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
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
Men fearing God studied in Divinity and rightly judging of these things will be in this Particular of his Mind There was brought unto me when sick in Bed a Writing from Schomannus which I did no sooner read but found my Distemper to increase upon me so very much did it grief me to see such Hurtful Opâ—nions brought into our Church Opinions that disquiet the more Infirm and give Great Offence to others who are not of our way Once more If Socinus designs an Answer I wish he would not I must confess the Truth I must tell you that their Writings are stuffed which most Offensive Paradoxes to the extreme Grief of my Soul Besides this Disputation between Niemojevius and Schomannus makes it plain to me that this Notion about the Sacraments was not started 'till the Year 1588 altho' Socinus fixed his dwelling in Poland A. D. 15â—9 That when it did first arise it startled the more Pious of their own Party and that from Niemojevius his Resolution of Proposing it to the next Synod at Lublin it 's very likely the Generality were then against it so far were they from that full Agreement which our Gentlemen pretend to be almost their Peculiar Property SECT VIII An Account of the Italian Combination entred into to bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into Doubt The Chief of 'em Assert Three distinct Essences to introduce the Pre-eminence of the Father and a Subordination in the Essences of the Son and Holy Spirit These things cleared out of the Writings of Gentilis and others The late Assertion of Three Essences the same with that of Gentilis c. ALthough the English Socinians do in some Instances so very much differ from them beyond the Seas that an exact Description of them cannot be given out of the Writings of the Pratres Poloni yet it must be yielded that they are nevertheless of the Off-spring of that Faction For which Reason I will consider what Combinations have been amongst them what Shapes they have formed themselves into and what Principles they advanced to the end they might subvert the blessed Doctrine of the Trinity There was in Italy a strong Combination entred into by near Forty who form'd themselves into a Society had their Colleges and Conferences where they consulted how to bring the Doctrines of the Trinity and Christ's Satisfaction into Doubt This was saith Wissowatius about the Year 1546. The chief of their Number mentionâ—d by Sandius Narrat Compâ—nd Biblioth Antitrin p. 18. were Leonardus Abbas Busalis Laelius Socinus Bernardinus Ochinus Nicholaus Paruta Valentinus Gentilis Julius Trevisanus Franciscus de Ruego Jacobus de Chiari Tranciscus Niger Darius Socinus Paulus Alciacus c. who continued together till their Design took Air at which time they being severely prosecuted some of 'em went into Helvetia others into France Britain Holland Germany and Poland and some into the Turkish Territories where they had their Liberty only Julius Trevisanus and Franciscus de Ruego were taken and executed and Jacobus de Chiari as Lubieniescius saith died a natural Death These Men where-ever they went took all Occasions to instil their Errors which they did by offering Objections against the Truth that as was pretended they might be the more firmly established in the Faith and be more able to defend it And having sear'd their Consciences with fraudulent Subscriptions and Perjury they formed themselves into sundry Shapes not scrupling to subscribe and swear to what they neither Believed nor Intended nor did they care what Methods they used might they thereby subvert the Doctrine of the Trinity and Christ's Satisfaction That they were set at work by tâ—e Papists is no way improbable especially if we consider how at Lyons the Papists dâ—schâ—rged Valentinus Gentilis so soon as they undâ—rstood his Design was to oppose Calvin and how safely Servetus Lubieâ— Histâ—r Pâ—sâ—â— Poâ—oâ— l. 2. c. 5. p. 1â—â— c. notwithstanding his Blasphemies lived amongst them The Principle whâ—ch at first they advanced as what was most lâ—kely to bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into â—ontempt was their turning the Three Persons into Three distinct Essences and their appropriating a peculiar Preheminence to the Father Servetus who is by Stanislaus Lubieniescius in his History of the Polonian Deformation Lubiâ—n â—bi sup p. â—â— highly applauded for his Diligence in Consulting the â—lcoran of Mahomet out of which he extracted the Opinions he held about the Triniâ—y having by his Sufferings gotten a Reputation it became the Province of Valentinus Gentitis and Alciatus aâ—ter the Disperson of these designing Incendiaries to go to Geneva and try what they could do towards the carrying on that Work which Servetus had with so much Labour and Travail begun And that their Success might be the greater 't was the Care of Gentilis to clear himself as much as possibly he could from the Charge of being a Favourer either of Arius or Servetus and therefore pretends a Zeal for the True Trinity as he expresses it in a Letter to Copus Raymundus and Henocus learned Ministers in Geneva explaining his Notion thus Caâ—e Tâ—â—â—â—â— Thâ—â—â— pâ—â— 6â—0 6â—â— The Father is that one only Essence that is from it self The Word is the Brightness of the Glory of God the express Image of his Substance and in this respect distinct from the Father who is as Christ himself saith the only True God the Essentâ—â—tor that is the â—nformator Individuorum The Word is the Son and also he True God and yet not Two Gods but one and the same God Or as Aretius in his Brief Account of Valentinus Gentilis A True Trinity ought to consist of Three eternal distinct Spirits differing from each other essentially rather than personally The Father he stiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself as he is more eminently truly and properly God But the Essence of the Son is not saith he of himself but an Essentiatum derived from the Essence of the Father and is a Secondary God And what saith Servetus of this Notion Deus pâ—st Christum manâ—e â—atum in ties Essentias Divisus maneat tamen Unâ—â— Deus â—â—ia haec Dispensâ—â—io nihil â—â—â—â—o mutat Tracâ— Theoâ— p. 657. Calvin tells 〈◊〉 That he holds the Deity to 〈◊〉 divided into Three Essences and yet there is but One God For the Socinians greater Satisfaction I will givâ—â— Servetus his Sense Histâ—â— for Poton l. 2. c. 5. p. 9â—â— c. out of a Discourse he delivered some time before his Execution 〈◊〉 published by Lubieniâ—scius from the Autoâ—raph In which he having opposed the Opinion of them who affirm Three substantial Persons to be jâ— God by Nature equal to one another which he looks upon to be Blasphemy and an execrable Impiety he freely gives us his own Sentiments to this effect 1. That the Name God is Appellative signifying one to whom all Power Dominion and Superiority doth properly belong who is above all the chief of all King
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
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
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
am I hereby instructed to believe and hope that though the Saints shall never know the Almighty to Perfection yet shall they be raised to a clearer and more distinct knowledge of those now unconceiveable as well as ineffable Glories And when I read in the Writings of some Men who in Reasoning about other things are strong and nervous yet weak and feeble in their arguings against the profound Mysteries of Christ's Gospel I cannot but clearly perceive a Truth in those words of the Apostle the Natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are Foolishness unto him 1 Cor. 2.14 neither can he know them because they are Spiritually discerned for which reason these Men are rather to be pityed than envyed prayed for than Reviled that 2 Tim. 2.25 if 't would please the Lord they might come to the acknowledgment of the Truth and see how great their Folly was in making their Confin'd Understandings the measure of all Knowledge which undoubtedly is done by them that reject all things as Absurd and False which are above or beyond their Reason But the Deist adds 'T was once to serve a Turn against the Papists that our Church held all Doctrines necessary to save Souls were plainly Revealed in Scripture How could you say plainly revealed unless you understood the Revelation And why to serve a Turn and that once 't was so as if we had now forsaken our Principles and profess'd to believe unintelligible Revelations whereas 't is our constant Judgment that the Doctrines necessary to Salvation are not dark and obscure but Clear Evident and Perspicuous that what is not clearly delivered in the Scripture is not of indispensible Necessity to be Known and Believed and Consistently assert that the Mysteries our Adversaries reject are clearly revealed The Revelation is very Plain Clear and Open though the things Reveal'd are Mysterious Inscrutable and past finding out And yet these Mysterious Points are in themselves Great Glorious True and Evident and only because our Understandings are Finite Weak and Feeble are we unable to comprehend them This Truth is by a Learned Divine thus Illustrated We can see other things by the Light of the Sun better than we can see the Sun it self not because the Sun is less visible and discernable in it self but because our Visive Faculty is too weak to bear its Resplendent Light The Deists mistake therefore into which the Socinian hath led him is complicated and lyeth in a Confounding the Revelation with the thing Revealed and in a Perswasion that because the Mystery is past out Knowing to Perfection therefore not in it self Evident Clear or Knowable And if not to be fully known by vain Mortals it cannot he thinks be true but must be False Absurd and Irrational And thus according to the Scripture-Revelation being Puff'd up in his fleshly Mind Col. 2 1â— intrudes into those things which he hath not seen and contrary to the Apostolical Prohibition thinks of himself more highly than he ought to think Rom. 12.3 is resolved to penetrate into the Secrets of the Almighty to make his own mistaken fanciful and narrow Understanding the Measure Rule and Standard of Truth and like a Man who is so weak as to imagine his visive Faculty able to bear the Resplendent Light of the Sun looks on it till his Eyes are so Dazled that he cannot rightly judge of Colours even to the Presuming Deist and Ami-Trinitariants who think they can look into the Deep things of God and Comprehend the Divine Perfections are overcome by the Glory of Divine Mysteries their Minds darkened and they plunged into the Depths of Error and thus in a Measure 't is with others that have Erred from the Truth CHAP. II. Radicated Prejudices against Gospel Doctrines the Cause of Error This seen in the Opposition Man makes to Christ's Righteousness for Justification II. ANother thing that occasions Error is a Radicated prejudice against Gospel Doctrines as their Tendency is to Exalt God Depress man and engage him to Acts of greatest self-denyal The Holy Ghost having with much clearness shown the insufficiency of Mans best Righteousness for Justification and his inability to think a good Thought or do the least good Work and that the Righteousness of Christ who is God-Man can alone justify a believing Sinner and the Omnipotent Spirit alone enable us to believe these Doctrines though they are a display of the manifold Wisdom of God of the Glory of his Holiness Justice and Mercy and an illustrious Evincement of the satisfaction and Merit of the Death and obedience of Christ God-Man as also of the Powerful Operation of the third Person in the Blessed Trinity yet because they lay us low discovering the Imperfection Insufficiency and Vanity of our own Endeavours they reject these Truths exposing them as if hereby a Door had been open'd to let in all manner of Vice and Licentiousness and rather than they will submit themselves to the Righteousness of God or be owing to the power of the Holy Ghost they 'll venture first to publish that the believing in God the Son and in God the Holy Ghost is not necessary to Salvation and at length go on to deny the Personality both of Son and Spirit As Adam on the Fall instead of seeking unto God leaned to his own understanding and strength so it hath been ever since the way of his Off-spring In the Old Testament instances of Mens Glorying in their own Power and performances are innumerable and the Apostle Paul assures us in the New that this was the way of his Kindred the Jews And ever since those days it hath been the general method of Hereticks to trust in their own Righteousness and despise others This they found to be a Notion as plausible as it was to their Corrupt Minds agreeable and because the Orthodox who pressed a Holy Life and Conversation as necessary to Salvation could not put their own Obedience into the place and room of Christ's it hath been the common practice of the Erroneous to reproach them as Enemies to Holyness and Mortification as tho' they held that we might live as lewdly as we listed and die as we lived yet in the end obtain Salvation through the Death and Righteousness of Christ And as this was the burden of their Writings in like manner 't was the care of the most Eminent Heresiarchs to give an agreeable Exemple by which means Multitudes of the weaker but more zealous sort were ensnared to embrace their Errors And tho at this time the Professors of Arminian and Secinian Errors have in this respect degenerated and thereby have lost the advantage of this pretence yet Socinus and after him Slichtingius with many others valued themselves upon the Holiness of them of their way which they assign'd to the hower and Influence of their Principles However these Gentlemen not being able intirely to crase those Idea's which at first were implanted in their Souls
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
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
with Socinianism Plures Deos si non ve bo Re taâ—en ipsa profâ—tentes Epist 19. p. 129. Vid. Epist 81. p. 361 c. That their first Effort against the Trinity was a setting up of Tritheism not avowedly but Clandestinely is Affirmed by Beza In the beginning saith he they were for the most part Tritheists transforming the Three Persons into so many Essences Then did they Appropriate the Appellation of the One True God unto the Father to whom they also ascribed an Hyperoche a Preheminence or Superiority above the Son This was the Principle which at first they advanced as most likely to bring the Blessed Trinity of Persons in one undivided Essence into contempt Against which Calvin Zanchy and the Reformed did set themselves as against a most Pernicious and Hurtful Heresie as undoubtedly it is For it being affirm'd that every Person hath a Peculiar Substance of his Own there must be as many Substances or Essences as there are Persons which being of the same Nature must be as many Gods as they are Persons which is Tritheism Three Distinct Infinite substances or Three Eternal Spirits cannot be less than Three Gods But tho' its affirmed 1 That it is gross Sabellianism to say That there are not Three Personal Mands or Spirits or Substances 2 That a distinct Substantial Person must have a distinct substance of his own Proper and Peculiar to his own Person yet if it be owned that there are not Three Gods but One God or One Divinity which is intirely and Inseparably in Three distinct Persons or Minds it cannot be Heresie As a very Learned Person avers because in this case saith he the Fundamental Article is Believed and the Error is only a Mistake in the Explication However the Doctrine of Three Distinct Substances hath been not only Learnedly as well as sharply charged with Tritheism but Condemned for being Impious and Heretical I will therefore it lying so much in my way venture humbly to Offer what inclines me to Conclude that this turning the Three Persons into Three Essences is Heretical For tho I am far from Hereticating every one that differs from me in Matters of Moment or from making every Erroneous Explication of a Fundamental Article to be Heresie yet I am perswaded that the Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one undivided Essence is of such a Nature that many in their explicating it have fall'n into divers Heresies and that thus it is in the Present Case The Doctrine condemned for Heretical is a makeing the Persons in the Blessed Trinity to be Three Dictinct Substances or Individual Natures which is as Direct a Contradicton to the One Intire and Indivisible Nature of God as can be Three Individual Essences are as much Opposed to one Individual Essence as Three Persons are to one Person and Three Persons may be as well One Person as three Individual Essences be one Individual Essence The Author therefore of this Notion cannot in Reason be supposed to Believe these Contradictory Propositions to be both true and being so vehement in his Asserting Three Individual Natures as to make the Denial thereof to be Heresie and Nonsence we must be so Civil to him as to suppose that he doth not Believe the Essence of God to be one Intire Indivisible Essence which I do the more readily suppose because it 's so Common for Tritheists to do so It is owned That Photius grants that Conon and his Followers held a Consubstantial Trinity and the Unity of the God-head Phot. Bibl. Cod. 24. and so far were Orthodox but then adds they were far from it when they Asserted Proper and Peculiar Substances to Each Person I have not that Bibliotheke by me but Suicerus in his Account of the Tritheists saith they held Three Substances and Natures in all things alike and yet would by no means own Three Divinities or Three Gods and refers to the Bibliotheca Photij where it 's thus These men vid. Severus and Theodosius spake many things excellently well Cod. 24. p 16. as that there was a Consubstantial Trinity of the same Nature and but one God one Divinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But they Blasphemed when they said the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost had their Proper Natures and Divinities or Particular Substances and so contradicted themselves as well as the Truth c. So that their asserting the Consubstantiality of the Trinity and it 's being of the same Nature could not secure their making the Three Persons three Distinct Substances from being Blasphemy But what I mostly Press is this Consideration that if the contradictory Affirmation of three Individual Essences being but one Individual Essence will clear the Notion from being Heresie then Valentinus Gentilis Lismaninus Blandrata and the many other Propagators of the Socinian Abominations must be also for the same reason cleared from Heresie I will begin with Gentilis who held Lubien Histor Ref. l. 2. c. 5. p. 107. that there were three distinct Eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity that the Son was Begotten from Eternity Ante Saecula in Latitudine Aeternitatis Thus much Lubieniescius And Gentilis himself in his Epistle to the Ministers at Geneva was Positive that the Father only is true God and the Son also true God Tract Theol. p. 660 661. and yet not Two but One and the same God because Christ hath one and the same Essence with the Father and therefore saith he I am neither Arian nor Servetian Lismaninus and Blandrata held the same for Substance with Gentilis To clear thus much I must Observe what Lubieniescius reports of Laelius Socinus who was one of the forty Italian Combinators It is to this Effect Laelius Socinus saith he travelled first into Helvetia then into Italy Britain and Germany and about the year 1551. he got into Poland from whence after he had instill'd his Errors into the Hearts of Lismaninus and many others he went into Moravia and then returned to Helvetia That in Moravia Paruta Gentilis Darius and Alciatus of the same Combination with Laelius did their Part to spread their Notions sending into Poland their Theses about the Trinity and doubtful Phrases in the Holy Scriptures There were near twenty Theses about the Trinity Ubi sup l. 3. c. 1. which they did put into the hands of their Friend Prosper Provana who committed them to the Care of Budzinius He no sooner Read 'em but gave them unto Johannes Pustelnecius from whom Stanislaus Lutomirskius got a Copy which being communicated to sundry others the Controversie about the Trinity had there its Rise some firmly adhering to the Faith received from the Lord Christ and his Apostles others ensnared by the Objections raised against it by the Italian Combinators vehemently opposed the Truth not that they did it openly but as our Vindicated Author displeased with the Old offered their New Explications in the very same manner He hath done Amongst others
the 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
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
Doctrine They in like manner send us to the Calvinists with an Assurance we shall find a great Part of Socinianism in their Writings Episcopius I Presume doth in the Opinion of these Gentlemen Understand what the Remonstrants held as well as any man who notwithstanding the High Thoughts He had of the Socinians doth positively Aver that there is a most Exact Agreement betwixt them and the Calvinisis Having Cap. 2. saith he in his Podecherus Ineptians sufficiently Cleared the Remonstrants from the Calumny of being Socinian I will Retort upon them and show that with much more Appearance of Argument we can fasten on the Contra-Remonstrants the Charge of Socinianism even in those Points which are Proper and Peculiar to Socinus and are Deservedly called Socinian This Episcopius tho' probably enough touching the Trinity an Arian and in other Points a Professed Remonstrant will yet by no means Allow a PROFESSED Agreement between the Remonstrants and Socinians How then can we Hope to find in Their writings a Formula or Summary of Socinian Doctrines That there is too great an Allyance between the Remonstrants and the Socinians that the Doctrines of the Former are too near akin to what are held by the Latter and Praeparatory unto them I have cleared But Chap. 3. Sect. 6. c. that in ALL other Points excepting the Trinity the Remonstants PROFESSEDLY Agree with the Socinians is too Notorious a Mistake for the Socinian Historian to Impose upon us However they go on to Assure us they sincerely Believeâ— That GOD is truly Omniscient Consider on the Explic of the Trin. p. 32. That he Foreseeth all Events how Contingent soever they may be to us But are they all of this mind No Others of 'em Ask Def. Reason of Christianity against Mr. Edwardâ— p. 18. Which is more Dishonourable to God to be the Author of all the Sin and Wickedness that ever was or ever will be in the World or to Deny his Fore-knowledge of the Certainty of that which is not Certain 2. They Believe the Real Omnipresence of God That He is Present in his Essence or Person in all Places And not only by his Power Knowledge or Ministers There are others of them who Deny such an Immensity of God which makes him to be ESSENTIALLY and wholly in every Point of Space because such IMMENSITY would take away all Distinction between God and the Creature And as the Examiner of Edwards affirmes has indeed an ATHEISTICAL TANG for the greater part of Atheists hold the Universe to be God Another of 'em saith To Know whether there is an Immensity of ESSENCE or Operation these are Metaphysicks out of my Reach Some Tho. upon Dr. S. Vindic. p. 14. and are no Helps to the Setling my Confidence and Trust in God Therefore it is that Revelation doth not speak Precisely of this These Passages do not only show how much our English Socinians Disser from each other in matters of most Importance But some of them as well as Forreign Socinians Deny Gods Omniscience and Immensity One can't be some of 'em suggest without making God the Author of Sin And the other hath an Atheistical Tang. Why then are they so Angry with the Learned Dr. Edwards for charging them with the Denyal of those Essential Perfections of the Divine Nature 'T is also affirmed by the English Socinians 3. That the Holy Ghost is a Person How could the Holy Spirit search all things Biddles Confes of Faith p. 21 22. even the Depths of God 1 Cor. 2. How make Intercession for the Saints with Greans Vnutterable Rom. 8 How could He say to the Christians at Antioch Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have Called them Acts 13.2 If these things and sundry more which may be alledged out of Scripture do not Evince the Holy Spirit to be a Person what can In Opposition hereunto they say Brief Hest Sect. 1. p. 7. That Rom. 8. God's Spirit or Inspiration being Designed to be a continual Director and Guide to the Faithful is spoken of in these and some other Texts as a Person by the same Figure of speech that Charity is Described as a Person c. The Holy Spirit you see is and is not a Person with them 4. They Generally not only Grant Brief Hist Sect. 3. p. 38. but Earnestly Contend that Christ is to be Worshipped and Prayed to because God hath say they by his inhabiting word or Power given to the Lord Christ a Faculty of Knowing all things and an Ability to Relieve all our Wants In Opposition hereunto 't is said Ans to Mith. p. 50. There are no Acts of Worship ever Requir'd to to be Paid to Christ but such as may be Paid to a Civil Power to a Person in High Dignity and Office or to Prophets or Holy Men or to such as are actually Possessed of the Heavenly Beatitudes They are I confess Answer to Milb p. 49. so Ingenuous as to Acknowledge That the Question about the Invocation of Christ has very much Divided them and if I take 'em Right the English Socinians generally fall in with the Notions of Francisous Davidis and Christianus Franken in Opposition to George Blandraâ—â— and Faustus Socinus who were followed by the Forreign Vnitarians as they call themselves and notwithstanding the specious Pretences to Liberty of Conscience Brief Hist Let. 4. p. 48. which they Reckon the Peculiar Principle of the Socinians and Remonstrants the prevailing Party severely Persecuted their Brethren They in Transylvania would not suffer any to come into any Places in the Ministry unless they obliged themselves under their Hands not to speak against Worshiping Jesus Christ They in Poland more Rigid â—xcommuniâ—ating and Deposing from the Ministry such as held Christ might not be Worshiped with Divine Worship This Persecution had some what of Extraordinaty Cruelty in it as it was against men who differ'd so very little from them For the Persecutors did not affirm that they were always bound to Invocate and Worship Christ but that it might Lawfully be done Nos non teneri Invocare Christum sed tantum Jure omnino Posse saith Socinus again and again Ay so often that he thought himself Obliged in a Praemonition to what he Wrote against Francisous Davidis to Explain himself which he did briefly by declaring that there were Two Cases in which to omit the Worshiping of Christ is a Sin The first when they joyn with them in Worship who call on the Name of Christ The second When the Spirit doth move them to do it not to call on Christ in these Two Cases is a Sin These few Intimations make it Plain that aâ—tho ' they give us no Formula nor Catechism in which we may find a particular Account of what it is they Believe yet in those few things they Profess to Own they can't Agree about the Nature of God whether Omniscient and Immense About the Holy Ghost whether
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
Deity A God without a Deity is a false God because he wants Infinite Perfection a true God then hath Infinite Perfections and therefore must be the most High God except there are Perfections more High than what are Infinite But thus much they Deny tho' Christ be a true God yet he is not the Most High God He is but a Subordinate God in his Essence This then is their Notion Christ is a True Subordinate God i. e. A True God whose Perfections are Infinite a Subordinate God in his Essence whose Perfections can be but Finite and therefore can be no God at all Again 2. Christ is they say God on the Father's giving him Absolute Dominion over all things with a Power and Knowledge whereby he knoweth the Distresses of all and is able to Relieve the Distressed But seeing Nothing short of Omniscience and Omnipotence can know and Relieve and these together with absolute Dominion are Essential Properties of the Most High God How comes it to pass that Christ is not the most High God Here are the Essential Properties of such a God and yet no such God These are some of their Mysteries The Holy Ghost is an Eternal Omnipotent Increate Being but not God He is neither a Creator nor a Creature but an Omnipotent Somewhat different from Both Increate or Unoriginated Omnipotence is not sufficient to evince the Eternal Spirit to be God but a Derived Omnipotence is enough to make a Creature to be a True God Unoriginated Omnipotence is not Reason enough for the adoring the Eternal Spirit but Derived Omnipotence is a good Ground for Rendring Divine Worship to a Creature These Gentlemen you see are the Grand Transubstantiators for they can Transubstantiate a Creature into a True God and still remain a Creature they can Transfer the Essential Properties from one being to another and each Being remain the same it was before the Translation They can Order and Dispose of the Divine Properties in such a Way that they shall be insufficient to Denominate him a True God in whom they were from all Eternity and yet be Powerful enough to make him in whom they were not two Thousand Years ago to be a True God Whether these are Real Mysteries or Real Contradictions let the Prudent judge I will not treat these Over-Wise Men with that Scurrilous Language they do the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity But without Exaggeration I will proceed to Examine what they say of God the Father III. That God the Father is only the most High God is their Assertion of whom they have nevertheless form'd such an Idea as fails of Infinite Perfections So that if we pursue their Notion of a Deity to its utmost Length we must at last sit down amongst the Atheists For the clearing this I do in Concurrence with the Common sentiments of Mankind averr that what Being soever is destitute of an Infinite Perfection is not cannot be God The Essential Properties belong to the Divine Nature including Infinite Perfection that being which is destitute thereof wants what is Essential to God and cannot be the True God If then the Socinians deny any one Infinite Perfection to belong to their God it must be acknowledged that he wants what is essential unto God and is not God And that they Deny thus much is Evident from the Notion they frame of his Eternity and their Rejecting his Immensity and Omniscience I might begin with what they say of God's Eternity but I will only observe what the English Socinian saith of my Lord of Worcester's arguing from Godâ—s Eternity to prove Somewhat in the Attributes of God incomprehensible who instancing in Eternity saith If God was from Eternity he must be from himself In their Answer they tell us To say a Person Ans to the Bp. Worces Serm. p. 5. or Thing was from it self is a Contradiction It implies this Contradiction It was before it was Thus our English Socinian who adds I am sorry an Eternal God must be a Contradiction had he no way to Defend the New Mysteries but by Espousing the Cause of Atheists In Return to this Gentleman passing by what his Lordship hath said in his Consuâ—ation of him I will only observe how he doth at once expose himself and his Leaders such as Socinus Crellius c. who speaking of what is the Essence of God say it is from it self Socinus in his Institution of the Christian Religion answering the Question Tom. 1. p. 651. What ought we to know of the Nature and Essence of God saith These two Things chiefly That he is and that â—e is only One Quest What is it to know That He is Ans It is to know that he hath from himself a Divine Fuâ—piâ—â— oâ—â—r us Besides He tells us that Eternity 〈◊〉 necessarily included in God's having Divine Dominion over us from Himself and so is his Justice Wisdom and Power A little after this he further saith That when it 's said God is One The meaning is There is but one who hath Dominion over us from himself tâ—â—i Sup. p. 681. In like manner the Tenth Argument Crellius presseth to prove that the Father of Jesus Christ is the only Supreme God is this That his Nature and whatever else is proper to the Supreme God he receiv'd from Himself On this Notion of God it is that they build the whole of their Religion and on which they insist to the End they may the more effectually enervate our Arguments for Christ's being God tho' from the Father But as Socinus Crellius c. fail of their Design in that when tâ—s said God is from Himself it must be meant of God taken Essentially not Personally so this Gentleman makes the whole of the Socinian Religion to be founded on a Chimera or Contradiction For if the Nature of God his Dominion Eternity Justice Wisdom and Power be from Himself he must be before he had Dominion Justice c. What then was He He was before he was or as the English Socinian phrases it He must be a Contradiction But as I said waving the Consideration of this Contradiction and their Notion of Eternity which they make to be a sort of Time where are the successive Parts of Past Present and to Come which cannot be without a First Second and a Third and yet must be without 'em or Eternity must have it's Beginning I will urge against them their denying Immensity and Omniscience to belong to God First then they deny God's Immensity and Circumscribe his Essence within the Heavens acknowledging him to be no otherwise every where Present than as he is by his Power Providence and Works Socinus assureth us Soci Frag. Catec Tom. 1. p. 685. he could see no Reason to conclude God's Essence to be Immense because his Power was so expresly declaring That the Divine Essence is not Infinite Crellius and Smalcius hold the same Resp ad â—ranc Dav Tom. 2. p. 735. But if Gods Essence