Insipid Profane an Human Invention grounded on no Testimony of God's Word The Popish God unknown to the Prophets and Aposiles Admonit 1. ad Polon What â—uther is brought in for is not much to the Purpose but if our Socinians have truly Represented Calvin 't is I confess a Quotation driven to the Head But when upon this account I could not but very carefully examine his Admonition to the Polonians unto which he Refers us I can find there no such Thing That the English Socinian's Truth and Candour therefore may be the more set in the Light I will bring to the Reader 's View what it is Calvin doth say on this Occasion In Câ—lvin's Theological Tractates there is an Answer to the Polenian Brethren Refuting the Error of Stancarus who held that Christ was a Mediator only with Respict to his Human Nature whereby Christ's Satisfaction Epist 1. p. â—2 and Man's Redemption are subverted and as Beza affirms a Door is opened unto the Tritheists who lead the Way to Arianism as Arianism brings in the Blasphemies of Samosatenus the Grand Idol of Socinus After this Answer there is a Irief Admonition sent to these Polonians cautioning them against a closure with I landrata â—â—xct Theol. Ed. 3. Genec A. D. 2611. p. 683. c. in making to themselves Three Gods by Imagining the Three Persons to be Three Essences But neither in the Answer nor Admonition is there a Word in Favour of the English Socinians There is also an Epistle sent to the Polonian Nobility and Gentry and to the Worthy Citizens of Cracow occasion'd by what Christophorus Trecius Stanislaus Sarnictus and Jacobus Sylvius wrote to Calvin about the Various Arts and Fraudulent Methods used by Hereticks to ensnare the People into a Denial of Christ's Divinity and a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence But nothing in this Epistle to Justify the Charge of our Gentlemen it being notoriously Manifest that Calvin was for the use of the Terms Trinity and Persons In his Answer to Blandrata's Question about the Name Person he is Positive That the use of it is Necessary to Detect the Frauds of them who craftily endeavour to subvert the Foundations of our Faith And in his Epistles Calv. Epist Edit 2. A. D. 1576. p. 290. 't is more fully declared that the Terms Trinity and Persons are very Profitable to the Church of Christ as by which the true Destinction between the Father Son and Holy Ghost is more clearly discovered and Vexatious Controversies more Essectually Prevented for which Reason they were by no means to be laid aside 'T is true Calvin in his Letter to the Polonian Nobility expresses his Dislike of this Prayer Sancta Trinitas Vnus Deus miserere nostri Precatio mihi non placet says he omnino Barbariem sapit The Prayer not the word Trinity disgusted him And whereas Stancarus had wrested the Scriptures affirming that when 't is said There is One God and One Mediator GOD there signifies the Trinity That they may know thee the only true GOD that is the Trinity Whatever ye ask of the Father that is of the Trinity Calvin in Opposition to these wretched Interpretations of Stancarus saith We reject them not only as Insipid but as Prophane But what is this to his saying the Word Trinity is Barbarous Insipid Prophane the Popish God c. Or what Credit is there to be given to the Reports of an English Socinian Amongst many others Grotius is said by them to be Socinian all over This Great Man say they in his Younger Years attacked the Socinians in a Principal Article of their Doctrine Hist Sâ—â—he Let. 1 p 11. But being Answered by J. Crellius he not only never Replyed but thanked Crellius for his Answer and afterwards writing Annotations on the whole Scriptures he Interpreted every where according to the Sentiments of the Socinians There is nothing in all his Annotations which the more strict followers of Socinus his Doctrine do not approve and applaud His Annotations are a Compleat System of Socinianism not excepting his Notes on the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel which are written so Artificially and Interwoven with so many different Quotations that he hath covered himself and his Sense of that Portion of Scripture from such as do not read him carefully But to clear it that this Great Man the Learned Grotius is not theirs I will offer the following Considerations First then 't is Manifest from what Grotius himself hath oft avowed that altho' he did not Answer Crellius yet he had not changed his Opinion touching what he had written of Christ's Satisfaction In a Letter to Reigersbergius he saith thus In that I did not make Reply to Crellius I acted as I think very Prudently and according to the Advice and Desire of the Reformed Pastors in France who not having that Controversy started amongst them Praved that I would not by writing a Confutation of Crellius bring it in amongst their People And in his Letter to Vossius he adds What need is there of my Repeating what hath been already so fully done I am not afraid as he told Reigersberg of any ones comparing the Texts I produced together with those Explications and Arguments I urged to defend 'em with what hath been writ against them Nor do I in the least doubt but that an Equal Judge will determine for me And to Vossius If Crellius cannot Prove that it is Vnjust for One by his own Consent to bear the Punishment due to another which he will never be able to do the contrary being Agreeable to the Sentiments of the Wise in every Nation which in that very Book Crellius answered and since the Publishing his Answer in my Book de Jure Belli Pacis â—it de Poenarum Commun § xi I have fully shown and design to do it yet more largely in my Annotations Matt. 20.28 from Testimonies out of Hebrew Writers a Copy of which I have given to Mr. â—â—sse an English Divine who came over chiefly to make me a Visit 't will most certainly follow that neither Socinus nor Crellius had any Reason to leave the proper sign sâ—ation of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Price of our Redemption contrary to the most plain and manifest Sense of all Antiquity 2. This Great Man doth moreover provoke them to his Verity of Christian Religion for their Conviction that he had not â—harâ—d his Opinion about Christ's Satisfâ—ction If any saith he desire to know what my Judgment is about the Points Controverted between Crellius and my self since the coming out of his Book he may see it from what I have written on the fifty third of Isay 〈…〉 in my Disputation with the Jews and from what I have said in the close of my Book de Veritate The fifty third of I say he proves to be a Prophecy concerning the Messiah and gives such a Sense of Heb. 1.3 as is most opposite unto the Doctrine
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
only so deceitfully deliver his Sence as to bring the Truth in doubt but urges Arguments so closely in defence of Error as to give it the Advantage Though Sandius in his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec accuses Hoornbeck for misunderstanding Zarnovecius and Zarnovecius for misrepresenting Matters of Fact when in the Preface of his Answer to Socinus de Servatore he makes Ochinus to be his Master from whom he had his Errors Sandius is under the Mistake and Zarnovecius in the right Zarnovecius in his Preface Zarvov contra Socinum de servat Praef. having in one Paragraph shown too great an Agreement between Socinus the Jews and Turks doth in the next assure us That Socinus had not his Blasphemies against the Son of God out of the Holy Scriptures nor from the ancient consent of godly Men professing the Orthodox Faith from the Apostle's Days to our Times but out of the Dialogues of his Country-Man and undoubtedly his Master Ochinus who had written at large thirty years before By Master Zarnovecius cannot well be supposed to mean any more than One from whom Socinus took his Notions which is freely confessed by Socinus himself Socin Epist Vadovit in an Epistle to Vadovita Professor at Cracovia where he is positive That as he never Published any thing but by the Importunity of others so the very Notions complained or had been long before propagated by others both in Poland and elsewhere particularly by Ochinus as Zarnovecius had observ'd For really that Opinion saith Socinus is clearly asserted and inculcated in those Dialogues and it is in short this That Christ did indeed by his Blood wash away and expiate our Sins but in another Manner than that vulgarly received viz. That he by pouring out his Blood paid to Divine Justice all that we by reason of our Sins were indebted to it or that he made Satisfaction for us and our Sins for neither was there any need of it nor would God require the Punishment of our Sins from another or transact our Debts on him but freely forgive them This Passage of Socinus doth at once clear Zarnovecius from Sandius his Charge and prove Ochinus to be for the very Notions Socinus most heartily espoused which compared with the Profession Ochinus makes of the Orthodox Faith and his manner of handling it may convince an Unbyassed Mind that he made the first Publication of those Errors in that deceitful way since taken up by his Socinian Followers for tho' Socinus himself asserts That Ochinus openly delivered and inculcated the same Notion about Satisfaction he was charged with yet Ochinus doth it by his Friend Jacobus the other Dialogist pretending an Answer to the Arguments he had urged as if he had been a Zealous Asserter of the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction SECT IV. A Reflection on the deceitful Methods of the Socinians THESE few Instances are I presume sufficient to Evince that the Socinians are not the Fairest and most Candid Adversaries nor ever can be justly so esteemed except Deceit double Dealing and Hypocrisie be made the Ingredients of true Candor and a generous handling of Controversies For as you have seen their Method is first to make their Heresies look most like the Doctrines they oppose and as soon as they find their ensnared Proselites able to bear it they take of their Mask acknowledge the difference to be great and then go on to treat the Doctrines that just before they would be thought to be for to use Dr. Edwards his Word most n = * See Dr Edward's Preface to his Preservative against Socinianism scurrilously and with the greatest Impudence insinuating as if they had been the only Masters of Reason and sincerest Professors of true Piety and Holiness They are so humble and modest that it 's become impossible for them to forbear either the Despising others or Applauding themselves Socinus therefore could not but write a Treatise on purpose to prove That it 's the Duty of every good Man among the Reformed in Poland Socin in Append. to separate from them as from Persons too Impious to be Communicated with and joyn themselves to the more Holy Assemblies of those falsely and undeservedly to use his own Words called Afrians and Ebâ—onites He takes it for granted that the Reformed were very Vicious and Debauch'd and assigns the Reason partly to their Doctrines and partly to their Neglect of Discipline And glories in the Holiness of their own Assemblies pretending that such are their Principles and such the exactness of their Discipline that it could not well be otherwise This Book of Socinus was answered by Balthazzar Meisner Slicht cont Meis p. 485. a Lutheran but defended by Slichtingius who to expose the Reformed enumerates many vile Practices observed in common by them And in Vindication of Socinus and his Followers makes no scruple to assert That their Glorying not being Rash but well grounded is no more than what the Apostle hath done before them Ubi sup p. 488. nor did the Pharisee Sin in Publishing his Vertues but in Exalting himself and Contemning others when he should humbly have sought for the Pardon of his own Sins a thing they endeavoured even when they modestly mention the things done by their Assemblies that were worthy of Praise But though they usurp to themselves this Title viz. Great Masters of Reason they will not allow Reason the Privilege of being Competent enough to discover the plainest and most necessary Truth in the whole of our Religion namely That there is a God and in some of those very Instances in which they ascribe most unto it they oppose its clearest Maxims which is most effectually done in their Essays to destroy the Divine Nature of our Blessed Redeemer where struggling between plain Scripture and their own Error to maintain the latter which lyeth in their making him but a Finite Creature and own what is the burthen of the former that Infinite Perfections belong unto him and he the proper Object of our highest Adoration and Worship They contradict the clearest Reason as grosly as ever the Papists do by making a Finite Subject the Seat of Infinite Perfections Of this Przipcovius being aware he roundly asserts That Jesus Christ is truly God in a proper Sence and truly Man but not at the same time when on Earth he was properly Man and after his Resurrection and not till then truly and properly God A Notion as gross as the former a true God in a proper Sence and by Nature and yet a God but Sixteen or Seventeen Hundred Years ago Nor are they more happy in their Morals for beside their Hypocrisie their denying all secret Assistances and the certainty of God's fore-seeing all future Events that depend upon the freedom of Man's Will as a very learned Person hath lately observed must cut off the Exercise of many Devotions and much weaken our Confidence in God our Patience under all Misfortunes and our Expectations of a Deliverance in due
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
But are I cannot forbear saying so Impudent as to tell us Letter of Resolu concerning the Trinity and Incarnation p. 1â— That the Supremacy of the Pope was the First-born of the Trinity that from the Doctrine of the Incarnation arose the Worshiping of the Blessed Virgin the Apostles and other Saints Transubstantiation and the Worship of Images But what Connection can there be betwixt the Trinity and the Pope's Supremacy Or why must the Apostles be Religiously Worshiped because the Humane Nature of Christ who is God was born of the Virgin Is there any Sense or any Learning in such Sophistry No certainly and therefore § 2. They do with the Quakers in the next place Acts of Athanasius pag. 4. cry down Learning They Charge us for doing what is next to the Denial of the Holy Scriptures in that we elude say they the Plainest Text by Scholastick and Metaphysical Subtilties I know very well saith One Some Thoughts pag. 12. speaking of Us why they fancy Socinians to be Subtile Men It is because they oppose that Vain Learning which hath been introduced into the most Popular Catechisms and unto which most Men are Inured The Dirty Spring which hath Afforded their False Learning is the Gnosticism which boasted of Great Mysteries but of no Holy Practices They were the first Hereticks who made Perfection to consist in High Knowledge They also talk of the Mischievous Feats of Learning confirmed by Disputes between Protestants and Papists Both of 'em say they will make use of Metaphysicks and by the Help of such Theological Instruments each one will free himself from Difficulties and it shall not be known which of them gets the better In Effect each one will avoid the most pressing Arguments by contriving a Distinction more absurd than the very Opinion which he maintains one absurdity helping on another or by finding out a New Sense of the Authority brought against them They being sensible that when we Discourse of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation by the help of such Learning as their Sophistical Arguments are Detected and Exposed do find themselves necessitated to cry it down or give up their Cause The Latter they are not willing to do and therefore oppose the Former whereby the Herd of that Party are led Blindfold to a closure with such Notions of God as are Destructive of his very Being For whilst they are arguing against Scholastick Terms such as Trinity Coessentiality Modality Personality Eternal Generation Procession Incarnation Hypostatical Vnion and the like They meet with another Army of School Terms which are necessary to give us the clearer Ideas of what may be known of God such as Infinity Eternity Immensity Absolute Simplicity Pure Act Incorporeity Incomprehensibility And that they may the more roundly reject the Trinity and Incarnation they set themselves against the Infinity Immensity Simplicity Incomprehensibility c. of the Deity Some Thoughts p. 14. and thereby turn the Glory of the Incorruptible God into the Image of Corruptible Man To know saith One of 'em whether there is an Immensity of Essence or of Operation these are Metaphysicks out of my Reach Revelation doth not speak precisely about this A page or two before The Confessions of Faith which are puffed with Metaphysical Terms are nothing else but a Debaucht Faith What Notion then have they formed of God Their Admired Biddle will tell you God hath a Shape Prâ—sace to his Catechism hath his place in the Heavens and knoweth not our free Actions till they come to pass Thus they make God to be another such as themselves which is the Effect of that Contempt they cast upon Learning For when once they have with the Papists made Ignorance the Mother of Devotion they soon impose what they list on their Illiterate Admirers But seeing so long as Learned Men are amongst us in Reputation 't will be impossible for them to conceal from every body the real worth of such Studies or for themselves to escape the strength of their Arguments To make sure work therefore of it their next Endeavour is to load such Persons with the vâ—lest Reproaches § 3. They vilify the Learned now as the Quakers formerly have done The Learned say they if you speak of such as are Priests 〈◊〉 to Freâ— Enquity p. 3. and Ministers or Beneficed Men have such a Brass given to their Minds by the Awe of their Superiours to whom they are Accountable by Fears of Deprivation in Case of Professed Heterodoxy by their Subscriptions before they were able to Judge to the Articles of their several Churches that it may be said their Learning gives no Authority to their Opinion 'T is plain enough their Opinions are such as the Conditions and Terms of Preferment appointed by the Laws of the Country do Require of them except when a Party is grown Powerful enough to despise or to evade the Laws While they are shackled by early Subscriptions Hopes of Preferment Fears of Punishment and the like Restraints they are fitter to support the Kingdom of Darkness than to revive the true Light and Genuine Gospel of our Lord Christ None can escape their Revilings neither my Lord of Worcester nor my Lord of Glocester No not his Grace the late Arch-Bishop Answer to the Arch-bishop p. 44. These are made the great Pensioners of the World 'T is certain say they we have a mighty Propensity to believe as is for our Interest and Turn Men will perswade themselves to a great deal only to be Quiet But if you bribe 'em too with great Rewards what wâ—ll they not say what will they not do But the Church hath taken a further care to keep her Sons in the Right way for the Fears and Awes she proposes are even Greater than her Bribes For as they who bestow their Children upon the Church reckon they are Amply provided for in the Care and Favour of so Wealthy a Mother and therefore seldom give those Children any further Inheritance So this is the Occasion that these Adopted Sons should they do or affirm any thing contrary to the Commands or the Declarations of the Church they are sure to starve because they are sure to be cast out I think therefore it 's no Immodesty to say that our Opposers being under the Power of such Fatal Biasses their Doctrine is the more to be suspected and the more to be examined because 't is theirs They are Great Men indeed every way great that Defend against us the Doctrine of the Trinity but then 't is that they must maintain it Set 'em at Liberty Discharge 'em of their Awes and Fears Let the Church Preferments be proposed only as the Rewards of Learning and Piety as they were first intended not of holding these or those Opinions and Doctrines and it shall be soon seen how many Eyes this Liberty would open These Passages do shew with what Tenderness Respect and Modesty English Socinians do Calumniate their Learned Adversaries
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
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
THE Growth of Error BEING AN EXERCITATION CONCERNING The Rise and Progress of ARMINIANISM and more especially SOCINIANISM both abroad and now of late in England By a Lover of Truth and Peace Psal 7.14 Behold he travelleth with Iniquity and hath conceived Mischeif and brought forth Falshood LONDON Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill 1697. THE PREFACE WHEN I first observ'd how suddenly the Socinian Heresie spread it self throughout the Nation I could not satisfie my self without making some Enquiry how it came to pass which I no sooner did but perceiv'd that Pretences either to Reason or Revelation were not indeed the true Cause thereof so much as the Industry Artifice and Deceitful Methods of the Heresiarchists who being themselves struck Blind by the Divine Glory which shines in the Mysteries of our Holy Religion and hardened also through the Innate Aversion that is in us by Nature unto the Self-abusing Truths in the Gospel have made it their Province to pervert such whom they found pliable to how down to the Idol of a Religion of their making Some of their Methods I have detected in the Ensuing Discourse and if God give leave may do more hereafter I have traced out some Foot-steps in the Arminian Party conducing towards the Socinian Cause and am sorry to see how many among the Orthodox by their Heats and Indiscretions have contributed too much toward the Propagation of Errour as well as they that have run to the contrary Extreme in their opposing Socinian and Arminian Notions Whether in Imitation of the Italian Combinators there are any amongst us have joyn'd themselves to the Orthodox with a Design to subvert the Truths they profess to own and introduce the Contrary they pretend a Zeal against I will not say But this will I say that tho' my Charity to Men whose Principles are very different from what I hold who I believe sincere and open in their Enunciations is by many that know me observ'd to be of a Latitude as they think to a Fault yet not being able to abide any of these Hypocritical and Deceitful Trickings in Matters Religious which to my great Sorrow I see now tho' formerly I could not believe I shall for the unburthening my Conscience and for the sake of the Vnwary show that there are sundry Principles advanced by Men of Reputation among the sound in the Faith that do in ther Tendency leade to what these drive who are of the worst Sort that is the English Socinians And that my Impartiality may appear as I have not so will I not forbear to express my just Indignation against those Antinonian Dotages with their Mischievous Effects which have been not only an Inlet to a loose Life but the Occasion of hurrying so many into that wicked Heresie And when I do as I intend this I desire to be found one neither so to affect to be Orthodox as to become censorious towards my Brethren who out of Judgement or Conscience differ from me in any tolerable Opinion nor so afraid to be Heterodox as to decline the Examination or Reception of any Momentous Point that shall be offered me by another whereof I am convinced that it is first True and then also profitable either for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction or Instruction in Righteousness to the Church of God March the 4 th 1697. S. L. ERRATA PAge 16. line 2. after Doctrine read in another Instance P. 17. l. 8. for Personality r. Deity P. 63. l. 11. r. into P. 81. l. 8. for confirming r. confining P. 83. l. 13. r. subrogatum l. 14. r. subrogatur P. 86. l. 1 2. dele or improve l. 13. r. 1691. P. 124. l. 4. dele till P. 166. l. 28 29. r. For to the End they might P. 184. l. 23. r. which P. 195. l. 5. for one r. on P. 207. l. 2. after to add be OF THE GROWTH OF ERROR The Introduction GREAT and Pernicious Errors having been insensibly spread through this Nation an Account of their Rise and Progress and of the various and sundry Methods which have been taken for their Propagation will not I presume be unnecessary but rather a Caution to young Students a prevention of their Fall if not a means to recover others that have been already tainted And that I may be the more clear and distinct in the Account I give I must in the first place mention the Errors my Discourse is of For though there is a great Cognation and Alliance between one Error and another and the most opposite Heresies at last center in the same Point Yet on an easie search we shall find vast Differences between them some greater others less some in one others in a contrary extream But in all a Tendency to Atheism or to use the new and finer word to express the same thing Deism As there are gradual Recesses from Truth the first and least observable Turn from it prepares the way for a greater but whilst near unto Truth the Error is so like it that it cannot be easily discern'd or detected And he who makes the first step towards it doth er'e he is aware slide into a greater and no sooner perceives where he is but thinks himself too far gone to make an honourable Retreat whereby the Error which had it's first rise from Inadvertency is upheld and supported by the Lust or sensual Interest of its Embracers Thus the Amyraldians amongst whom they who are sincere in what they Profess as I doubt not but there are many such cannot see wherein they differ from their Brethren except in the way and method of Explaining and Defending the same Doctrine and therefore assume to themselves the Title of New Methodists firmly adhering to old Truths Now of these how many slide into Arminianism and from thence pass over unto the Tents of â—ocinus Though they set up for Men of a middle way between the extreams of Calvin and the Excesses of Van Harmine yet on the turn from the former they fall in so far with the latter in their Concessions that it 's become impossible for them to make a just Defence of what they hold in opposition to the other Parts of the Arminian System and therefore at last fall in entirely with them and run their length In like manner the Arminians who pretend a middle way between the Orthodox and Socinian are in the twinkling of an Eye fallen under Socinus his Banner confounding Holy Scripture with their odd Glosses and unintelligible Interpretations framing Idea's of the Divine Being so unworthy of it as to provoke some to deny all reveal'd Religion and others to turn Atheists Now 't is the rise and progress of these mischievous Errors embracd and propugnd by the followers of Arminius and Socinus that my Discourse is design'd to be of Errors which above Fifty years ago on their first appearances amongst us so alarm'd the Nation as to put it into a very terrible Convulsion But since that day through
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
about the Holiness and Rnighteousness of God cannot but profess to believe that there is no Justification to be had in the sight of God wâ—â—o it a perfect Righteousness and to the end they may the more easily quiet an awakenâ—d Conscience without the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness they either hold that the Law of Works is Abolished and a New Law Erceled A New a mere easie Law so siamâ—d and squar'd to their corrupt Natures as to make their Defective Obedience a perfect Gospel Righteousness fully answering the New Rule they have invented Or affirm That their Faith though it falls short of the Law is nevertheless counted by God for a compleat Performance of it as a late Author supposed to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ hath expressed it in his Reasonableness of Christianity who saith The Law of Works is that Law which requires Perfect Obedience without any Remission or Abatement The Language of this Law is Do this and Live Transgress and Die. P. 20. Those that Obey are Righteous those that in any part Disobey are Unrighteous and must not expect Life the Reward of Righteousness But by the Law of Faith Faith is allowed to supply the Defect of full Obedience and so the Believers are admitted to Life and Immortality as if they were Righteous P. 22. The Moral Law which is every where the same the Eternal Rule of Right obliges Christians and all Men every where and is to all Men the standing Law of Works But Christian Believers have the Privilege to be under the Law of Faith too which is that Law whereby God justifieth a Man for Believing though by his Works he be not Just or Righteous i. e. though he come short of Perfect Obedience to the Law of Works God alone does or can justifie or make just those who by their Works are not so which he doth by counting their Faith for Righteousness i. e. for a compleat Performance of the Law So far this Learned Author who in Opposition to the former that destroys the Old and invents a New Law so framed as to turn our Defective into a Perfect Obedience doth first by Reasons Invincible Establish the Law of Works in all its Parts and then adds a New Law unto it and God's Gracious Esteeming our Faith as fully answering the Law of Works and so stretcheth our Defective Faith to the utmost length of Perfect Obedience As the one brings down the Law to our Imperfection the other raises our Imperfection to the same height with the Law But so long as the Law of Works remains in its Strength there can be no New Rule brought down to make Sin cease to be Sin or turn a Defecrive into a Perfect Obedience And so long as the All-knowing God Judges of things as they are Imperfect Faith can never pass at his Tribunal for a Compleat Performance of the Law there must be then a Perfect Righteousness fully answering the Law of Works or no Justification And it 's more easie as well as more conform to Holy Scripture to believe That the Righteousness of Christ which consists in a full Performance of the Law of Works is given to all that have Faith and by Donation is really made theirs and being really theirs may be justly esteem'd to be theirs and they justified by it But these Men if not mistaking yet surely misrepresenting the old Doctrine as covered with innumerable Absurdities do not only drive their Admirers off from Examining it but so sill their Minds with Prejudices against it as to make them willing to take up with any thing rather than with the Truth especially in a Case so pleasing because somewhat of their own is made their Justifying Righteousness CHAP. III. The deceitful Methods used by Hereticks a cause of Error more generally proposed The approaches of Socinus and his Followers towards the Orthodox The real difference there is between them in Fundamentals A Reflection on these Methods Arminians take the same course c. SECT I. The deceitful methods used by Hereticks more generally proposed Their rise in the Apostles days The deceitful Methods used by some Men of great Learning is another Cause of the growth of Error THERE being some Foundation-Truths so fully clearly and distinctly reveal'd in Holy Writ as to command the Assent of the Church Vniversally in all Ages excepting that in which the Christ an World became Arian they who have been their chief Opposers have retained the Words and Phrases by which those Truths have been transmitted down unto us and introduced their particular Opinions by an Heterodox sense they have fixed on them And when suspected that they might the more effectually conceal their Errors have subscribed sound Catechisms and Confessions whereby they have had the fairer opportunity to instil their Dogmata into the minds of Youth and other less studied Persons and under the Notion of being firm Adherers to the common Faith have engaged them to a closure with the unsoundest Parts of their Heretical Scheme In the Apostles days they who err'd from the Faith attempted by good words and fair speeches to seduce the simple Rom. 16.18 And Irenaeus who lived near that time Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans describing the Hereticks of that Age Digres de 〈◊〉 â—heol Helmstad Râ—g Syn◠〈◊〉 pag. â—88 as Calevius observes tells us that they speak like unto the Orthodox This was the way Arius after he was driven from Alexandria for his Heresie took to be restored to the Emperour's favour tho' he retained his Error yet subscribed a found confession of Faith as 't is reported by Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. l. c. 25 c. Pelagius when conven'd before a Provincial Synod at iâ—iospolis in Pelaestine at which Fourteen Bishops were present but not his Accusers August â—eâ—ract lib. 2 〈◊〉 47. 〈◊〉 ad 〈…〉 doth concur with the Orthodox in condemning his own Opinions but as Vossius out of St. Austin observes he dâ—d it very deceitfully Pelagianamsententiam pectore quidem ficto sed tamen Catholicos judices timens Pelagius ipse damnavit And as the same Possius adds Hierom. Epist 79. St. Hierom calls this Synod a miserable one because tho' they err'd not in Doctrines yet not discerning the falshood of the man they â—rrâ—d in the Judgment they past on him who being better known at Rome could not conceal his Treacherous Endeavours but was soon detected by the Bishops of that place Vâ—ss Hest Pelar lib. 1. Cap. 41. Hareâ—ici imitantur Catholicos fâ—eut simiae imitantur homineâ— Cyâ—â—â—ian ad Jubajanum This being the common practice of Hereticks St. Cyprian compares them to Apes saying they imitate the Orthodox as Apes do Men. Now this having been a very successful as well as a most pernicious Articice in constant practice amongst the Ancients the Socinian and Armintan Leaders whose Reputation hath been and is still so great that the respect multitudes have for them in regard to
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
the Difference lyeth in Fundamentals THAT they deny the Trinity of Persons in the God-head the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Personality of the Holy Spirit is the Burthen of all their Writings Who can cast his Eye on Socinus Slichtingius Crellius Wolzogenius and Smalcius and not see how much they expose these Doctrines Enjedinus hath a large Quarto to prove that not one Word either in the Old or New Testament can be found to favour the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ Franciscus Davidis and George Blandrata in their Refutation of George Major insinuate that this Blessed Doctrine is a Papal Antichristian Invention The Blasphemies of Servetus may be seen in Calvin's Refutation of them but too vile at this time to be mentioned And in Calvin's Explication of Valentinus Gentilis his Perfidiousness there is an account of his Opposition to the same Truths And whoever will may consult Sandius his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec where is a large Catologue of Socinian Writers against the Trinity c. And Christ's Satisfaction which is really subverted by the denyal of his Divinity is also expresly Exploded Though they grant a Satisfaction the Payment of a Price the enduring a Punishment a Punishment equipollent to what we have by our Sins deserved yet they mean quite another thing than what is generally understood by us which as soon as they have by the use of Orthodox Expressions ensnared their Readers to put a favourable Sence upon their Writings they discover Insinuating that the Satisfaction they and as they will have it the Holy Scriptures are for is not to God's Justice it is not properly by paying a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price a full Price nor an Equivalent to what we deserved It is only a Satisfaction improperly and in a Figurative a Metaphorical Sence and that only to the Divine Will and called Satisfaction for no other Reason than because God is pleased freely to accept on 't as such Ruarus therefore having called Christ's Sufferings a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price Equipollent to what our Sins deserved adds Not that it is so any otherwise than Exclementi Deâ—â—â—cceptatione that is to say Christ's Sufferings are Satisfactory through God's Gracious Acceptation not to his Justice but Will which Smalcius in his Answer to Smiglecius his Preface to his Discourse about Christâ—s Satisfaction doth thus explain We do acknowledge that Christ did satisfie in all those things imposed on him by God Smal. Fraef ad Smigl de Satisf for the procuring our Salvation but Christ did not satisfie that Justice of God which cannot suffer any Sin to go unpunished and appease God's Anger reconcâ—le him unto us by enduring those Punishments in our Stead that were due unto us and meriting Salvation for us Though there can be no Redemption without a full and satisfying Price and notwithstanding the Holy Scriptures speak much of Redemption and of a Price a full Price and of Christ's Redeeming us by his Blood as the Price which Expressions can import nothing less than a proper Satisfaction yet have they the Confidence to assert not only that Christ's Redemption may be but must be without Satisfaction that such is the transcending Mercy of God in our Redemption that it cannot be otherwise That the Righteousness of God exacting Satisfaction in order to the Pardon of our Sins is not so much as to be mentioned that there is no such Righteousness in God That it 's inconsistent with the Excellency of his Grace and Mercy So Smale ubi sup To put the best Colours they can upon this their odd Notion they having granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Price and full Price doth signifie a proper Price paid for the Redeeming a Slave out of Captivity they averr that in the Holy Scriptures it must be taken otherwise viz. improperly and Metaphorically Wolzogenius in his Commentary on Matthew interpreting these Words Chap. 20.28 The Son of Man gave his Life a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ransom for many confesseth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wolz. Mat. 20.28 Ransom doth properly signifie the Payment of a Price for a Captive and a Liberation or Deliverance from his Captivity However it is taken amongst Prophane Writers and almost every where in the Holy Scripture Metaphorically for a Liberation without respect to the Payment of any Price for it cannot saith he be proved That Christ did make any Payment to the Justice of God by his Death for there is no such Justice in God as doth exact Vindictive Punishment for Sins Crellius in his Answer to Grotius de Satisfactione Crel Respons ad Grot. de Satisf c. 6. Socin Praelect Theol. 6.19 argues after the same manner Wolzogenius doth and what both urge was more fully done before by Socinus himself in his Theological Prelections As Redemption which properly is the Paying a full Price for the Deliverance of a Slave carries in it Satisfaction and therefore by the Enemies of Christ's Satisfaction the Scriptures which speak of Redemption without the least shadow of a Reason are turn'd into Metaphors so Christ's â—earing our Sorrows though granted by them meets with the same Treatment For as Smalcius We confess that Christ did truly bear our Griefs and Sorrows Smalâ— contra Smigl de Satisf c. 6. p. 223. but we deny it to be in that manner which Smaglecius affirms it to be namely that Christ bore the Punishment of our Sins for as in this manner 't is Impossible Blasphemous and Pernicious so there are other ways in which Christ may be said to bear our Sins and they such as are more conform to the Holy Scriptures more worthy of God and safe for Men namely That Christ suffered Death by Reason of our Sins That he would never have Suffered if Man had not Sinned and that he himself bore our Sins that is abolished them it being most certain that the Word Bearing in Scripture signifieth a Power to take away Further God exacted not any Punishment due ex Justitia being an absolute Soveraign Smalc ubi sup p. 293. p. 300. who can as he pleaseth forgive the Sins committed against him nor did Christ offer up himself to bear the Punishment of our Sins nor if Christ had so offerd up himself might God accept it For if God had Punished the Innocent for the Nocent he would have been not only Cruel but Injust and Unwise And within a few Pages after this he insinuates as if the Doctrine of Satisfaction as held by the Orthodox makes God more Cruel than any Tyrant And whereas it is expresly asserted by the Holy Ghost in 2 Cor. 5. and last Verse That Christ is made Sin to take off the Force of the Argument we draw from thence Smalcius doth assert Smalc Refut Smigl de satisf c. 7. p. 229. That to be made Sin cannot signifie a Sacrifice for Sin but Christ is said to be made Sin because he was dealt with by God as if
time Further their vacating and making void the Fourth Commandment which is attended with a neglect of the Lord's Day is an in-let into all manner of Vice and the very Notions they frame of God to support their other Errors are such as lessen the Fear Men ought to have of God's Judgments And as Dr. Edwards hath well observed Socinus by denying the Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ hath plainly over-turn'd the Foundation Preser against Socin p. 42. 43. upon which the Christian Church and Religion have been built and by his other Methods hath given a shrew'd blow to all Religion whatsoever whether Natural or Revealâ—d so that an unwary Reader by perusing his Writings may find himself an Atheist before he well perceives how he comes to be so as he saith in another Case viz. His Opinion against Hell Torments that he had so contriv'd the Matter Vt lector prius sentiat Doctrinam istam sibi jam persuasum esse quam suaderi animadvertat When I most impartially weigh these things I mean their deceitful Attempts to ensnare the Unwary to favour their Opinions their Contemptuous Treatment of the Blessed Mysteries of the Gospel and its Advocates together with their assuming to themselves the Character of being the most Rational Divines and Men of Excelling Piety and Holiness even when none do more contradict the plainest Maxims of Reason and lay a surer Foundation for the utmost Immoralities When I lay these things together I am so far from thinking as those great Men do who represent them to be the fairest Adversaries that I rather incline at least to fear that the Account given of them by the despised Lubbertus which I will lay down in his own Words is most true They are saith he Arrogant and Proud who measure all things by vaâ—n Glory and empty Names of Honour when they see that those who in other Disciplines invent some new Notions to be Commended they think it will be Laudable in them to Innovate in Sacred Theology And being unskill'd in true Divinity they despair of gaining a Name by Explicating or Defending the Orthodox Doctrine But burning with a desire of Praise they disturb every thing that they may be Famous and had rather be talk'd of for breaking of Churches than grow old without Fame in the true and Orthodox Religion When they perceive other Learned Men to be preferr'd before them they are angry and what is most base they Dissemble and Counterfeit the Orthodox Religion pretend to a Zeal for defending sound Doctrine Lubbert Praef. ad lib. de Jesu servat cont Socin p. 2. swear to our received Confessions and Catechisms and with their own Hands subscribe to what they swore and yet they with utmost Endeavours oppose the Sound and publickly embraced Doctrine and craftily instill a new and wicked One into their Disciples and carry about Calumnies against the Orthodox Thus much touching the Methods used by Foreign Socinians to insinuate and spread their Errors I will in the next place show how exactly they are followed by the Remonstrants and then acquaint the Reader with the Arts of out English Socinians SECT V. The Arminians imitate the Socinians They pretend an Agreement with the Orthodox THE Arminians to the end they might with the greater Success insinuate their Errors do also their utmost to cover them Nothing therefore they say can be found amongst their Assertions but what is conform to the Holy Scriptures the Heidelberg Catechism established A. D. 1578. by a Synod of Dort for the publick use of their Churches the Belgick and other Reformed Confessions Armin. Epist ad Hypolit Arminius in his Epistle to Hypolitus à Collibus protests that he never either in the Church or University taught any thing but what was according to the Holy Scriptures the Belgick Confession and Heidelberg Catâ—echism In a Letter to Johannes Matthisius These things which I have at this time delivered as they do agree with the Holy Scriptures so they are not contrary to our Confession and Catechism for which reason I do the more freely express my self In another to Sebastian Egbert I do publickly preach to a numerous Auditory and frequently dispute when my Reverend Collegues are present at which times I have used the greatest freedom in the Answers I have return'd to Objections Besides I have a private College at which thirty Students or more attend and yet never hath there been the least mention that I ever uttered any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures or our Confessions and Catechism although some of my Collegues whose Zeal is such for the Purity of Doctrine that they would never have been silent had they whereof to accuse me have been instigated thereunto And whereas it 's spread abroad that I direct my Pupils to Read the Writings of the Jesuits and Coornhertius the slander is so gross that I cannot find softer Words to express it by than to say It is a down right Lye for I never advis'd so much as one to any such thing But this indeed I do after the Reading of the Scriptures which I do most earnestly press yea more than any other as the whole Academy can testifie I do direct to the reading of Calvin's Commentaries which I praise much more than Helmichius himself ever did as he hath confess'd For I do esteem them to excell all others so much in the Interpretation of Scriptures that there are none to be compared with them in the Bibliotheca Patrum that there was a more excellent Spirit in him than in any other As for Common Places I Recommed his Institutions to be read after the Catechism as containing the best Explication of it For the truth of this I can bring a multitude of Witnesses In a Declaration of his Sentiments made to the States of Holland and West-Frâ—ezeland wherein are the Reasons why he declin'd to give any Answer to the Questions propos'd by Lansbergius Fraxinus and Dolegius Deputies from the Synod of South-Holland and by Eogardus and Rolandus Deputies from the Synod of North-Holland his endeavour is to show an Agreement between his Notions in each of the controverted Articles and the Belgick Confession and Catechism I will give you what he saith touching the Grace of God in Conversion and the Justification of a Sinner in the sight of God What concerns the Grace of God I do first of all saith he believe it to be that gracious and free Affection whereby God doth take pity on a miserable Sinner by which he doth in the first place give his Son that whoever believes in him may have Everlasting Life then doth he justifie him and give him the Privilege of a Child by Adoption even a Right to Salvation 2. This Grace is an infusion of all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which are for the Regenerating and renewing of the Vnderstanding as well as Will and Affections such as Faith Hope Charity c. without which Gifts of Grace no Man is able
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
it self which they do so closely urge that the Remonstrants in their Examen are forc'd to be more free in their Acknowledgements than their open â—â—igns would otherwise have admitted 'T is true Episcopius in his answer to Homnius and in his Bodecheruâ— Inepâ—â—ens would fain clear himself and his Partners from this Charge and to do them right for I would not willingly misrepresent them I must confess that in an instance or two the Report made of Episcopius was not so well grounded as might be wished For Homnius in his Specimen Quotes Episcopius for denying that we can attain unto the knowledge of God by the Light of Nature which is a Notion advanced by Socinus Episcop disput privat de Cognit Dei Corol. 2. Vid. Fest Homn. Spec. Controver Art 3. that Festus might fasten this imputation on Episcopius he refers his Reader to his private Disputations about the knowledge of God where the question is whether the knowledge of God be Natural To which Episcopius is said to answer by a distinction thus We distinguish whether the knowledge of God which is attained unto by Nature be Natural and holds it in the Negative This very passage is several years after the Synod of Dort repeated by Peltius To this Episcopius doth Satyrically enough reply charging Homnius for being a Falsarius who not only perverted his sense but changed his very words putting into his corollary Naturalis instead of Salutaris This charge if true being so very high I could not satisfie my self till I had examin'd the Place to which Homnius doth refer and whatever was in the Manuscript in the Print I found it thus viz. in the close of Episcopius his Disputation about the knowledge of God there are three Corollaries the second and third being in these words 2. An Cognitio Dei sit Naturalis 3. An Cognitio Dei quae ex Natura habetur Salutaris sit N. This third Corollary supposing the knowledge of God to be Natural cannot without a too severe Reflection on Episcopius his understanding be taken as Homnius hath Represented it for as it 's thus the question must be whether the knowledge of God had from Nature be Natural whereby as the question is it self an absurdity so the denyal carries in it a contradiction as gross as that Light is not Light that what is from Nature is not Natural can signifie no less than that what is Natural is not Natural But to hold that the knowledge of God which is from Nature is not saving is a truth aptly enough express'd and what the Remonstrants profess to be for as I hope on another occasion more fully to observe However the Matter of Fact concerning the Remonstrants disposition towards the Socinians is too manifest to admit of doubt and there is much more said by Homnius Bodecherus Peltius Vedelius and many others about their Agreement in Principles than hath been fully answer'd either by Grotius Episcopius or any other that I have met with Besides the Applauses given the Remonstrants by the Socinians and the numbring them amongst the supporters of their Dogmata with the Remonstrants declining to condemn them the Reasons why they do so their setting them in a higher Class than the Calvinists and maintaining Communion with them amongst the Mennonists sets it above all Dispute Vorstius tho a celebrated Remonstrant yet in good earnest a Socinian as may be inferr'd from what Smalcins a great defender of Socinus in an Epistle represents him to be namely a most useful Man for whom many Prayers were sent to Heaven by their Churches in Poland It 's true Sandius was a while in doubt whether he should place this Vorstius among the Antitrinitarian Writers but when he considered how much he valued the Writings of the Sarmatian Vnitarians that he was the Author of the Compendium Socinianismi answer'd by Cloppenburg and supposed to have been written by Ostorodius and Voidovius that the Lublinse Synod did in the Year 1600 call him to the Government of one of their Schools and had seen a Confession of his Faith composed by him on his Dying Bed where he spake more freely of God and Jesus Christ When Sandius Sand. Biblioth Anti-trin pag. 98 99. had weighed these things he doth with utmost assurance give him a place in the Antitrinitarian Bibliothec as he also doth his Son William Henry Vorstius Pastor of a Church among the Remonstrants and Curcellaeus who succeeded Episcopius in the Professors Chair at Amsterdam Furthermore I add out of Bogermanus his Notes on the defence of Vorstius and the Remonstrants Praef. Lib. de Authorit S Script made by Grotius that Vorstius his zeal for Socinianism remarkably appear'd in his publishing Socinus his Discourse concerning the Authority of the Holy Scriptures which he recommended to the Reader as solid nervous profitable and almost necessary for those times tho 't was really full of Socinianism and esteem'd by that Party as an introduction to their Religion What therefore hath been urg'd by Grotius Episcopius or others in defence of Vorstius or by Vorstius himself to throw off the charge of Socinianism doth serve only to convince us of the Hypocrisie of the Man and that according to the fears of some of his Socinian Friends Epist Smalc Vorstio he had got so much of the Serpentine Craft as to have lost the Innocency of the Dove What less than this can be the Import of Vorstius's recommending a Book in which Socinus had laid the Foundation of his Heretical Superstructure as nervous profitable and necessary and yet in a Letter to David Paraeus Vorst Epist â—araeo declares that he condemned the Errors of Socinus about the Person and Office of Christ of Faith Justification and the like and whatever smelt of Socinianism But this deceitful method they learned of Ochinus who sometime before Faustus Socinus wrote any thing vended the very Errors that are now called Socinianism who as I have already observed whilst he brought many Arguments against the Truth would be thought an embracer of it And as Vorstius Father and Son with Curcellaeus Vid. Dedi cat Pesâ—iâ— ad Harmon Remonst Socin are set in the Anti-trinitarian Bibliothec so Arminius himself as Peltius out of Paraeus averrs is received by the Socinians as theirs His words are Paraeus in an Epistle dated the first of March 161â— writes thus the Socinians in Poland have expressly named your Arminius as their own together with Bonfinius and Acontius their secret Followers by whose Authority they demanded Admittance to the Communion of the Orthodox but 't was Resolutely denyed them And as the Socinians Reckoned the Remonstrants amongst their Worthies even such as Arminius himself Applauding them for supporting their Dogmata in like manner tho the Socinians deny the Deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit as also the satisfaction of our Redeemer the Remonstrants in return to their Socinian Brethren will by no means allow them to be Hereticks Episcopius tho
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
a Person or not About the Invocation of Jesus Christ whether a Duty or not So that from any thing hath been Published by â—em we can't be sure that any two of them are of the same Religion Howbeit altho' they can't Agree what Religion to be of they are most Vnanimous in Determining what to be against it being their Master-piece to Quarrel with our Confessions and Catechisms Destroy our Systems and Tare up old Foundations One saith He can't find any Satisfaction or Consistency in any of our Systems Praes to Reas of Christian Another Complains that there is no Catechism yet Extant that he could ever see or hear of from whence he could Learn the True Grounds of Christian Religion Praes to Bid. Catechism as the same is Delivered in the Holy Scriptures The Examiner of Mr. Fdward's Exceptions runs higher Declaring that the Obscurity p. 4. â— Numerousness and Difficulty of Understanding Systematical Fundamentals Promotes Deism and Subverts the Christian Faith These are some of their ways SECT II. The English Socinians do studiously Endeavour to Conceal the Religion They are of THat they may make it the more Difficult for us to Know what it is they are for they Hide themselves under the Comprehensive Name of Vnitarians and Anti-Trinitarians whereby they Reserve to themselves the Liberty of setting up either for Arians Photinians Jews Mahometans or Deists who Call themselves Vnitarians nor will they when hard Put to it Undertake the Defence of any One no not of Socinus himself altho' they hold what is Peculiar to men of his Spirit Tho' they say That Jesus Christ was the Son of God Some The. p. 4. only in a sense of Consecration and of Mission and consequently that his Unity with the Father is not an Essential and Natural Vnity but a meer Moral and Relative Vnity which consisting in the Equality of Works not of Essence which is Absolutely Incommunicable c. When this is Socinianism all over p. 18. yet are they not Socinians any more than they are Papists Lutherans or Calvirists Answer to Dr. Wallis Four Letters p. 16. They do not Profess to Follow Socinus but the Scripture If Socinus has at any time spoken Erroneously or Vnadvisedly or Hyper bolically 't is not Socinus who is their Master but Christ When they Pretend to tell us what they are it 's so Mysteriously that no one can tell what to make of ' em They are Christians they thank God they Side with Truth Some The p. 18. and take Shelter in the Bosom of that Catholick Church which stands Independently upon any thing that goeth under the Name of a Party But where shall we find such a Church Not among Ebionites Nazarenes Meneans Alogi Arians or Socinians All these go under the Name of Parties Wherefore seeing they Renounce the Fundamentals of Christianith as Embraced by us they must be Acknowledged to wrap themselves up in some Mastery Or to have no Catholick Church to Shelter themselves in To Compleat the Mystery They are upon Dr. S's Terms heartily of the Communion of the Church of England but Independently upon any Faction whatsoever It 's like we have Anti-Trinitarians as well as Trinitarians in the Communion of the Church of England which is not more Possible nor less Mysterious than that the Denyal of the Trinity should fignify the Affirmation and Belief of it However giving them this 't will unavoidably sollow that two Distinct Parties as contrary to each other as Light and Darkness do constitute the Church And such of us as want their Sagacity are Tempted to conclude that so long as they are against the Doctrine of the Trinity they are Anti-Trinitarians And if they think we are a Faction we know them to be so If therefore they are not of the Orthodox Party except they believe with Teague that my Lord Duke is neither Dead nor Alive they must be of the Anti-Trinitarian Faction and yet be heartily of the Communion of the Church Independently upon any Faction whatsoever That is to say they are of a Communion made up of but two Parties vid. Trinitarian and Anti-Trinitarian without being in Communion either with the One or the Other But do we what we can seeing they Profess to Believe there is but One Person Only in the God-Head they must be we count Anti-Trinitarians and the Belief of the Trinity being essential to our Christianity as Christianity is to Church Communion t is as impossible for any One to be of the Communion of the Church whilst an avowed Anti-Trinitarian as it is to be a Christian without the Essentials of Christianity We can't therefore Comprehend How these Men can be of the Churches Communion If they have a Distinction to solve this Difficulty it must be a monstrous Mysterious One Whether Intelligible or Contradictions let them Judge Touching their Sincerity in the using these Methods I will not concern my self knowing that however it be it 's clear that their Design is to Conceal their Religion which I confess is their wifest Course seeing it is such as can't bear the Brightness and Glory of the Light SECT III. The English Socinians judge more Charitably of the Salvation of Jews and Turks than of Orthodox Christians whom they make to be as Bad as Egyptian and Roman Pagans WHen I first made Enquiry after the Reason why these Gentlemen declined a Defence of the Foreign Socinians and Refused to be Described from their Books I was of Opinion they thought themselves Unable for so great an Undertaking But on a more close Examination I am convinced that this is not the Only Reason there is another namely this They can't Extend their Charity so far towards us as Foreign Socinians have done How ill soever I have Proved the Forreign Socinians to be it must still be Acknowledged that not only in Learning but in Temper they greatly Excel the English And tho' they look'd upon the Orthodox to have Erred from the Truth yet esteemed them not to be either Idolaters or Hereticks or out of the Way to Salvation Ruarus in an Epistle to Mersennus Ruarus Epist 56. p. 260. doth clear us from the guilt of Idolatry tho we Worship the Divinity of Christ as Eternal which he esteems an Error For saith he Who is there of our own way that dares arrogate to himself so perfect a Knowledge of the Divine Nature that another more sharp and acute than himself may not Convince him that in some respect he had Framed a False Idea of God Socinus in his second Answer to Volanus enters his Protestation against the making us Hereticks Partic. 5â— His words are Altho' I hold that Christ before he was Born of Mary had no Existence yet do I Confess him to be God even to be True God in Opposition to a False and Imaginary God And altho' I Deny Christ to be that God who Created the Heavens and the Earth yet do I not make them
good earnest they own not Christ though they dare not Openly yet Really do they deny Jesus to be the Christ Besides Vujekus upbraiding the Socinians with the Opinion and fatal end of Jacobus Palaeologus who with Johannes Sommerus Matthias Glirius and many others opposed the Adoration of Christ and was at last Burnt for his Heresies at Rome Socinus in his Reply tells them his Sense thus But as to Palaeologus Resp ad Vujek p. 42. whom they take for granted to be One of Us I answer that his being Reconciled to the Church of Rome was so far from being a Token of God's Favour unto him that it was a due Reward of his Impiety For besides his not sticking to Traduce our Party how Innocent soever as the most Arrant Knaves whom in the mean time he Blushes not to call Brethren He also was one and if I mistake not a leading Man among them who now a days affirm that Christ is neither to be Adored nor Invocated And yet they Impudently Profess themselves Christians a Device to deprave our Religion in my Opinion so Wicked that there could hardly be a Worser invented And as they could not Oppose the Adoration of Christ and Remain Christians so this their Principle leads 'em to Judaism For saith Socinus ever since I saw what Franciscus Davidis had Written against the Invocation of Christ I openly declared my Sentiments touching the Tendency of his Notion to Judaism and how it exalted Moses above Christ For this Reason more especially because if they hold that Christ may not be of Right Invocated he is not Really but only in Name Christ Socin Praef. ad Resp F. David And I Remember very well that in the Presence of Franciscus Davidis I pressed Glirius freely to tell me whether he believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ But he would give me no Answer c. What Socinus hath on this occasion delivered doth sufficiently evince that he Condemns not only Franciscus Davidis but all whosoever they be that are against the Rendring Divine Worship unto Christ even our English Socinians themselves if they do so for being far worse than Hereticks who in Reality deny Jesus to be the Christ and therefore can't be Christians nor clear themselves from the Charge of Mahometanism nor their Principles from a Tendency to Judaism Now that the Generality of the English Socinians do Reject the Adoration of Christ and are for giving him no other sort of Honour than they do to Men in Civil Power to Prophets or Saints in Glory is manifest from what they avouch There are Answ to Milbern p. 50. say they no Acts of Worship ever required to be paid to the Lord Jesus Christ but such as may be paid to a Civil Power to a Person in High Dignity and Office to Prophets and Holy Men or to such as are actually possest of the Heavenly Beatitudes Though some may be otherwise minded yet the Generality of them fall in with Palaeologus Sommerus Glirius Davidis and Others in their Rejecting the Adoration of our Blessed Redeemer as appears further from what is Reported of them by their own Historians who Represents their Opinion to the utmost Advantage he could page 33. intimating that the most Learned of the Ancients Reject this Invocation that Christ Himself when consulted about the Object and matter of Praver directed his Disciples to God that he forbad them to pray to Himself and that to make Christ himself the Object of Prayer is to destroy his Mediatory Office Thus much and abundantly more is urged by the English Socinians against our Adoring and Invocating the Lord Jesus Christ whereby they make themselves in the Esteem of the Foreign who are the more learned Socinians to be worse than Hereticks even Destroyers of the Chiefest and most Principal Foundations of the Christians Hope and Faith in God who in Reality deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ and cannot clear themselves from Mahometanism nor their Principles from Judaism Thus we see what manner of Men our Socinians are what Enemies to Christian Religion and whither their Principles do lead the Chief among themselves being Judges And when I consider what manner of Notions the most Ingenious of their way are Advancing I cannot but think on what Mersennus did intimate to Ruarus Epist Ruar 50. page 239. about the Attempts of some to bring all that part of Religion which is necessary to Salvation unto one Article There are saith he some Men and I doubt not but there are such amongst you who contend that this one Article of Faith only namely That Jesus is the Messiah is necessary unto Salvation that they who believe it may be called the Children of God that this is the One Article the Apostles urged To which others add that a Believing this Article with the Heart is not required as necessary a Confession of it with the Mouth being Sufficient That is to say if there be a rendring Obedience to the Magistrates Commands Thus we see whither Men when left to themselves will run They 'll suspect all Religion to be false and a Politick Contrivance then turn Atheists not only denying a Providence but the very Being of God Himself Mersennus writing thus much to a Grave and Learned Socinian who in his Answer taking no notice of it though very careful to rectifie the most inconsiderable Mistakes in other Instances moves me to conclude the Charge was true and the Atheistical Consequences too manifest to admit of a Penial which I the rather suggest to the end I may stir up the more sincere amongst our English Scocinians to consider the Tendency of their Notions SECT V. They fall in with the Papists in some momentous Points They imitate the QUAKERS in their crying down LEARNING a LEARNED MINISTRY and in REVILING THEIR ADVERSARIES § 1. THE Papists we confess that they may support their Temporal Grandeur and Dominating Will when pressed by the invincible Arguments of Protestants lower the Mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation and level them with their Vnscriptural Vnreasonable and Nonsensical Doctrine of Transubstantiation rather than Hazard their Temporalties which they do by placing Transubstantiation and these Mysteries in the same Rank Now altho' the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are most firmly believed by Protestants as supported by the clearest Revelations in Holy Writ yet the English Socinians as if their Design had been to prepare the Minds of the People Acts of Great Athanasius pag. 3. to close with the most pernicious part of Popery are bold to declare that the whole of Popery hath as much Evidence for it as these Foundations of Christianity Biddles Catechism Pres They do not only press us with the Assertion of the Popish Doctors that the Doctrine of the Trinity is Founded not in the Scriptures but on the Tradition of the Church and with the Charge that we Blasphemously make the Holy Scriptures a Nose of Wax
à multis retro seculis imo ab ipso paene Apostolorum aevo inaudita fuêre Once more I must Observe that this Renowned Zuicker was so puffed up with the Conceit he had of his Catholicon that he cannot forbear making a Break in the Beginning of his Book to the end he might insert another Pompous Title before the third Branch of his Argument by which he endeavours to Prove the Soundness of his Conciliatory Rule The Title begins thus ORBIS CATHOLICUS in potissiâ—is suis Traditionibus de Fide primorum Christianorum EXTREME ERRANS seu VERA primae Antiquitatis fideique primorum Christianorum MONUMENTA Ad dudum anissam Veritatem pacemque Ecclesiae post liminio restituendam ORBI CHRISTIANO clarius quam unt quam antehac ob oculos posita This is it our Socinian Doctor tells the World He hath a rare Secret scarce heard of since the Apostles Days till he Discovered it but now so admirably well done that if there be an Observing his Fundamental and Infallible Decisions 't will without any other help safely and suddenly decide the most Important Controversies Recover lost Truth Judge Convince Confound any Adversary with their Heretical Counsels be they never so Pertinacious and Obstinate And whereas the Catholick World hath been extâ—eamly Ignorant of the Traditions of the Primitive Christians unknown to every body 〈◊〉 he took 'em out of Petavius and Published them But what is this rare Secret this Wonderful Catholicon I mean his Conciliatory Rule It lyeth only in the Denial of Christs Divinity All if they will have Peace with them must hold that Jesus Christ is not the most high God This is his healing Truth which he undertakes to prove from the Holy Scriptures Sound Reason and Ancient Tradition being induced to pitch on this as the most likely Expedient â—â—â—nicamast pag. 14. by the Observations he made of Men's casting off their malevolent Humour on their turning Socinians Of the certainty and clearness with which 't was Demonstrated and the Hopes he hereupon conceived of the Conversion of Infidels But can any Man in his Wits think that we who are fully Perswaded in our Consciences of the Truth of Christ's Divinity and that the Belief of it is absolutely Necessary to Salvation can renounce this Principle for the sake of Peace with them This is as if one amongst us should start up and cry earnestly for a Peace with France proposing no other Terms than an entâ—re Resignation of our Laws Liberty and Property to the Pleasure of their Grand Monarch What could the English think of such a Fellow would they think him Compos Mentis or would they not be for sending him to Bedlam And yet of this Nature is Zuicker's Project for a Catholick Union And that made Doctor Bull speak so Rightfully of it Whether the Doctor hath herein broke the Chartel of Honour and Civility or deserved such Vsage from this English Socinian I leave to the Palate of the whole English Church unto whom a Belief of Christ's Deity which he would have us Reject is as Necessary to our Future Bliss as our Laws Liberties and Properties are to the Present Peace and Tranquillity of the Nation These few Intimations are sufficient to convince us that the English Socinians have undertaken the Defence of a bad Cause and therefore are driven to so many miserable shifts one while striking in with the Papists yet otherwile with the Quakers crying down Learning Railing at Learned Men and become more shameful Revilers of their Adversaries than others SECT VI. Their Boasts of Learned Men on their Sid. Their Claim to the Fathers in the Opinion of some Foreign Socinians Groundless Calvin not Displeased with the Term TRINITY Grotius not Socinian allover A Suspicion that these Methods may fail of the desired Success puts 'em on Attempts of a contrary kind And therefore in case Learning and Learned Men keep up their Esteem they tell us That the â—â—nitarians have a particular Reputation Exhort to a Free Enq. p. 3. as most skillful in that which is the Proper Learning of Divines The Sacred Criticism and are talk't of by their Adversaries as a sort of Subtile Rational and Discerning Men. They lay a Claim to the Anti-Nicene Fathers and to several Learned Men amongst Modern Writers who indeed are none of theirs Whence it is that the most Learâ—â—â— â—â—â—â—ians abroad such as Socinus Crellius a â—ittichius averrs confin'd themselves in their Arguments to the Holy Scriptures and Sound Reason This Gittichius saw the Fathers to be so much against them that instead of Appealing unto them He represents them as a Company of Ignorant Foolish Scriblers Epist Resp ad Ruar not more sit to determine Controversies of this Nature than Blind Men are to Judge of Colours And whereas a very Eminent Person had offered some Scruples against the Doctrines of Socinus amongst which one was their being Embraced only by the Thionites Cerinthians and Arians in the first Ages of Christianity Socinus in his Answer tells us that their Doctrines were clearly Revealed in Scripture That if some men perceiv'd it not it was their own Fault That how great soever their Ignorance was 't was not in those Points without the Knowledge of which there could be no Salvation And what was said of Ebion Cerinthus and Arius concern'd not them Quae hic de Ebione Cerintho Ario dicuntur ad rem non faciunt cum nemo illorum ipsam sententiam nostram Defenderit Socin Solut Scrupul for not one of them Defended what they held And in his Answer to Vujekus he is more full Declaring that as the Authority of the Fathers could be of no weight when put in the Scales against the Holy Scriptures so they lay no claim unto them no not to those who were before the Nicene Council The many Authorities and Testimonies saith he taken out of the Fathers and Councils are of no Force at all especially amongst us who Own that we dissent from them which are extant Nor can it be shown Socin Resp ad Vujek p. 444. that any of our way affirmed the Anti-Nicene Fathers which are now extant to be of our Opinion Altho we are all perswaded they are no less if not more against our Adversaries Howbeit there have been some feeble Efforts put forth towards the Proving that the Fathers are Theirs but such as have been to their shame fully Confuted They have therefore endeavoured to shelter themselves under the Wings of Calvin and Luther as if They had been such Nominal Trinitarians as the Sabellians and much displeased with the Use of the Term Trinity M. Luther complains the word Trinity sounds odly Nom. Real Trin. p. 40. it were better to call Almighty God GOD than Trinity Postil major Dominic Mr. Calvin is less pleased with these kind of Terms He says I like not this Prayer O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity it savours of Barbarity The Word Trinity is Barbarous
of Socinus How then could our Historian Venture to make him Socinian all over It is because Grotius wrote a Letter of thanks unto Crellius on the Publishing his Book To this I 'll give you Grotius's own Reply which is 3. An Eminent English Divine spake to me of some Letters Epist ad Gul. Gâ—te p. 8â—â— which a while ago I had written unto Crellius who writing with the greatest Candour and Civility unto me I returned an Answer with the same Respect unto him This Civility and Respect of mine to Crellius the Followers of Socinus have turn'd into an Argument for my Agreement with them and to Insinuate thus much have scattered abroad some Parts of my Letters I wish with all my heart they had Published them whole and entire Then it would appear plainly that I have not in the least altered my Judgment In another Letter to his Brother William he saith I have had some Discourse about these things with Bisterfield pag. 884. who told me he understood from you and I also have heard the same that Crellius a little before his Death should say that had he seen what I have written de Poenarum Communicatione in my Book de Jure Belli Pacis he would never have answered my Book de Satisfactione 4. That he could not be Socinian all over is Evident from what he wrote to Graswinkelius to whom he declared Epist ad Graswink p. 53â— That he did strictly Adhere to the Doctrines of the Fathers not only about the Trinity but the Two Natures in Christ satisfaction and other Points oppugned by Socinus and his Followers 5 As for his Annotations it 's not clear to me that the Socimanism which is in them is his it looks rather as if those parts were some Excerpta taken out of Socinian Commentators with a Design to Examine them And sure I am that Grotius did not only suspect Curcellaeus Fâ—ct 〈…〉 Grot. 〈◊〉 â—93 the Correcter of the Press as an Inconstant Man under the Influence of such as were no Friends to him hoping to be Restor'd to his Ministry in â—â—anceâ— but is Positive that Curcellaeus made several changes in his Annotations contrary to his mind and will In Annotatis quaedam contra meum Sensum Pag. 910. Curcellaeus mutavit quod nolim fieri However the English Socinians say That Grotius is for them even in his Notes on the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel but then they Confess He hath written them so Artificially and Interwove them with so many Quotations that he hath coverâ—d him self and his sense of that Portion of Scripture from such as do not read him carefully This is a Generous sort of Confession cunningly devised and might have passed had there not been some Learned and Careful Readers amongst us to Detect the Falshood of the Insinuation which is very Excellently well performed to the Reproach of these bold Assertors and pretendedly Wise Interpreters of Scripture These few Intimations I suppose may suffice to show what Pitiful Shifts the English Socinians are driven to for the support of their Tottering Cause wherein I confess they fail of the Learning Candor and Integrity of some Foreign Socinians If Grotius must be lookt on as a Socinian saith Gittichius who hath with a freedom Answerable to his Heat Expressed his Resentments he is a Betrayer of the Faith To this Purpose Gittichius expresses himself in an Epistle to Ruâ—rus where he charges Grotius for Writing in such a way that without putting his Words on the Rack 't is impossible to secure 'em from Error Thus it is with what he saith concerning an Appeasing of the Wrath of God against us by the Grievous Sufferings of Christ When Grotius saith that the Pardon of Sin first offered to the Israelites then to the whole World Preached by Christ Confirmed by his Miracles Death and Exaltation was Purchased for us by that most Perfect Sacrifice the Bloody Death of Christ he affirms what is most contrary to the Holy Scriptures and yet thus doth he do in his Explicating the sixth Verse of the first of the Ephesians Gittichius concludes his Epistle with this Prayer The Lord grant unto Grotius a Sounder Judgment and secure his Church from such as he is and put forth his uttermost Power that there may not be at any time such Grotius's in his Church seeing the Church is in much greater Danger from such than from any open Enemies and Antichrists Thus much Gittichius wrote to Ruarus who because of Grotius's Candour represented him a Friend to their Party but as any one may see Grotius was far from being Socinian all over SECT VII The deceitful Practices of Foreign and English Socinians Blandrata the Socinians Patron by Flatteries and Subscriptions gains a Reputation amongst the Orthodox Calvin detects his Heresies and Frauds He is reprimanded by Protestants who look on Blandrata as an Angel Calvin continues his Opposition English Socinians break through Subscriptions and profane Sacraments for the carrying on thir Designs THE English Socinians suspecting the Success of those deceitful and unrighteous Methods which they use to propagate their Errors openly tho they reject what is most valuable in their Brethren abroad yet have imitated them in what hath in the Esteem of their candid and judicious Adversaries most exposed them Thus much they have done by joyning themselves â—o the Orthodox with no other Design than to subvert the Foundations of that Religion they profess subscribe and swear unto Valentinus Gentilis and Blandrata amongst many others are famed Instances of the Truth of this Assertion but I will only observe what manner of Person Blandrata was and what were his Practices George Blandrata Vid. Socin Epist ad Blandrat p. 687. edit 1618. an Italian by Birth and sometimes chief Physician and Counsellor to Stephen King of Poland was highly esteem'd by Faustus Socinus who dedicated to him his Answer to Volanus as the great Patron of their Religion as undoubtedly he was However Blandrata did for a long while so behave himself as to obtain Applauses from the most eminent amongst the Orthodox for the soundness of his Faith and unspotted Sincerity 'T is true Calvin after some considerable Converse with him began to suspect him and at last detected some of his Heresies and the fraudulent Practices by which he attempted their Propagation But soon was he reprimanded by Men sound in the Faith and of great Worth One eminent Person rebukes him for exposing Blandratâ— his singular Friend and as a Father to him most dear Felix Cruciger a Polonian Minister after he had in an Epistle to Calvin evinced their Faith to be exactly the same with what was embraced by the Reformed at Geneva and elsewhere saith That it appear'd to em that George Blandrata did some Weeks ago seriously Vid. Cat. Ep. p. 25â— subscribe their Confession and say they we earnestly pray you diligently and prudently to consider his Case and impart to us a faithful
of Kings and Lord of Lords from whom all things are and on whom they depend The Name God taken less properly may be applied to such Creatures as have Power and Superierity given them of God as Moses and Cyrus had c. who were Gods not by Nature but Grace 2. That the Lord Jesus Christ is called the True Son of God and God because he received his Deity from God the Father is True God of True God God of all Creatures not God of the Father who subjects all things to him Moreover the Father himself who alone is by Nature God from himself is Lord and God of the Son as the Son himself expresseth it John 14.28 The Son is fall of the Deity and yet the Superiority the Father hath over the Son remains whence tho the Son is made to us by â—â—e Father Lord and God and our Head yet the Father is God and Head of the Son and the Son as our God and head â—â—ognizeth the Deity and Superiority of the Father over him See then how the Scriptures do constantly distingâ—â—â—â— between God and the Son of God! If we diligently search we shall find that excepting in three or four places the Scriptures do simply and absolutely call the Father God and Jesus his Christ and Son The Divinity of the Son differs from that of other Gods He is the True Natural and in a proper Sense the Son of God we the Adoptive Sons of God To him the Deity was given without measure to us in measure The Deity Power and Glory of the Son is adequate to that of the Father and equal with it but received from the Father not equal with respect to the Father but equal with the Father with respect to the Creatures This Equality the Son will not abuse by turning it into Tyranny or Rapine Philip. 2. The Agreement then between Valentinus Gentilis and Servetus lies in these Points They both affirm Three distinct Essences to be in the Trinity that the Father only is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Essence of the Son is not from it self but from the Fathers that there is but one most High God so that although Gentilis would cover himself under a Vizor that it might not appear he was an Embracer of Servetus â—s Errors and therefore took a different way to explain himself yet it 's plain enough that their Notions for substance were the same and notwithstanding their pretended Zeal for the Unity of God they were a sort of Tritheists However it must be acknowledged that their designed Obscurity was such that it 's not easie to understand what Principles Servetus would substitute instead of a Trinity of Persons in the God head only they generally pleaded for the Preheminence and Superiority of the Fatherâ—s Essence above the Son 's as it had a necessary Tendency towards the Subversion of the Trinity and to this very end Servetus Talentinus Gentilis and Gonesius a Polonian Tritheist against whom Zenchy wrote urged it This Gonesius Biblioth Antitriâ— p. 41. as Sandius observes was the first that oppugned the Doctrine of the Trinity in Poland and as Wissoâ—atius he asserted the Preheminence of the Deity of the Father above that of the Son Nurat Compead for the most part according to the Placita of Servetus and Gentilis Stoinius in his Epitome affirms the same of Genesius and so doth Lubieniescius adding that in a Synod held Ann 1556 he owned it and out of Simâ—er Hist Ref. Pol. l. 2. c. 6. p. 111. 116 Lubieniescius tells us That as in Transiâ—vania Franciscus Davidis was Servetus Illustratus so Gonesius was in Poâ—and Kazonovius and Farnovius were of the same Mind with Gonesius But that they might be the more successful they took another Method to introduce Three Essences into the Trinity still finding that to be the most likely way to expose the Faith of the Orthodox touching this blessed Doctrine which was thus managed Stankarus perhaps of the same Faction with Gentilis and his Disciples started a peculiar Notion about Christ's Mediatorship affirming That the Word God in Scripture signified Trinity that when 't was said There is one God the Meaning is there is Vnus Deus Trinitas for which Reason if Christ be Mediator as God the Trinity saith he must be the Mediator or Christ must be God of a distinct Essence from the Father and inferiour to him And the Orthodox believing Christ to be Mediator as God-Man were accused by Stankarus for being Arians This Notion occasionâ—d Great Distractions amongst the reformed in Poland as appears from what some of â—em wrote to Calvin craving his Thoughts of it and from what Felix Cruciger Gregorius Pauli Stanislaus Latomirski Paulus Gilovius Martinus Crovitius Franciscus Lismaninus and Sundry others who met in a Synod at Pinczow did Anno 1562. send to the Professors of Divinity and Pasâ—ors of the Church at Argentine where was a particular Account of Mankarus his Errors with a Confession of the True Faith But as Calvin seared Blâ—ndrata and his Partizans pretending a Great Zeal for the Doctrine of the Trinity did in a seeming Opposition to Stankarus own the Consequences he had saâ—â—ed on the Doctrine embraced by the Orthodoâ— as what did naturally flow from Christs being Mediator as God-Man and a Table was soon published Taâ—â—â—am nusâ—â—â— Poâ—â—â— Ediâ—am quae Christum Spiritum Sanctum alios a Patre Deo facit noâ— sine moerore inspexi Calv. Tract Theol. p. 683. in which they declared Jesus Christ anc the Holy Ghost to be Two Gods distinct from the Father and that the Three Persons were Three distinct Essences This Table as Calvin apprehended was written by Blandrata but Sandius saith that Gregorius Pauli in an Epistle to the Tigurine Ministers owns himself to be the Author of it For tho' Gregorius Pauli Latomirski Lismaninus and many others subscribed a sound Confession of Faith in Opposition to the Errour of Stankarus yet did they fall in with Blandrata and tho' Calvin sent them an Admonition in which he dehorted them against taking the Three Persons to be Three Essences least they should Frame to themselves Three Gods yet it was saith Beza to very little purpose For the Polonian Ministers Epist 81. p. 363. being bewitch'd with Blandrata's Hypocrisies were generally ensnared to a Closure with his Errors And Blandrata himself Observing how efficaciously this Engine wrought An docuit te Dei verbum multiplicari posse Dei Essentiam Epist Bez. ad Pet. Stator call'd in the Help of Valentinus Gentilis and Petrus Statorius who with Matthaeus Gribaldus and others were indefatigable in their Labours to establish a sort of Tritheism as the most Effectual Means to Introduce their Samosatenian Heresies And their Success this way was Answerable to their Industry and Expectations for in a little time to the Admiration of the Orthodox in other Parts of Europe many of the Reformed in Poland were insnared into a Closure
Lismaninus and Blandrata were very active Lismaninus who was first infected by the Endeavours of Laelius Socinus and confirm'd in his Heresies by George Blandrata falling into Suspicion takes Heart and in a Letter to Stanislaus Ivanus Karninscius boldly defends Blandrata But that he might do his part to remove all grounds of jealousie touching his Orthodoxy he Prefaces his Epistle with a short Prayer to God the Father from whom are all things through the Lord Christ by whom are all things Consubstantial and Co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost And in the Epistle it self he gives a summary of his own Faith and of the Faith of them who dwelt at Pinczow in these words We Believe in God the Father from whom are all things who is Infinite without beginning and from whom not only all Creatures are but also the Divinity and Bonity of the Son and Holy Ghost as Nazianzen teacheth in his Apologie We Believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God who is the Incarnate Word God-man God of God Light of Light True God of True God Consubstantial Co-eternal and Coequal in Essence or Nature Power Glory Authority and Honour with the Father And We Believe in the Holy Ghost the True God of the Father and the Son or as the Greek Doctors teach in an unutterable manner from Eternity proceeding from the Father by the Son Consubstantial Coeternal and Co-equal with the Father and the Son in his Essence Power Majesty Glory Authority and Honour Blandrata in a Synod at Xiansia Anno Dom. 1562 declared his Belief Lubien Hist Ref. Pol. l. 2. c. 6. p. 130. In one God the Father in one Lord Jesus Christ his Son and in one Holy Ghost each of which is Essentially God A Plurality of Gods I Abhor saith he for with us there is but One God only whose Essence is Indivisible I do confess that there are Three distinct Hypostases that the Deity of Christ and his Generation is Eternal and that the Holy Ghost is True and Eternal God proceeding from both In these Confessions there is the Denial of a Plurality of Gods and a Profession that the Son and Holy Spirit are of the same Essence Consubstantial Co-eternal Coequal with the Father in words as full as its Possible for the Vindicated Author who holds the Persons of the Trinity to be Three distinct Essences to express it Howbeit these Men were justly Charged with the Tritheistical Heresie Peter Martyr as Lubieniescius reports doth in a Letter Anno Dom. 1558 Hist Ref. Pol. l. 2. c. 6. p. 126. speak of Blandrata's bringing into the Deity a Certain kind of Monarchy denying the Essence of the Father and the Son to be the same from whence a a Plurality of Gods doth follow which thing as he was told Gribaldus did in express words Assert In like manner Lubieniescius himself tells us That Lismaninus and Blandrata Agreed in this that unless it be setled Ibid. pag. 131. that God who in the Holy Scriptures is called the Father of Jesus Christ is the most High God no satisfying Answer can be made to Stancarus nor can that Worship which is due unto the most High God he given him for Christ himself doth say my Father is Greater than I. These Men and their Followers notwithstanding these Confessions were so far from believing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Coessential Coeternal and Coequal that as Gentilis made the Father to be the Essentiator and the Son and Spirit to be the Essentiati so these were Positive that there was a Preheminence of Causality in the Father above the Son and Holy Ghost that the Essence of the Son and Holy Spirit was not Vnoriginated Vncaused and from it self only but from the Essence of the Father that is to say the Father was the Essentiator and the Son and Spirit the Essentiati and making the Essence of the Son and Spirit so very distinct from the Essence of the Father they were for three Essences in the Trinity Three distinct Essences and therefore were call'd Trideitae which is not only the Observation of Beza but the Confession of Lubieniescius who saith That they were injuriously by the Adversary called Trideitae tho' nothing more manifest than that they being the Worshippers of God the Father by Jesus Christ the only mediator were therefore in Transilvania called Vnitarians The Notion then of Gentilis Lismaninus and Blandrata was that the Son and Holy Ghost were Consubstantial Coequal and Coeternal in Essence with the Father they were of one and the same Nature and yet three Infinite and Eternal distinct Essences and Spirits which is the same for substance with what our Vindicated Author so Vehemently Contends for whence I argue If our Authors Asserting one Individual Essence or Deity will secure his Three Infinite Essences or Minds from Heresie it must also clear Gentilis Lismaninus Blandrata and their disciples ay Severus and Theodosius too from the same Charge But if it won't clear them from being Heretical it cannot sufficiently Vindicate Him But this Tritheism is not only as I have already intimated an Heresie But the same that the Italian Hereticks pitched on to Introduce their Samosatenianism and whoever will make a close search will see that it hath a Tendency thereunto not only as hereby a Trinity of Persons is made a Trinity of Gods to the setting the Minds of many against the Truth it self but as this their Principle leads its Embracers to take into their Faith the several Consequences which Naturally and Necessarily flow from it For Answerable to the various Capacities Inclinations and Interesis of them who will have it that the Persons in the Trinity are three distinct Essences Sundry Errours do arise But 〈◊〉 to insist upon them to escape the Blasphemous Absurdities which flow from their aâ—â—erting Three distinct Infinite Essences Spirits or Minds As for instance their making them Three distinct Infinite Co-equal Gods they ascribed unto the Father an Hyperoche a Preheminence and Superiority above the Son and Holy Ghost But then the Inequality which did immediately follow from the Preheminence and Superiority assigned to the Father being such as was in every Bodies Judgment inconsistent with the Sons and Holy Ghosts being Consubstantial and Co-equal with the Father they were at a loss how to Explain themselves An Inequality as to the OEconomy Dispensation and Office they lookâ—d on as insufficient The Arians and Samosatenians therefore say it must be an Inequality of Essence But this being so Gross a Contradiction to the Son 's and Holy Ghostâ—s being of the same Nature and Co-equal with the Father Server us Gentilis with the Pinczovians would not at first expresly allow of more than an Inequality as a Cause or Principle making the Essence of the Father to be the Principle or Cause of the Essence of the Son and Holy Ghost affirming that tho the Essence of the Father was Vnoriginated and from it self yet so was
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
be not Infinite t is only Finite if but Finite how can his Power be Infinite can a Finite Essence be the subject of an Infinite Perfection Or can a Finite Being be from it self or be self-Originated Or can any one Finite Essence be so Great that another cannot be as Great After this manner we may have Twenty or Thirty Thousand Gods as well as One. But a Million of these put together cannot make One Infinite God Thus by denying the Divine Essence to be Infinite they Oppose God's Immensity and do their Part to give up the Cause to the Atheist Secondly They deny also God's Omniscience which necessarily follows from the other it being impossible for the Knowledge of a Finite Being to be Infinite After Socinus had discoursed very largely of Divine Prescience he Ushers in his Conclusion thus Seeing therefore there is no Reason Praebâ—c Theol. c. 11. P. 549. nor One Text of Scripture from which it can be clearly inferrâ—d that God knoweth all things which â—re done before they come to pass We must Conclude that we may in no wise Assert his Divine Prescience especially considering there are Reasons not a few as well as sundry Testimonies in Holy Writ from whence it plainly appears that we ought to deny it Smalcius and Crellius say the same And Episcopius himself would have fall'n in with 'em had it not been that all Prophecies must then have been destroyed From this Notion of theirs in the first place Revealed Religion receives a Wound for if God doth not know Future Contingents how can he Foretell them And if he can't Foretell them of what Use is the Prophetiacal Part of the Holy Scriptures And if they must be rejected as useless will not the Deists be Abundantly Gratified Or if it be yielded that God doth not foreknow Future Contingents 't will necessarily follow that his Knowledge is not Infinite and he can't be God These few amongst many Instances may suffice to Convince us that the Socinians whatever their Boasts are have no Reason for the exposing the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as they have done nor for their Railing at Gospel-Mysteries as if they had been full of Monstrous Contradictions For you see that they have their Trinity too a Trinity throughout Mysterious for as they make the Holy Ghost an Increate Omnipotent Spirit but not God and Jesus Christ to be but a Creature and yet a God a True tho' but a Subordinate God so God the Father the most High God is left by them destitute of Infinite Perfections His Essence is but Finite and therefore without a Contradiction cannot be infinitely Perfect Their Trinity you see is a most Mysterious one and their Vnitarianism lyeth in the Belief of Two distinct Gods a Greater and a Lesser to wit the Father and his Son Jesus Christ which issues in the Denyal of an Infinite God For which Reason amongst others Mr. Edwards hath very justly charged their Principles for being Atheistical as Bisterfield accuses them for their Tendency unto Paganism Adversari is merito exprobramus quod unum verum Deum agnoscere nolunt Duos Deos in Ecclesiam introducant ficque si id omne credeâ—dum esset quod ex ipsorum Opinione necessario sequitur Paganismum revocent ac stabiliant ipsomet Paganismi non accusamus speramus enim quod non videant absurdissima hac dogmata ex ipsorum Doctrina necessaria sequi c. Bisterfield contra Crel de Uno Deo Lib. 1. sect 2. cap. 18. whilst He is so Charitable as to hope they see it not Much more might be said of our Socinians but being Apprehensive that what I have Remark'd is sufficient to move such as are ensnared by their Crafty and Deceitful Guides to consider how much they are Concern'd to take heed to themselves I will at this time forbear SECT X. The Agreement between the English Socinians and the Mahometans Detected They both Believe Jesus the Son of Mary to be the Messiah Sundry other Instances wherein they are Agreed They both Deny Christ's Divinity and the giving to him Divine Adoration The Impostor Mahomet a Lascivious Wretch who Propagated his Religion by Force of Arms. THe Good Opinion our English Socinians have of the Turkish Religion whose Embracers they place in a nearer Proximity to Salvation than Orthodox Christians moved me to Enquire whether they had according to their own Principles any Reason for theâ—r Charity towards a People whose Religion is as full of Blasphemy as their Souls are of Rancour against us Christians And after the most Free and Impartial Disquisition it appeared unto me that the Principles which themselves Affirm to be most Important are so very much the same That our Socinians may be justly styled English Turks and the Turks English Soâ—inianized Christians I do not say That every English Socinian doth understand the Principal Articles of his own or of the Mahometan Religion much less that they Design to Introduce Mahometanism There are I am Confident many amongst us who Love the Socinians but know very little of their Socinianism They are startled at the Noise raised against the Orthodox their Systematical Niceties and Obscurities their Mysteries and Contradictions and the like but hereby they are more set against the Truth than disposed to close with their Errors and are so far from taking in the whole of their new Scheme that did they but see what it is and what are its Tendencies they would Abhor it For the sake of these I will shew what Arts are used by their Leaders in the Representations they make of the Mahometans which they must be esteemed to do either with a Design to give such an Advantage to the Papists against Protestants now as the Socinians gave heretofore unto Reynolds and Gifford to write their Calvino-Turcismus or to bring in the Turkish Religion amongst us or rather knowing how False the Popish and how Ridiculous as well as Blasphemous the Mahometan Religion is to take the People off from all Religion that they may the more easily take up with Deism or Atheism Thus one speaks as I have already noted so Honourably of Mahomet and so much of the Future Happiness of the Mahometans and another whom I cannot but Respect for his learning hath in his Reasonableness of Christianity reduced the Vital Principles of our Holy Religion to what is receiv'd into the Alcoran This was saith the Author of this Discourse the Great Proposition that was controverted concerning Jesus of Nazareth Reason ab of Christi p. 26. c. whether He was the Messiah or no And the Assent to that was that which distinguished Believers from Unbelievers That this is the sole Doctrine Pressed and Required to be Believ'd in the whole Terour of our Saviours and his Apostles Preaching we have shewed through the whole History of the Evangelists and the Acts. And I Challenge them saith he to shew that there was any other Doctrine upon their Assent to which or
would be Advocates for Mahomet or his Religion have very little Reason for their Pretences to Sobriety or Liberty of Conscience which is no otherwise granted by them than as it's subservient to their secular Interests And touching that ingenious Gentleman who under the plausible Covert of the Reasonableness of Christianity hath lopt off so many of the most Essential Parts of Christ's Religion as to defend no more of it than that Grand Impostor Mahomet would have done he has I think done no service at all to Christianity and it must be acknowledged that those English Socinians who write so Honourably of Mahomet his Design and Religion may be more justly look'd on as Pensioners of the Great Turk than the learned Opposers of Socinian Heresies can be represented as the Grand Pensioner of the World The CONCLVSION THESE are some of those Methods which the Arminians the Foreign and English Socinians have taken to Instill and Propagate their Errours which for the Help of the less studied I will reduce to the Following Heads Sect. I. These Gentlemen not being able to comprehend some of the most Important Points of Christian Religion because of their Mysteriousness do reject them as Contradictious and Unreasonable On this Ground the Socinians Explode the Doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation Christ's Satisfaction and that Mystical Vnion which is betwixt Him and Believers And the Arminians Oppugn the Absolute and Eternal Decrees together with the Irresistible Operations of Grace in the Conversion of Sinners But that they may the more consistently Prosecute their Design they find themselves necessitated to Frame such an Idea of God as comes short of a Being Infinitely Perfect and thus lead their Followers into Atheism Chap. 1. Sect. II. The Erroneous finding in their corrupt Hearts an Innate Antipathy against Justification by the Righteousness of another do endeavour to establish a Righteousness of their own To compass thus much the more Learned knowing that there is an Eternal Law of Right of which no one Precept or Rule is or can be Abrogated or Repealed whilst God is an Holy Just and Righteous God and Man a rational Creature do hold that this is the Law by which all Men shall be judged at the last day Only those who have believed Jesus to be the Messiah and have taken Him to be their King with a sincere Endeavour after Righteousness in obeying his Law shall have their past Sins not imputed to them And shall have that Faith taken instead of Obedience that is their Faith shall be taken for a Compleat Performance of this Law where by Imperfection is stretched to the utmost length of Perfection But the more unlearned to escape this Rock have vacated the Penal Sanction of the old Law and erected a New which threatens no Sins but final Unbelief and Impenitence with Eternal Death who must hold that no other Sins but Unbelief and Impenitence are in their own Nature mortal and deadly deserving everlasting Misery or at least by setting up this New Law to the End imperfect Obedience may answer their New Rule they must make all their Deficiencies which by the Eternal Law were Sins to be no Sins at all and thus framing their Rule to our Imperfections instead of Christ's Righteousness they constitute one of their own for Justification And to make out these things they give us a New Scheme of Divinity more suited to the Socinian than Gospel Rule though it must be acknowledged that these Gentlemen and some others nearly allâ—ed unto 'em by Principles observing â—ow unsuccessful the Candour and Sincerity of Foreign Socinians hath been in owning the Genuine Import of some Phrases which because expressive of what they approved not they rejected these Gentlemen have imposed a wrong sense on em and in the Controversies about Christ's Satisfaction retained their Use and pervert the Truth in this important Article of our Holy Religion Cap. 2. Cap. 3. Sect. 8. Pag. 82 c. Sect. IV. That the Foreign Socinians and Arminians might the more easily propagate their Errors they did at first appear under the Character of Men found in the Faith using Orthodox Terms and Phrases and subscribing the commonly received Catechisms and Confessions of Faith whereby they gain'd great Reputation amongst the Orthodox Thus was Blandrata who as Calvin saith had nothing but Pride and Ostentation to recommend him esteemed by Men of Eminence and Soundness in the Faith as the Atlas that bears the Church on his Shoulders And thus other Men also of little Learning great Industry instigated by greater Pride have by their Flatteries and deceitful Subscriptions to Orthodox Confessions insinuated themselves into the Hearts of well-meaning People and lead 'em into Errors of a most pernicious â—â—endency as hath been cleared in sundry Instances throughout Chap. 3. Chap. 4. Sect. 7. Sect. V. The English Socinian wanting both the Learning and Candour of their Brethren beyond the Seas are not willing to abide by their Confessions or Catechisms nor are they prepared to emit any of their own Composure and therefore they do studiously labour to conceal what it is they are for and bend their strength against the Truth and turn themselves into any shape may they thereby advance their Designs If it be their Interest to profess they are of the Church of England or to plead the Cause of Mahomet and reduce the Christian Religion to one Article found in the Turkish Alcoran they do it And it must be confessed that by their refusing to give Divine Worship to Jesus Christ they have put it out of their Power to prove themselves to be better Christians than the Mahometans are no wonder then that they are sometimes for acting the Part of a Quaker and again for pleading the Cause of the Papists but any thing every thing rather than an Orthodox Christian For as they cannot be held by Subscriptions neither are the Blessed Sacraments sacred enough to bring 'em under Obligation These are with them but Incantations Charms Spells Norman Knots c. and seeing no spiritual Blessing is in their Opinion annexed to the Right partaking of a Sacrament it cannot in any Christian Kingdom whatever be a Test to keep them out of the Government so wisely have they ordered their Affairs in matters Religious that however it goeth with them in the next World it may be well with them in This. See how these things are cleared Chap. 4. Sect. 1 2.4.10 Sect. VI. And that they may the more easily impose their Dotages upon the Vnlearned They represent the Principles believed by the Orthodox to worse than Judaism or Mahometanism and as bad as Egyptian and Roman Paganism Crying down Learning and a learned Ministry and most bitterly reviling their Judicious Adversaries How virulently have they treated the Reformed Divines in France and Holland And with what Contempt and Scorn have they fall'n upon the Learned Clergy not only Dr. Bull but amongst many others on my Lord of Worcester who may be justly styled Malleus Socinianorum And when this Art fails 'em they tack about and on a sudden pretend a Zeal for Learning claiming a Right in the Anti-Nicene Fathers and the first Reformers such as Luther and Calvin and will have it that the Great Hugo Grotius is theirs But their pretence are without the least shadow of Reason Vid. Ch. 4. Sect. 3.5 6 and such as are neglected by the more Learned of their own Way Sect. VII To the End they may prepare a Place for their Dagon their Care is to cast what Reproach they can on the Blessed Trinity which they can't more effectually do than by pleading for a Trinity of Essences or a Plurality of Gods which was the Master-piece of the Italian Combination What Pranks these prevaticating Hereticks played I have briefly intimated a Conspiracy which in its Tendency was not very different from that entred into by Vaninus and twelve more who went into divers Parts of the World on purpose to propagate Atheism as Gualterius the Jesuit as I have some-where Read doth in his Cronological Tables report That there is a Combination of the same Nature with the Old Italians entred into by the English Socinians who-ever will consult their Writings will see but little Reason to doubt of it And when I come to shew what Methods have been taken to corrupt and subvert the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction I hope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to show that some have as industriously acted their Part as if they had been in a Combination to bring that blessed Doctrine into doubt which was a Branch of the Contrivance of Laelius Socinus Paruta Ochinus and their Partizans Chap. 4. Sect. 8. There is one thing more to be observed it is this Sect. VIII That notwithstanding their grievous out-cries against the Gospel of our Lord Christ because of the Mysteries which are in it they have their Trinity and Mysteries too Only they are not so sublime nor so clearly revealed in Scripture as what we believe and tho' full of Contradictions yet without Scruple received by ' em 'T is true they strugled hard to bury in an Eternal Oblivion the Terms Trinity Incarnation c. because as they said not found in the Letter of the Sacred Text which if they could have done we should have heard nothing of their Trinity But failing of Success here as they retained the Term Trinity so they substituted in the Place of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead a Trinity of Somewhats of their own Invention Ch. 4. Sect. 9. I shall trespass no further on my Reader in the Repetition of what is done and as for what else I have more to do if God permit and Prudence directs I shall take my Time FINIS