with Socinianism Plures Deos si non ve bo Re taâ—en ipsa profâ—tentes Epist 19. p. 129. Vid. Epist 81. p. 361 c. That their first Effort against the Trinity was a setting up of Tritheism not avowedly but Clandestinely is Affirmed by Beza In the beginning saith he they were for the most part Tritheists transforming the Three Persons into so many Essences Then did they Appropriate the Appellation of the One True God unto the Father to whom they also ascribed an Hyperoche a Preheminence or Superiority above the Son This was the Principle which at first they advanced as most likely to bring the Blessed Trinity of Persons in one undivided Essence into contempt Against which Calvin Zanchy and the Reformed did set themselves as against a most Pernicious and Hurtful Heresie as undoubtedly it is For it being affirm'd that every Person hath a Peculiar Substance of his Own there must be as many Substances or Essences as there are Persons which being of the same Nature must be as many Gods as they are Persons which is Tritheism Three Distinct Infinite substances or Three Eternal Spirits cannot be less than Three Gods But tho' its affirmed 1 That it is gross Sabellianism to say That there are not Three Personal Mands or Spirits or Substances 2 That a distinct Substantial Person must have a distinct substance of his own Proper and Peculiar to his own Person yet if it be owned that there are not Three Gods but One God or One Divinity which is intirely and Inseparably in Three distinct Persons or Minds it cannot be Heresie As a very Learned Person avers because in this case saith he the Fundamental Article is Believed and the Error is only a Mistake in the Explication However the Doctrine of Three Distinct Substances hath been not only Learnedly as well as sharply charged with Tritheism but Condemned for being Impious and Heretical I will therefore it lying so much in my way venture humbly to Offer what inclines me to Conclude that this turning the Three Persons into Three Essences is Heretical For tho I am far from Hereticating every one that differs from me in Matters of Moment or from making every Erroneous Explication of a Fundamental Article to be Heresie yet I am perswaded that the Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one undivided Essence is of such a Nature that many in their explicating it have fall'n into divers Heresies and that thus it is in the Present Case The Doctrine condemned for Heretical is a makeing the Persons in the Blessed Trinity to be Three Dictinct Substances or Individual Natures which is as Direct a Contradicton to the One Intire and Indivisible Nature of God as can be Three Individual Essences are as much Opposed to one Individual Essence as Three Persons are to one Person and Three Persons may be as well One Person as three Individual Essences be one Individual Essence The Author therefore of this Notion cannot in Reason be supposed to Believe these Contradictory Propositions to be both true and being so vehement in his Asserting Three Individual Natures as to make the Denial thereof to be Heresie and Nonsence we must be so Civil to him as to suppose that he doth not Believe the Essence of God to be one Intire Indivisible Essence which I do the more readily suppose because it 's so Common for Tritheists to do so It is owned That Photius grants that Conon and his Followers held a Consubstantial Trinity and the Unity of the God-head Phot. Bibl. Cod. 24. and so far were Orthodox but then adds they were far from it when they Asserted Proper and Peculiar Substances to Each Person I have not that Bibliotheke by me but Suicerus in his Account of the Tritheists saith they held Three Substances and Natures in all things alike and yet would by no means own Three Divinities or Three Gods and refers to the Bibliotheca Photij where it 's thus These men vid. Severus and Theodosius spake many things excellently well Cod. 24. p 16. as that there was a Consubstantial Trinity of the same Nature and but one God one Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But they Blasphemed when they said the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost had their Proper Natures and Divinities or Particular Substances and so contradicted themselves as well as the Truth c. So that their asserting the Consubstantiality of the Trinity and it 's being of the same Nature could not secure their making the Three Persons three Distinct Substances from being Blasphemy But what I mostly Press is this Consideration that if the contradictory Affirmation of three Individual Essences being but one Individual Essence will clear the Notion from being Heresie then Valentinus Gentilis Lismaninus Blandrata and the many other Propagators of the Socinian Abominations must be also for the same reason cleared from Heresie I will begin with Gentilis who held Lubien Histor Ref. l. 2. c. 5. p. 107. that there were three distinct Eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity that the Son was Begotten from Eternity Ante Saecula in Latitudine Aeternitatis Thus much Lubieniescius And Gentilis himself in his Epistle to the Ministers at Geneva was Positive that the Father only is true God and the Son also true God Tract Theol. p. 660 661. and yet not Two but One and the same God because Christ hath one and the same Essence with the Father and therefore saith he I am neither Arian nor Servetian Lismaninus and Blandrata held the same for Substance with Gentilis To clear thus much I must Observe what Lubieniescius reports of Laelius Socinus who was one of the forty Italian Combinators It is to this Effect Laelius Socinus saith he travelled first into Helvetia then into Italy Britain and Germany and about the year 1551. he got into Poland from whence after he had instill'd his Errors into the Hearts of Lismaninus and many others he went into Moravia and then returned to Helvetia That in Moravia Paruta Gentilis Darius and Alciatus of the same Combination with Laelius did their Part to spread their Notions sending into Poland their Theses about the Trinity and doubtful Phrases in the Holy Scriptures There were near twenty Theses about the Trinity Ubi sup l. 3. c. 1. which they did put into the hands of their Friend Prosper Provana who committed them to the Care of Budzinius He no sooner Read 'em but gave them unto Johannes Pustelnecius from whom Stanislaus Lutomirskius got a Copy which being communicated to sundry others the Controversie about the Trinity had there its Rise some firmly adhering to the Faith received from the Lord Christ and his Apostles others ensnared by the Objections raised against it by the Italian Combinators vehemently opposed the Truth not that they did it openly but as our Vindicated Author displeased with the Old offered their New Explications in the very same manner He hath done Amongst others
the force of an Arminian Dose or some such like methods we have fallen into an Amazing slumber and no sooner doth any one awake out of it but he is fill'd with wonder to behold the Nation to be so much Socinian and Deist Nor can he easily imagine how it came to be so And that we may obtain some Light about what it is that hath influenced so great a part of Mankind to embrace these Errors I have spent some thoughts about it the Result of which I offer to Consideration CHAP. I. The first Particular instanced in as an Occasion of Error is a Prejudice against Gospel Doctrines because of their Mysteriousness The unreasonableness of this Prejudice discovered THE first thing I shall observe which for the most part runs through all the rest their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Ground and Reason of their many Mistakes and Errors is the Prejudices they have conceived against the Mysteriousness of our Holy Religion which is founded on a grand Maxim they have fixed as the Rule and Standard by which theyâ—ll try what is Truth and what is Error It 's this Nothing is to be receiv'd into our Religion as true but what we have an Adequate and Comprehensive Idea of When therefore in our Systems they meet with what transcends their understandings they reject it as False Absurd and Ridiculous This was the way of the Remonstrants touching the Doctrine of particular Election Reprobation Irresistible Grace c. And of the Socinians about Christ's satisfaction the Incarnation of the Son of God the Blessed Trinity c. And of the Deist against all reveal'd Religion who by a Late Ingenious Author in the Account he gives of the growth of Deism is brought in saying Many Doctrines are made necessary to Salvation pag. 20 which 't is impossible to believe because they are in their Nature Absurdities I replyed saith the Author That these things were Mysteries and so above our Vnderstandings But he asked me to what end could an Vnintelligible Doctrine be revealed Not to instruct but to puzzle and amuse What can be the effect of an Vnintelligble Mystery upon our minds but only Amusement That which is only above Reason must be above a Rational Belief and must I be saved by an Irrational Belief If a proposition be inconsistent with its self I cannot but believe it to be false But what doth this signifie less than that whatever transcends our Understandings and is above our Reason is an Absurdity an Unintelligible Doctrine fit only to puzzle and amuse and the belief thereof Irrational so that if they can't frame an Adequate Idea or comprehend the whole of what their thoughts are conversant about if they can't reduce every thing to their own Preconceived order and know it to perfection it cannot in their opinion be true but must you see be rejected as Absurd False and Irrational Though nothing more manifest and clear than that the most enlarged Create Mind is Finite Confin'd and Limited and that there is a Being whose Essence and Perfections are Boundless Unconfin'd Incomprehensible and past finding out and that it 's impossible and a contradiction to suppose a Finite Mind able to comprehend what is Incomprehensible or to get to the uttermost Bounds and Limits of what is Boundless and Unlimitable yet with these Men the notion of a Deity if we assign unto it Infinite Perfections though essential thereunto must be rejected that is they will believe nothing of God unless they may take him to be such another as themselves or themselves such as He is as to the extent of his Being nor must any things be received into our Religion as true that speak of his Transcendency but must be esteemed as false and irrational which amounts to thus much nothing in these matters must be believ'd to be true but what is impossible to be so However to an unbyassed mind it s most evident that there is a God with whom are the Secrets of Wisdom Job 11.7 whose Being by searching cannot be found out and who cannot be known to Perfection And that the Life of true Religion lyeth in the knowledge of this God and seeing an Adequate Knowledge which is the same with a knowing to Perfection is impossible and yet there can be no true Religion without some knowledge of God the inference is Manifest Natural and Easie viz. That we may attain to a knowledge of God according to Truth tho' we can't have an Adequate and Comprehensive knowledge of him and that it 's not sufficient to say we can't comprehend it therefore not true The most Momentous parts then of true Religion being about the Perfections of God such as his Holiness his Justice as distinct from his Goodness and Mercy together with the unchangeableness of his Being and the like must be above our Reason too and yet may be true The same may be said of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God which are not more Transcendent and Incomprehensible than what we find to be said of the Essential Perfections of his Nature nor is there any thing more difficult and inscrutable in what is reveal'd about the Eternal Decrees and the Modes of Divine Operation than there is in the Doctrine of the Trinity or Divine Attributes and therefore our belief of them equally Rational Well then if the points in Controversie between us are all reduced to one or other of these heads as really they are for either to the Glorious Attributes Personalities Decrees or Modes of Divine Operations the Doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of the Son the necessity of a proper satisfaction to Justice and those other points about Election Reprobation Irresistible Grace are reducible a rejecting these Doctrines because there is somewhat in them exceeding the utmost extent of our Knowledge and Unsearchable or which is the same because there is somewhat Mysterious in them must be upon a reason that necessarily obliges us to cast off the Belief of a Deity Besides the Grand Maxim of those Gentlemen who pretend so much to Reason being as I have already noted this that nothing is to be received into our Religion as true but what we can Comprehend a spice of the first sin must be at the bottom as the cause of all their Errors namely an ambition to be like unto God in his essential Perfections which in good earnest is the import of this Maxim for it 's impossible for them to know God to Perfection unless the extent of their Understandings bears a proportion to his Perfections So that in the issue they cannot fairly deny the mysteries of our Holy Religion but on a Topick whereby they make themselves equal with God Thus you see that by opposing our Holy Religion for the sake of the Mysteries there are in it they are driven either to the denyal of a God or to the making themselves Gods either of which is of all Absurdities the most vile and
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
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
Men fearing God studied in Divinity and rightly judging of these things will be in this Particular of his Mind There was brought unto me when sick in Bed a Writing from Schomannus which I did no sooner read but found my Distemper to increase upon me so very much did it grief me to see such Hurtful Opâ—nions brought into our Church Opinions that disquiet the more Infirm and give Great Offence to others who are not of our way Once more If Socinus designs an Answer I wish he would not I must confess the Truth I must tell you that their Writings are stuffed which most Offensive Paradoxes to the extreme Grief of my Soul Besides this Disputation between Niemojevius and Schomannus makes it plain to me that this Notion about the Sacraments was not started 'till the Year 1588 altho' Socinus fixed his dwelling in Poland A. D. 15â—9 That when it did first arise it startled the more Pious of their own Party and that from Niemojevius his Resolution of Proposing it to the next Synod at Lublin it 's very likely the Generality were then against it so far were they from that full Agreement which our Gentlemen pretend to be almost their Peculiar Property SECT VIII An Account of the Italian Combination entred into to bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into Doubt The Chief of 'em Assert Three distinct Essences to introduce the Pre-eminence of the Father and a Subordination in the Essences of the Son and Holy Spirit These things cleared out of the Writings of Gentilis and others The late Assertion of Three Essences the same with that of Gentilis c. ALthough the English Socinians do in some Instances so very much differ from them beyond the Seas that an exact Description of them cannot be given out of the Writings of the Pratres Poloni yet it must be yielded that they are nevertheless of the Off-spring of that Faction For which Reason I will consider what Combinations have been amongst them what Shapes they have formed themselves into and what Principles they advanced to the end they might subvert the blessed Doctrine of the Trinity There was in Italy a strong Combination entred into by near Forty who form'd themselves into a Society had their Colleges and Conferences where they consulted how to bring the Doctrines of the Trinity and Christ's Satisfaction into Doubt This was saith Wissowatius about the Year 1546. The chief of their Number mentionâ—d by Sandius Narrat Compâ—nd Biblioth Antitrin p. 18. were Leonardus Abbas Busalis Laelius Socinus Bernardinus Ochinus Nicholaus Paruta Valentinus Gentilis Julius Trevisanus Franciscus de Ruego Jacobus de Chiari Tranciscus Niger Darius Socinus Paulus Alciacus c. who continued together till their Design took Air at which time they being severely prosecuted some of 'em went into Helvetia others into France Britain Holland Germany and Poland and some into the Turkish Territories where they had their Liberty only Julius Trevisanus and Franciscus de Ruego were taken and executed and Jacobus de Chiari as Lubieniescius saith died a natural Death These Men where-ever they went took all Occasions to instil their Errors which they did by offering Objections against the Truth that as was pretended they might be the more firmly established in the Faith and be more able to defend it And having sear'd their Consciences with fraudulent Subscriptions and Perjury they formed themselves into sundry Shapes not scrupling to subscribe and swear to what they neither Believed nor Intended nor did they care what Methods they used might they thereby subvert the Doctrine of the Trinity and Christ's Satisfaction That they were set at work by tâ—e Papists is no way improbable especially if we consider how at Lyons the Papists dâ—schâ—rged Valentinus Gentilis so soon as they undâ—rstood his Design was to oppose Calvin and how safely Servetus Lubieâ— Histâ—r Pâ—sâ—â— Poâ—oâ— l. 2. c. 5. p. 1â—â— c. notwithstanding his Blasphemies lived amongst them The Principle whâ—ch at first they advanced as what was most lâ—kely to bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into â—ontempt was their turning the Three Persons into Three distinct Essences and their appropriating a peculiar Preheminence to the Father Servetus who is by Stanislaus Lubieniescius in his History of the Polonian Deformation Lubiâ—n â—bi sup p. â—â— highly applauded for his Diligence in Consulting the â—lcoran of Mahomet out of which he extracted the Opinions he held about the Triniâ—y having by his Sufferings gotten a Reputation it became the Province of Valentinus Gentitis and Alciatus aâ—ter the Disperson of these designing Incendiaries to go to Geneva and try what they could do towards the carrying on that Work which Servetus had with so much Labour and Travail begun And that their Success might be the greater 't was the Care of Gentilis to clear himself as much as possibly he could from the Charge of being a Favourer either of Arius or Servetus and therefore pretends a Zeal for the True Trinity as he expresses it in a Letter to Copus Raymundus and Henocus learned Ministers in Geneva explaining his Notion thus Caâ—e Tâ—â—â—â—â— Thâ—â—â— pâ—â— 6â—0 6â—â— The Father is that one only Essence that is from it self The Word is the Brightness of the Glory of God the express Image of his Substance and in this respect distinct from the Father who is as Christ himself saith the only True God the Essentâ—â—tor that is the â—nformator Individuorum The Word is the Son and also he True God and yet not Two Gods but one and the same God Or as Aretius in his Brief Account of Valentinus Gentilis A True Trinity ought to consist of Three eternal distinct Spirits differing from each other essentially rather than personally The Father he stiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself as he is more eminently truly and properly God But the Essence of the Son is not saith he of himself but an Essentiatum derived from the Essence of the Father and is a Secondary God And what saith Servetus of this Notion Deus pâ—st Christum manâ—e â—atum in ties Essentias Divisus maneat tamen Unâ—â— Deus â—â—ia haec Dispensâ—â—io nihil â—â—â—â—o mutat Tracâ— Theoâ— p. 657. Calvin tells 〈◊〉 That he holds the Deity to 〈◊〉 divided into Three Essences and yet there is but One God For the Socinians greater Satisfaction I will givâ—â— Servetus his Sense Histâ—â— for Poton l. 2. c. 5. p. 9â—â— c. out of a Discourse he delivered some time before his Execution 〈◊〉 published by Lubieniâ—scius from the Autoâ—raph In which he having opposed the Opinion of them who affirm Three substantial Persons to be jâ— God by Nature equal to one another which he looks upon to be Blasphemy and an execrable Impiety he freely gives us his own Sentiments to this effect 1. That the Name God is Appellative signifying one to whom all Power Dominion and Superiority doth properly belong who is above all the chief of all King