their Candor and Integrity which is supposed to be conspicuous in the Representations they make of their own and their Adversaries Principles have walk'd in the same Path as I hope in the following History with some clearness to detect and make manifest SECT II. The seeming Approaches of Socinus and his Followers towards the Orthodox THE Socinians altho' they deny a Trinity of Persons in the God-head the Divinity of Christ and the Personality of the Holy-Ghost Christs Satisfaction and Merit Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the work of the Spirit in Conversion c. Yet in their Apologies Confessions and other Writings they give us their Opinions in such words as if they held all these necessary Doctrines Ruarus who is justly esteemed by the excellent â—â—lâ—husius Specimen Refut Crell de satisf p. 3.5 to be one of the most Learned Socinians amongst the Reasons annexed to the first Century of his Select Episiâ—les perswading the Papists to express more candor towards them closes with this Protestation That they do heartily believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit that they Baptize in the Name of the Father Son Ruar Epist Select par 1. pag. 464. and Holy Ghost and acknowledge an Vnity in this Trinity that they esteem Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the true God and as such worship him that they believe Christ to have abundantly satisfied the Will of the Father in all things which he imposed on him to do and suffer for our sins and so by the Victime of his Body hath expiated them In an Epistle to Heing Veglerus this Learned Ruarus thus writes Ruar Epist 16. P. 107. My most intimate Friends have oft heard me Profess that in most humble manner I adore the Divine Nature in Christ and am most hearty in acknowledging his true Merit and Satisfaction made for us altho these words are not in Scripture I Challenge 'em all to accuse me if they can for denying the Hypostasis or Subsistence of the Holy-Ghost or for rejecting Infant-Baptism or for placing our Righteousness in the Merit of our Works or any thing like it In an Epistle to Frederick Schossirus whose perversion Ruarus doth endeavour after he had advised him to cast off those prejudices he had received with hâ—s Mother Milk beseeches him to consider thâ—â— they do not deny Christ's satisfaction but hold that he satisfied the Will of his Father both by doing and suffering all those things imposed on him by the Father for the sake of us and our Sins Ruar Epist 23. p. 146 147. whence it comes to pass that our sins are pardon'd and Eternal Life given us He is more full in what he writes unto Nigrinus for saith he I do acknowledge that the Obedience which Christ as the Head of all the Elect did render unto God in his Life and much rather in his Death was a sufficient or full price for our Sins and so equivalent to the sufferings which by our Sins we had deserved But that I may more distinctly deliver my thoughts concerning the Fruits of Christs Death I will reduce what I have taken out of the Holy Scriptures to Three Heads answerable to his Three-fold Office For Christ being the Chief Prophet of God even as was Moses published a New Law unto the People and whatever he Taught Commanded Promised or Did when alive he by his Death Eminently Confirmed Sealed and Sanction'd whereby we are obliged to believe him and obey his Laws And God himself engaged to perform all that Christ hath promised in his Name Touching the Priestly Office which lyeth in making Prayers for the People and Sacrificing that is to say Killing the Victim and then according to the Law offering it for the Expiation of Sin Christ a little before his Death pouring out most ardent Prayers to God on behalf of all that then did or after should believe and entering into Heaven through Death doth now make Intercession for them and freely offer'd up himself upon the Cross as one to be made an Atoneing Victim and with this Victim of his Body prepared for an Oblation by Death he entered into the Heavens as into the Holy of Holies and offer'd up this Sacrifice of himself without Spot by the Eternal Spirit unto God who is amongst the Cherubims or rather with the Myriads of Angels there appearing for ever before the Throne of the Divine Majesty to expiate the Sins of the People and procure their Pardon And that he might enter on the Execution of his Kingly Office whereby he doth all things which belong to the Salvation of the Elect defending and freeing them from all Evil and at length making them meet for the partaking of Spiritual and Heavenly Blessings He did by rendring Obedience to the Death open a way whence we owe all unto Christ who so readily dyed for us The Causes also of our Salvation may be considered as Three fold The First the freest Grace of the Immortal God The Second is Christ who as our Head hath undertaken for his Body with God The Last is our Faith and Obedience towards God wrought by the Spirit of Regeneration To this of Ruarus I will annex what Slichtingius the Polonian Knight hath in the Pelonian Confession and Apology In the Preface to the Confession they say That the Apostles Creed is most Ancient containing the most pure and Apostolical Truth as first delivered that therefore in Publishing the Faith of their Churches to express their Consent with the whole World they keep most close unto this Creed and although they esteem the third Part about the Holy Ghost not to be so Ancient as the other two Parts yet they Profess that they believe all contained in it to be most true And in their Exposition of what is said about Christ's being Dead they declare That then Christ's Soul was made an Offering for Sin that all those Scriptures which assign the Expiation and Remission of our Sins to the Blood of Christ do make it clear that Christ's Death was tanquam victima â—iacularis that is as an Expiatory Sacrifice or Victim Besides on these Words the Remission of Sin it s thus We believe all past Sins how gross soever and all Sins of Infirmity committed after the Acknowledging of the Truth are through the Obedience Blood and Oblation of Christfully â—â—â—â—ven them that have the Communion 〈…〉 formerly spoken of For this 〈…〉 say they Justification is not 〈…〉 the Law or our own 〈…〉 That this Remission of 〈◊〉 and Justification is on our part obâ—â—â—ed by â—â—ith and Repeniance and contrued unto us by the Fruits thereof This is that part of the Socinian Confession Vid. Curcel â—uâ—â—ern Differ Theo. Adver Mares Differ 4. Sect. 13. with which Stephen Curcellaeus twits honest Maresius as what is more Sound than what is embraced by him and other Calvinists Michtingius in his Apology which was occasion'd by an Edict of the Lords of Holland and West
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-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
to Think Will or Do any good thing 3. It is the continued Assistance and help of the Holy Spirit according unto which the Holy Ghost does excite and stir up the Regenerate unto Good by infusing into them Spiritual and Heavenly Thoughts inspiring them with good Desires and enabling them actually to Will that which is good yea more according to this Grace the Spirit doth Will and work with the Man that what he Wills he may be enabled to Perfect After this manner I ascribe unto Grace the Beginning Continuation and Consummation of all Good even so far that a Regenerate Man without this Preventing Exciting Continued and Co-operating Grace can never think will or do any good nor resist the feeblest Temptation to Evil. How then can I be said to be injurious to the Grace of God or attribute too much to free Will The Controversie is not about the Actions or Operations ascribed to Grace I am for as much as any Man whatsoever but it is only about the Mode or Manner of its Oprations whether it be by an Irresistible Force or not Here indeed I do with the Holy Scriptures hold that many resist the Holy Ghost and reject the offer'd Grace And in his Letter to Hypolitus à Collibus Concerning Grace and free Will according to the Scriptures and consent of the Orthodox I do declare That Free Will without Grace can neither begin nor perfect any true Spiritual good Work and least any think I do as Pelagius did play with the Word Grace I mean that Grace which is the Grace of Christ and belongs to Regeneration which I hold to be simply and absolutely necessary for the inlightning the Understanding regulating the Affections and inclining the Will to what is good that infuses saving Light into the Mind inspires the Affections with Holy Desires and boweth down the Will to act according to that saving Light and these good Desires This Grace Prevents Begins Accompanies and Follows It stirreth up helps and works that we may Will and that we may not Will in vain Co-operates with us It secures us from Temptations Assists and helps us against them upholding us against the Flesh the World and the Devil In the Conflict it gives us the Victory and if at any time we are overcome and fall in the Temptation this Grace recovers us establishes and gives new Strength making us more watchful It begins the Work of Salvation promoves perfects and consummates it The mind of a Carnal Man is I confess dark'ned his Assections vile and inordinate his Will disorderly yea he is dead in Sin and that Preacher is most highly esteemed by me who attributes most to Grace if so be that whilst he is extolling Grace he doth neither Impeach God's Justice nor take from Man Free Will to what is Evil What any Man can desire more I know not About the Justification of a Man in the sight of God Jacoh Armin Decla sentent p. 127. I am not sensible saith he that I either teach or hold any thing but what is Vnanimously received by the Reformed Protestant Churches and most exactly agrees with their Sense There hath been I know a Controversie in this particular between Piscator and the French Churches as whether the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ which is imputed to Believers and in which the 'r Righteousness before God doth consist be only Christ's Passive Obedience as Piscator affirmed Or whether it be also his Active which all his Life he rendred to the Law of God and that Holiness in which he was conceiv'd as the Gallick Churches hold But I never interested my self in it And how oddly soever he expressed himself in this place he would still be thought a good Calvinist Armin. Decla ubi sup For saith he whatever I have in this Point delivered I differ not so much from Calvin but that I am ready with my own Hand to subscribe what he hath on this Subject in the third Book of his Institutes In his Disputations Armin. Disput Thes 48. Sect. 5. he is more particular speaking distinctly of the several Causes of Justification Of the Meritorious and Material thus That Christ by his Obedience and Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause of Justification who may therefore be deservedly called the Procatartick Cause The same Christ in his Obedience and Righteousness is also the Material Cause of our Justification that is as God gives to us Christ for Righteousness and imputes his Obedience and Rignteousness unto us in respect to this double Cause namely the Meritorious and Material we are said to be constituted Just or Righteous by Christ's Obedience In this place Arminius you see doth distinguish between the Meritorious and Material Cause of Justification the One being Extrinsick belonging to the Efficient the other Intrinsick or made the Matter of our Justification The first is Christ by his Obedience the other is Christ for Righteousness Christ Given and his Righteousness Imputed He was too Learned to confound the Material and Intrinsick with the Meritorious which is an External and Efficient Cause asserting that as Christ is the Meritorious Cause so he as an Efficient justifieth us by his Righteousness As he is the Material he is given by God for Righteousness and his Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification His Thoughts touching the Instrumental Formal Cause he expresses in these Words Faith is the Instrumental Cause Armin. ubi sup Sect. 7 8. or Action by which we apprehend Christ and his Righteousness offered unto us by God according to the Order and Promise of the Gospel where it is said That whoever Believes shall be Justified and Saved The Form of Justification is the gracious Estimation of God whereby he imputes the Righteousness of Christ unto us and imputes Faith for Righteousness that is God doth forgive unto us who believe our Sins for the sake of Christ apprehended by Faith and esteems us as Righteous in him which Estimation hath annexed unto it the Adoption of Sons and a Collation of Right to the Inheritance of Eternal Life And among the Corollaries deduced from what he had asserted in his Disputation he is positive That it is impossible for Faith and Works to Concurr to Justification that Christ did not Merit that we be justified by the Dignity and Merit of Faith much less that we be justified by the Merit of Works But the Merit of Christ is opposed to Justification by Works and Faith opposed to Merit These Appeals to the Catechism and Confession and the consent of the Reformed Protestants his recommending Calvin's Commentaries and Institutes to his Pupils and these and such other Passages make it clear That Arminius would fain be thought an Orthodox Calvinist which was also the desire and endeavour of his endeared Companions and Followers even of Vytenbogart Borrius Poppius Grievenchovius Arnoldus Corvinus and Episcopius at their Conference A. D. 1611. with Ruardus Plancius Becius Fraxinus Bogardus and Festus Homnius at the
Doctrine They in like manner send us to the Calvinists with an Assurance we shall find a great Part of Socinianism in their Writings Episcopius I Presume doth in the Opinion of these Gentlemen Understand what the Remonstrants held as well as any man who notwithstanding the High Thoughts He had of the Socinians doth positively Aver that there is a most Exact Agreement betwixt them and the Calvinisis Having Cap. 2. saith he in his Podecherus Ineptians sufficiently Cleared the Remonstrants from the Calumny of being Socinian I will Retort upon them and show that with much more Appearance of Argument we can fasten on the Contra-Remonstrants the Charge of Socinianism even in those Points which are Proper and Peculiar to Socinus and are Deservedly called Socinian This Episcopius tho' probably enough touching the Trinity an Arian and in other Points a Professed Remonstrant will yet by no means Allow a PROFESSED Agreement between the Remonstrants and Socinians How then can we Hope to find in Their writings a Formula or Summary of Socinian Doctrines That there is too great an Allyance between the Remonstrants and the Socinians that the Doctrines of the Former are too near akin to what are held by the Latter and Praeparatory unto them I have cleared But Chap. 3. Sect. 6. c. that in ALL other Points excepting the Trinity the Remonstants PROFESSEDLY Agree with the Socinians is too Notorious a Mistake for the Socinian Historian to Impose upon us However they go on to Assure us they sincerely Believeâ— That GOD is truly Omniscient Consider on the Explic of the Trin. p. 32. That he Foreseeth all Events how Contingent soever they may be to us But are they all of this mind No Others of 'em Ask Def. Reason of Christianity against Mr. Edwardâ— p. 18. Which is more Dishonourable to God to be the Author of all the Sin and Wickedness that ever was or ever will be in the World or to Deny his Fore-knowledge of the Certainty of that which is not Certain 2. They Believe the Real Omnipresence of God That He is Present in his Essence or Person in all Places And not only by his Power Knowledge or Ministers There are others of them who Deny such an Immensity of God which makes him to be ESSENTIALLY and wholly in every Point of Space because such IMMENSITY would take away all Distinction between God and the Creature And as the Examiner of Edwards affirmes has indeed an ATHEISTICAL TANG for the greater part of Atheists hold the Universe to be God Another of 'em saith To Know whether there is an Immensity of ESSENCE or Operation these are Metaphysicks out of my Reach Some Tho. upon Dr. S. Vindic. p. 14. and are no Helps to the Setling my Confidence and Trust in God Therefore it is that Revelation doth not speak Precisely of this These Passages do not only show how much our English Socinians Disser from each other in matters of most Importance But some of them as well as Forreign Socinians Deny Gods Omniscience and Immensity One can't be some of 'em suggest without making God the Author of Sin And the other hath an Atheistical Tang. Why then are they so Angry with the Learned Dr. Edwards for charging them with the Denyal of those Essential Perfections of the Divine Nature 'T is also affirmed by the English Socinians 3. That the Holy Ghost is a Person How could the Holy Spirit search all things Biddles Confes of Faith p. 21 22. even the Depths of God 1 Cor. 2. How make Intercession for the Saints with Greans Vnutterable Rom. 8 How could He say to the Christians at Antioch Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have Called them Acts 13.2 If these things and sundry more which may be alledged out of Scripture do not Evince the Holy Spirit to be a Person what can In Opposition hereunto they say Brief Hest Sect. 1. p. 7. That Rom. 8. God's Spirit or Inspiration being Designed to be a continual Director and Guide to the Faithful is spoken of in these and some other Texts as a Person by the same Figure of speech that Charity is Described as a Person c. The Holy Spirit you see is and is not a Person with them 4. They Generally not only Grant Brief Hist Sect. 3. p. 38. but Earnestly Contend that Christ is to be Worshipped and Prayed to because God hath say they by his inhabiting word or Power given to the Lord Christ a Faculty of Knowing all things and an Ability to Relieve all our Wants In Opposition hereunto 't is said Ans to Mith. p. 50. There are no Acts of Worship ever Requir'd to to be Paid to Christ but such as may be Paid to a Civil Power to a Person in High Dignity and Office or to Prophets or Holy Men or to such as are actually Possessed of the Heavenly Beatitudes They are I confess Answer to Milb p. 49. so Ingenuous as to Acknowledge That the Question about the Invocation of Christ has very much Divided them and if I take 'em Right the English Socinians generally fall in with the Notions of Francisous Davidis and Christianus Franken in Opposition to George Blandraâ—â— and Faustus Socinus who were followed by the Forreign Vnitarians as they call themselves and notwithstanding the specious Pretences to Liberty of Conscience Brief Hist Let. 4. p. 48. which they Reckon the Peculiar Principle of the Socinians and Remonstrants the prevailing Party severely Persecuted their Brethren They in Transylvania would not suffer any to come into any Places in the Ministry unless they obliged themselves under their Hands not to speak against Worshiping Jesus Christ They in Poland more Rigid â—xcommuniâ—ating and Deposing from the Ministry such as held Christ might not be Worshiped with Divine Worship This Persecution had some what of Extraordinaty Cruelty in it as it was against men who differ'd so very little from them For the Persecutors did not affirm that they were always bound to Invocate and Worship Christ but that it might Lawfully be done Nos non teneri Invocare Christum sed tantum Jure omnino Posse saith Socinus again and again Ay so often that he thought himself Obliged in a Praemonition to what he Wrote against Francisous Davidis to Explain himself which he did briefly by declaring that there were Two Cases in which to omit the Worshiping of Christ is a Sin The first when they joyn with them in Worship who call on the Name of Christ The second When the Spirit doth move them to do it not to call on Christ in these Two Cases is a Sin These few Intimations make it Plain that aâ—tho ' they give us no Formula nor Catechism in which we may find a particular Account of what it is they Believe yet in those few things they Profess to Own they can't Agree about the Nature of God whether Omniscient and Immense About the Holy Ghost whether
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
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
Disbelief of it men were Pronounced Believers or Unbelievers Thus you see that the whole of Christianity is brought within the Compass of these few words To believe that Jesus of Narareth or Jesus the son of Mary is the Messiah They that Believe thus much are Good Christians such as were Received into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body as far as meer believing could make them so Now I say that according to this Principle the Mahometans are good Christians and ought to be Receivâ—d into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body For they do Profess to believe That Jesus the Son of Mary is the Messiah in the second Chapter of the Alcoran Certainly we gave the Law to Moses and after him sent many Prophets We Inspired Knowledge into Jesus the Son of Mary and Strengthened him by the Holy Ghost In the next Chapter The Angels called Zachary and said unto him I Declare to thee from God that thou shalt have a Son called John he shall affirm the Messias to be the Word of God that he shall be a Great Person Chaste a Prophet and one of the Just Remember thou how the Angels said Oh! Mary God Declareth unto thee a Word from which shall Proceed the Messias named Jesus the Son of Mary full of Honour in this World and that shall be in the other of the Number of Intercessors with his Divine Majesty I will teach him the Scriptures the Mysteries of the Law the Old Testament and the Gospel and He shall be a Prophet sent to the Children of Israel Jesus said to the Children of Israel I come to you with evident signs of my Mission from your Lord I am come to you with Signs of my Mission that Testifie that I am truly sent from your Lord Remember thou how the Lord God sald O Jesus I will cause thee to Die I will Raise thee to my self and Remove thee far from Infidels and Prefer those that have Obeyed thee to Infidels at the Day of Judgment And of the Jews in the fourth Chapter it 's said God Imprinted Infidelity in their Hearts they shall never Believe in his Law except very Few of them because of their Malice and the Blasphemies they Vomited against Mary They said we have slain the Messiah Jesus the Son of Mary the Prophet and Apostle of God Chap. 5. Chap. 61. The Messiah the Son of Mary is a Prophet and Apostle of God Remember thou that Jesus the son of Mary said to the Children of Israel I am the Messenger of God He hath sent me to Confirm the Old Testament so far the Alcoran Mahumed Ben Achmed an Eminent Interpreter of the Alcoran by His Word understands the Son which when spoken absolutely points us only unto the Son of God Lib. 1. c. 1. Elmacinus in his History of the Saracens saith that the Mahometans hold Christ the Son of Mary to be the Son of God And as Borcardus The Saracens do affirm and confess Christ to be truly the Son of God De Ter. S. p. 1. c. 7. Sect. 12. Besides it 's also said that they believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God Ascended into Heaven setting on the Right hand of the Father and Mahomet on the Left Thus Sandius in his Church History so much Admired by our English Socinians Hist Enuc lib. 3. Sec. 7. p. â—2 c. Now seeing what our Author Insists on as Necessary to make a man a True Believer is in the Turkish Alcoran I wou'd fain know whether the Mahometans who Believe these Points are not in his Esteem such Christians as ought to be Received into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body What is it that He requires as necessary to our being such that the Turks do not profess to hold Doth not he enjoyn them to Believe that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Messiah sent of God which he proved by Miracles that he Dyed Rose again and is one the Right Hand of the Omnipotent God The Turks Believe the same Will he have us worship Christ but not with that Adoration which is due to the most High God The Turks will do it so Sandius Christum essè adorandum sed non eo summo Cultu 〈…〉 â—â—i suâ— quo Adoratur ejus Dominus Deus Doth he say that Jesus is more highly exalted than Mahomet himself Mahomet in his Alcoran grants it not only that Jesus is on the Right Hand and himself on the Left but that he is Inferiour to the Blessed Virgin the Mother of our Lord So Sandius out of Bellonius Cusanus Richardus and others Doth He Require us to Believe that Christ Dyed Rose again and that there shall be a Resurrection of our Souls and Bodies the Turks Believe it Will he have it that Christ shall Appear Personally and erect a Glorious Kingdom on Earth when all must Believe in him The Mahometans say the same only they will allow unto Jesus but forty not a thousand years for his Personal Reign Doth he Require us to Believe the Old and New Testament to be Inspired It is no more than what is affirm'd in their Alcoran where it 's express Chap. 2. that God sent Mahomet to Confirm the Scriptures namely the Old Testament and the Gospel that God Inspired into him to Confirm the Ancient Scripture And Nicholaus Cardinal de Cusa in the Prologue to his Cribratio Alcorani saith that Balthasar de Luparis sometime a Merchant at Constantinople oft told him that the Mahometan Doctors did greatly respect and love the Gospel preferring it to the Book of their own Law That one of the most Learned of their Doctors being Instructed out of the Gospel of John touching the Truth Proposed to Balthasar his Design of going to Rome with Twelve others might he have safe Conduct which the Cardinal de Cusa procured but the Learned Turk was hindred by Death And Sandius â—hi supra out of Borcardus Reports That these Saracens have Saint John in the Highest Esteem next unto Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin counting Him the greatest and most Holy amongst the Prophets Doth our Author urge the Necessity of Repentance The Turks press the same as necessary unto the Pardon of Sin though not of that Sin which is unto Death What then is it that can hinder their being good Christians in the Judgment of our English Socinians Or seeing our Socinians believe no more touching what they judge necessary to Salvation than the Turks do what is it that makes them better Christians than the Mahometans are Our Author is pleased to challenge Us to shew that there is any other Doctrine upon our Assent to which or Disbelief of it Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers But I crave leave to tell him amongst other Doctrines that of Christ's Divinity is one If he will consult John 5.18 23 24 c. He 'll find it to be clearly Revealed and sufficiently proved by the Lord
of Three Infinite Minds or Spirits are justly suspected Especially since it is in a case where Solemn Protestations Sacred Subscriptions and Oaths have been used only as a Blind to delude the Orthodox Respond ad Comp. Mat. Sladi Seg. 104. Conradus Vorstius made many a Protestation of his Orthodoxy in this very Point expressly declaring that he was neither Arian nor Socinian I can saith he with a good Conscience solemnly Testify and Declare as in Presence of God and Men that I have not design'd the promoting either Socinianism or Arianism c. And in his Preface to this answer he sets down a Confession of his Faith and in the close of what he had said of the Trinity he Declares That the Faith of the Holy Trinity of the Person and Office of our Lord Jesus Christ he will by the Grace of God Constantly and Religiously adhere unto for which reason he adds I cannot without manifest Injury be condemned for holding either the Arian Samosatenian or any other such Heresie Howbeit he is Positive That the Three Persons are Three distinct Real Entia or Beings and that it is a Contradiction that any thing should truly Exist that had not its Proper Essence It is therefore manifest saith he that in the Trinity there are distinct Things That no one can deny thus much unless he doth with Praxea and Sabellius hold only Three Names or Respects and Offices c. as we observed Every Being hath a certain peculiar Essence and it undoubtedly follows that each Person hath a Certain Proper Essence of his own Vorst Apol. Exeg c. 9. p. 37 38. Vorst de Deo vid. Not. ad disput 3. p. 208 220 221. So Vorstius who nevertheless expressly asserts that the Substance of God is but one Numerical or Individual Substance That he is so one as to be an Individual that cannot be Divided either into Species or Parts This was Vorstius his Notion which notwithstanding his Solemn Protestations of adhering unto the Orthodox Faith he did his uttermost to propagate he himself as I have already proved in the 70th Page of this Discourse Living and Dying an Antitrinitarian And as it was thus with him so it may be now with others They may Profess to Believe one Divinity which is Intirely and Inseparably in Three distinct Persons or Minds and hold these Three Persons to be Three distinst Essences with a design to introduce Socinianism For from what I have said it's clear that the Italian Consult Professed to Believe there was but One God and Pitched on the Doctrine of Three distinct Essences that from thence they might introduce an Inequality of Essences assign a Preheminence and Superiority to the Essence of the Father and make the Son but a Subordinate God which is the Point the Socinians would be at These are some of the Methods which the Foreign Socinians have taken to expose the Trinity and Propagate their Heresies and whoever will consult the Writings of our English Gentlemen who are their Off-spring will see that there are a Set of Men amongst us who have in Imitation of the Italian Hereticks entered into a Combination to bring into contempt the same Blessed Truths after the same manner their Predecessors have done SECT IX The Socinian Trinity proposed Their Explications of it mysterious They affirm the Holy Ghost to be Eternal and yet not God nor a Creature That Jesus Christ is but a Creature and yet God That the Father is the most High God but not Infinite Immense or Omniscient BY what hath been hitherto asserted of the English Socinians it is apparent that whatever their Religion is they are not prepar'd as yet for that Concord as to be able to Compose and Publish an Exact Scheme of it but do they bend their Strength rather to tear up old Foundations covering themselves in such a manner under Generals that it 's Impossible to sind out what they would in Particular be at And that they may strew the way for the most easy making Proselytes they apply themselves to such Methods as I have in the foregoing Sections observed And whereas the different Explications given of the Trinity by some Orthodox Divines are made by them the Matter of so much Triumph I will as an agrâ—able Return shew how Mysterious theâ— selves are in Explaining their Trinity It must be acknowledged that about the Year 1562. these Hereticks did their uttermost to engage the Ministers to abstain from Philosophical Terms or Humane Forms of Speech Epit. Hist And as Stoinius observes it was this Year concluded in a Synod at Pinczow that the Ministers do not use any Philosophical Modes of Speech about the Trinity Essence Generation or Mode of Proceeding but that every one should Confine himself to the Terms used in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles and in the Apostles Creed But notwithstanding this Decree Sarnicius contended earnesty against Gregorius Pauli for their use on which occasion Stanislaus Szafranicius did in a Synod met the same Year at Rogow labour to compose the Differences between them but in vain only 't was then Decreed that they should tolerate one another and abstain from such Forms as are unscriptural But Hist Ref. Pol. l. 3. c. 1. p. 167. saith Lubieniescius in June the Year following viz 1563. another Synod met which wrote unto Prince Radzivil That altho they could not because of some weak Brethren wholly suppress the use of the Word Trinity yet they had in a great measure purged it from the present Abuse And in the Year 1567 it was Decreed That the Trinity is to be Piously and Religiously Retain'd on this Condition that Brotherly love according to the Rule given by the Son of God be observ'd each one bearing with the Infirmities of one another c. The Orthodox adhered so firmly to the use of those Terms as what did most clearly express the Truth and Distinguish it from Error that the Socinian Party judg'd it convenient to continue the use of these Terms and therefore had their Trinity too tho they opposed a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead yet they still professed to believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Andreas Dudicius in an Epistle to Beza sets before him a Confession of the Socinian Faith and the Athanasian Creed with his reasonings on the one and the other Their Confession is very short in these Words We believe in one only True God The Creator of Heaven and Earth Socini Oper. Tom. 1. p. 529. and of all things in them or elsewhere Gen. 1.24 Ex. 20. Deut. 4.6.27.32 see the Refutation of Johannes Sommerus Lib. 1. cap. 4. We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things Cor. 8. c. vid. ibid. We believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God the Father and Son Mat. 3.10 Luc. 4. Rom. 8. That he proceeds from the Father Joh. 15. That he is given to them who believe by the Son