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
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
wrong Sense on Orthodox Terms and Phrases To clear this I will only observe That as they will have the Term Instrument when spoken of Faith in Justification to signifie the same with Condition whereby there is a great Turn made in Controverse as the Arminians Improve it so they impose on the Phrases Vice nostra Loco nostro a Sense most contrary to their ancient and constant Meaning It's well known that Socinus Crellius and their nearest Followers did concur with the Orthodox about what was the Genuine Imports of those Phrases holding that they signified a Proper Surrogation where one is put into the Place State or Condition of another sustaining his Person and one with him In conspectu fori Sabrogatam sapit naturam ejus in cujus Locum Sabrogatur These Phrases taken in this Sense the Socinians stoutly opposed loading the Orthodox with all the horrid Consequences which slow only from an Assertion that Christ did take on him the Condition of the Sinner in every little Circumstance or Accident But my Lord Bishop of Worcester hath cleared the Maxim of Surrogation from the least Pretence of such a Charge by distinguishing Inter Naturam Primordialem Accidentalem and proving that Sarrogatum sapit tantum naturam Primordialem non Accidentalem That in this Sense the Orthodox Universally understand these Phrases Vice nostra Loco nostro is so manifest that whoever is acquainted with their Writings can't but acknowledge it And it 's no less Evident from the Scriptures That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for when it 's said Christ Suffered for us signifieth a Proper Surrogation which is Essential unto Satisfaction made to Punitive or Vindictive Justice However there are a set of Men of the Arminian Tang who will have it That Vice nostra or Loco nostro signifie no more than nostro â—â—co that when it 's said Christ dyed in our stead the meaning is Christ dyed to besâ—â—â—ad us and only that the Blessed Effect of his Death might be made ours Another expresseth it thus If Christ dyed for our Benefit so as some way or other by Virtue of his Death and Sufferings to save us from the Wrath of God this for ought he knows is All that any body means by his dying in our stead By such Practices as these it is that many are unawares ensnared into divers Pernicious and hurtful Errors First to the entertaining corrupt Apprehensions about Christâ—s Satisfaction and then to a downright denyal of it whence it is apparent that the Arminian Errors lead the way to the Socinian as the Socinian do to the Abomination of the Deist Thus much may suffice touching the Methods taken by Forreign Socinians and the Arminians to instill and propagate their Doctrines I will go on in the next place to consider what Arts are used by our English Socinians to spread their Heresies CHAP. IV. Some of the Various Methods taken by the English Socinians to Insinuate and spread their Errors Detected SECT I. The English Socinians can't agree in any one Particular Formula of Faith or Catechism Sundry Differences amongst themselves in Matters of Importance Their Unanimity in taring up the Foundations and commonly received Systems of Divinity IT being the Expectation of our English Socinians that Consid â—n the explic of the Trin. p. 32. if we attack the Doctrine of their Books or describe their Opinions we do it out of their own Writings not from the Books of Forreigners I will confine my self in the Account I give of them to their own Prints First then it must be observed That the English Socinians have not made such Advances in their New Divinity as to be able to give a distinct Idea of what it is they do Believe The Reason is Obvious To Invent 〈◊〉 Improve a New Religion which they who Reject the Old must do if they will have any is not Easy Nor is there a Man amongst them Great enough to Prescribe to the Party And the Fondness Hereticks have for their own Particular Notions is such as will not suffer them to Part with any thing of their Own for the sake of a Scheme or System of anothers Composure Though Mr. Biddle did some Years ago Emit a Confession Reprinted 1691. and a Catechisme yet I cannot find that the English Socinians do Adhere thereunto any more than the Followers of Socinus beyond the Sea's have done to the Racovian Catechisme which as My Lord of Worcester Observes was so far from Pleasing all that the New Editions were with some Important Alterations And whoever will Consult what hath been Written by our Gentlemen since 1690 will see that they Pretend not to give a Particular Summary of the Positive Parts of their Religion 'T is true they Generally Profess a Zeal for the Apostles Creed One of 'em tells us That he Resolves his System into the Creed of the Vniversal Church Some Thought supâ—â— Dr. Stel. Vindic. p. â—8 which by Reason of it's Antiquity but especially of the Authority of its Doctrines is Rightly called the Apostles Creed and Admitted of all Christians notwithstanding their Implacable Hatreds and Divisions Thus they Confining themselves to Generals leave us in the Darkâ— about the Particular Articles of their Faith besides their Presences about the ANTIQUITY of this Creed are as hath been Unanswerably Proved by the Learned Vossius most Weak and without the least Shaddow of Reason and their Sense of it if in favour of their Anti-Trinitarianism Contrary to that Received in the Churches ever since its first Composure whereby we are as much at a loss touching the System of their Faith as if they had said nothing at all of it We will therefore Look into the Brief Hystory of these Vnitarians Letter 1. p. 3. as they call themselves and see what they say there Sir In Answer to Yours Demanding a Brief Account of the Vnitarians called also Socinians also their Doctrine concerning GOD in which only they differ from other Christians the Remonstrants PROFESSEDLY Agreeing with them in other Points of Faith and Doctriney and the Defence they usually make of their Haeresie They Affirm GOD IS ONLY ONE PERSON not THREE They make our Lord Christ to be the Messenger Minister Servant and Creature of GOD They Confess He is also the Son of GOD because He was Begotten on Blessed Mary by the Spirit or Power of GOD Luke 1.35 But they Deny that He or any other Person but the Father is GOD Almighty and Eternal The Holy Ghost or Spirit according to them is the Power and Inspiration of GOD Luke 1.35 Tho' we might Reasonably Expect a very Particular and Exact Account in this History of what they hold yet they stick in Generals Referring Us to the Remonstrants for a Catalogue of all besides their Renouncing the Blessed Loctrine of the Trinity so that we are still where we were before we saw this History For as the Remonstrants do not PROFESSEDLY Agree with them in the other Points of
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