God a spirit and Socinus who plainly thought he was none as appears by his forced and perverse Interpretation of those words of Christ Jo. 4. 24. which contain as plain and clear a declaration of this great truth as could be expressed in words may very easily be reconciled For whereas the Master denies God to be a spirit he might by spirit mean an incorporeal immaterial being and the Scholar by acknowledging him to be one did not intend to exclude matter from his constitution but that he was not composed of such thick gross parts of matter as our Bodies are which can terminate the sight but of matter of a more tenuious and refined Contexture more subtile perhaps but of the same nature with Aer or Aether And from hence result all their Impious Opinions about God in opposition to his Immensity simplicity Omnipresence Judging of their Maker by themselves of his thoughts by their thoughts of his waies by their waies of his dealings with men by their own foolish passions and in short measuring all his Glorious and Incomprehensible perfections by their own narrow and shallow conceptions of sensible objects Hence it is that we have those bold assertions of Vorstius Deus non est infinitus nec in essendo nec in operando Infinita virtus non est in Deo Immensitas seu infinitas est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be Infinite is impossible and therefore so far from denoting a perfection that it implies a plain contradiction And among other Arguments which he makes use of to prove God not to be Infinite this is remarkable Ibid. p. 237. Because God at present saith he is seen by the Angels and shall be so hereafter by us with our Bodily Eies and therefore not Infinite For what is so cannot be comprehended by any sense as he rightly upon this supposition argues Quia debet esse proportio inter objectum percipiendum personam percipientem and whereas it may be objected that the Beatifick vision respects the inward speculation of the mind and not the external perception of the Eies some indeed so interpret it saith he Sed nescio an sacris literis consentaneum sit certe magnam futurae nostrae foelicitatis partem hac explicatione tollere videntur Now if God be finite it must further follow and is plainly acknowledged by these men that magnitude and extension and a true local presence may and must be ascribed to God and this is so far from being by them looked upon to be derogatory to the nature and perfection of God that the contrary notion is scouted by them not only as false but as absurd and ridiculous which asserts such a presence of God as obliges us to believe him not be confined to any certain place neither to have any parts commensurate to the parts of that place in which he is For this if any thing must be the meaning of Episcopius's Atomica Atopica essentiae divinae praesentia which he rails and exclaims against and can scarce think of without horror and Astonishment But further if Local presence be ascribed to God I think Local motion may with good reason be so likewise forasmuch as it may be more honourable to God to Imagine that he may sometimes change then that he should allwaies be Immoveably fixed and consined to one certain place Lastly if extension may be attributed to God and such an extension as was said before which hath its certain bounds and limits by an unavoidable consequence Figure must be ascribed to him also forasmuch as figure doth naturally and necessarily result from the termination of extension this being the definition of a figure quae sub aliquo vel aliquibus terminis comprehenditur And now at length we see what a blessed notion of Almighty God the Socinians have furnished us with how scandalous and dishonourable to God how repugnant to piety how opposite to right reason and to those sober and just apprehensions which that hath furnished many wise heathens with who I am afraid may one day rise up in Judgement against these men and condemn them It may be now time to draw towards a conclusion of this Discourse therefore I shall briefly summe up what hath been said upon this subject that the Readers memory may be refreshed with the account which hath bin given him both of what the Scripture affirms of God and what the Socinians say of him The Scriptures have informed us that our God is Infinite they say he is Finite ours is Omnipresent theirs Limited and confined to a certain place ours Immutable their 's Liable to change ours is naturally just theirs contingently so ours necessarily concerned in the government of the World and taking care of humane affairs theirs might like Epicurus his Deity sit at ease in the enjoyment of his own happyness leaving the world to the conduct of chance and men to the guidance of that which is equally uncertain their own giddy and unstable passions neither giving them Laws for the regulating of their actions nor assigning any punishments to the violation of them Our God is Omniscient their 's ignorant of future and contingent events ours without parts or passions theirs compounded of one and lyable to the other even to those which argue the greatest weakness and infirmity and which some of the Philosophers thought inconsistent with the bravery and resolution of a wise and virtuous man In short our God consists of three blessed and glorious persons subsisting in the same undivided essence They deny the divine nature of the Son and yet by an unpardonable contradiction say that he is a true God and disown the personality of the Holy Ghost From all which I think it will appear very evident what we undertook to make out at the beginning of this discourse that the Object of their Religion and ours is different and that will go a great way to prove that the Religions themselves are so too In short the difference between us is not so small as some ignorant people may imagine and some crafty and designing persons may pretend among whom I cannot but reckon Curcellaeus who most falsely and impudently against common sense and reason and