Insipid Profane an Human Invention grounded on no Testimony of God's Word The Popish God unknown to the Prophets and Aposiles Admonit 1. ad Polon What â—uther is brought in for is not much to the Purpose but if our Socinians have truly Represented Calvin 't is I confess a Quotation driven to the Head But when upon this account I could not but very carefully examine his Admonition to the Polonians unto which he Refers us I can find there no such Thing That the English Socinian's Truth and Candour therefore may be the more set in the Light I will bring to the Reader 's View what it is Calvin doth say on this Occasion In Câ—lvin's Theological Tractates there is an Answer to the Polenian Brethren Refuting the Error of Stancarus who held that Christ was a Mediator only with Respict to his Human Nature whereby Christ's Satisfaction Epist 1. p. â—2 and Man's Redemption are subverted and as Beza affirms a Door is opened unto the Tritheists who lead the Way to Arianism as Arianism brings in the Blasphemies of Samosatenus the Grand Idol of Socinus After this Answer there is a Irief Admonition sent to these Polonians cautioning them against a closure with I landrata â—â—xct Theol. Ed. 3. Genec A. D. 2611. p. 683. c. in making to themselves Three Gods by Imagining the Three Persons to be Three Essences But neither in the Answer nor Admonition is there a Word in Favour of the English Socinians There is also an Epistle sent to the Polonian Nobility and Gentry and to the Worthy Citizens of Cracow occasion'd by what Christophorus Trecius Stanislaus Sarnictus and Jacobus Sylvius wrote to Calvin about the Various Arts and Fraudulent Methods used by Hereticks to ensnare the People into a Denial of Christ's Divinity and a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence But nothing in this Epistle to Justify the Charge of our Gentlemen it being notoriously Manifest that Calvin was for the use of the Terms Trinity and Persons In his Answer to Blandrata's Question about the Name Person he is Positive That the use of it is Necessary to Detect the Frauds of them who craftily endeavour to subvert the Foundations of our Faith And in his Epistles Calv. Epist Edit 2. A. D. 1576. p. 290. 't is more fully declared that the Terms Trinity and Persons are very Profitable to the Church of Christ as by which the true Destinction between the Father Son and Holy Ghost is more clearly discovered and Vexatious Controversies more Essectually Prevented for which Reason they were by no means to be laid aside 'T is true Calvin in his Letter to the Polonian Nobility expresses his Dislike of this Prayer Sancta Trinitas Vnus Deus miserere nostri Precatio mihi non placet says he omnino Barbariem sapit The Prayer not the word Trinity disgusted him And whereas Stancarus had wrested the Scriptures affirming that when 't is said There is One God and One Mediator GOD there signifies the Trinity That they may know thee the only true GOD that is the Trinity Whatever ye ask of the Father that is of the Trinity Calvin in Opposition to these wretched Interpretations of Stancarus saith We reject them not only as Insipid but as Prophane But what is this to his saying the Word Trinity is Barbarous Insipid Prophane the Popish God c. Or what Credit is there to be given to the Reports of an English Socinian Amongst many others Grotius is said by them to be Socinian all over This Great Man say they in his Younger Years attacked the Socinians in a Principal Article of their Doctrine Hist Sâ—â—he Let. 1 p 11. But being Answered by J. Crellius he not only never Replyed but thanked Crellius for his Answer and afterwards writing Annotations on the whole Scriptures he Interpreted every where according to the Sentiments of the Socinians There is nothing in all his Annotations which the more strict followers of Socinus his Doctrine do not approve and applaud His Annotations are a Compleat System of Socinianism not excepting his Notes on the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel which are written so Artificially and Interwoven with so many different Quotations that he hath covered himself and his Sense of that Portion of Scripture from such as do not read him carefully But to clear it that this Great Man the Learned Grotius is not theirs I will offer the following Considerations First then 't is Manifest from what Grotius himself hath oft avowed that altho' he did not Answer Crellius yet he had not changed his Opinion touching what he had written of Christ's Satisfaction In a Letter to Reigersbergius he saith thus In that I did not make Reply to Crellius I acted as I think very Prudently and according to the Advice and Desire of the Reformed Pastors in France who not having that Controversy started amongst them Praved that I would not by writing a Confutation of Crellius bring it in amongst their People And in his Letter to Vossius he adds What need is there of my Repeating what hath been already so fully done I am not afraid as he told Reigersberg of any ones comparing the Texts I produced together with those Explications and Arguments I urged to defend 'em with what hath been writ against them Nor do I in the least doubt but that an Equal Judge will determine for me And to Vossius If Crellius cannot Prove that it is Vnjust for One by his own Consent to bear the Punishment due to another which he will never be able to do the contrary being Agreeable to the Sentiments of the Wise in every Nation which in that very Book Crellius answered and since the Publishing his Answer in my Book de Jure Belli Pacis â—it de Poenarum Commun § xi I have fully shown and design to do it yet more largely in my Annotations Matt. 20.28 from Testimonies out of Hebrew Writers a Copy of which I have given to Mr. â—â—sse an English Divine who came over chiefly to make me a Visit 't will most certainly follow that neither Socinus nor Crellius had any Reason to leave the proper sign sâ—ation of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Price of our Redemption contrary to the most plain and manifest Sense of all Antiquity 2. This Great Man doth moreover provoke them to his Verity of Christian Religion for their Conviction that he had not â—harâ—d his Opinion about Christ's Satisfâ—ction If any saith he desire to know what my Judgment is about the Points Controverted between Crellius and my self since the coming out of his Book he may see it from what I have written on the fifty third of Isay 〈…〉 in my Disputation with the Jews and from what I have said in the close of my Book de Veritate The fifty third of I say he proves to be a Prophecy concerning the Messiah and gives such a Sense of Heb. 1.3 as is most opposite unto the Doctrine
of Kings and Lord of Lords from whom all things are and on whom they depend The Name God taken less properly may be applied to such Creatures as have Power and Superierity given them of God as Moses and Cyrus had c. who were Gods not by Nature but Grace 2. That the Lord Jesus Christ is called the True Son of God and God because he received his Deity from God the Father is True God of True God God of all Creatures not God of the Father who subjects all things to him Moreover the Father himself who alone is by Nature God from himself is Lord and God of the Son as the Son himself expresseth it John 14.28 The Son is fall of the Deity and yet the Superiority the Father hath over the Son remains whence tho the Son is made to us by â—â—e Father Lord and God and our Head yet the Father is God and Head of the Son and the Son as our God and head â—â—ognizeth the Deity and Superiority of the Father over him See then how the Scriptures do constantly distingâ—â—â—â— between God and the Son of God! If we diligently search we shall find that excepting in three or four places the Scriptures do simply and absolutely call the Father God and Jesus his Christ and Son The Divinity of the Son differs from that of other Gods He is the True Natural and in a proper Sense the Son of God we the Adoptive Sons of God To him the Deity was given without measure to us in measure The Deity Power and Glory of the Son is adequate to that of the Father and equal with it but received from the Father not equal with respect to the Father but equal with the Father with respect to the Creatures This Equality the Son will not abuse by turning it into Tyranny or Rapine Philip. 2. The Agreement then between Valentinus Gentilis and Servetus lies in these Points They both affirm Three distinct Essences to be in the Trinity that the Father only is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Essence of the Son is not from it self but from the Fathers that there is but one most High God so that although Gentilis would cover himself under a Vizor that it might not appear he was an Embracer of Servetus â—s Errors and therefore took a different way to explain himself yet it 's plain enough that their Notions for substance were the same and notwithstanding their pretended Zeal for the Unity of God they were a sort of Tritheists However it must be acknowledged that their designed Obscurity was such that it 's not easie to understand what Principles Servetus would substitute instead of a Trinity of Persons in the God head only they generally pleaded for the Preheminence and Superiority of the Fatherâ—s Essence above the Son 's as it had a necessary Tendency towards the Subversion of the Trinity and to this very end Servetus Talentinus Gentilis and Gonesius a Polonian Tritheist against whom Zenchy wrote urged it This Gonesius Biblioth Antitriâ— p. 41. as Sandius observes was the first that oppugned the Doctrine of the Trinity in Poland and as Wissoâ—atius he asserted the Preheminence of the Deity of the Father above that of the Son Nurat Compead for the most part according to the Placita of Servetus and Gentilis Stoinius in his Epitome affirms the same of Genesius and so doth Lubieniescius adding that in a Synod held Ann 1556 he owned it and out of Simâ—er Hist Ref. Pol. l. 2. c. 6. p. 111. 116 Lubieniescius tells us That as in Transiâ—vania Franciscus Davidis was Servetus Illustratus so Gonesius was in Poâ—and Kazonovius and Farnovius were of the same Mind with Gonesius But that they might be the more successful they took another Method to introduce Three Essences into the Trinity still finding that to be the most likely way to expose the Faith of the Orthodox touching this blessed Doctrine which was thus managed Stankarus perhaps of the same Faction with Gentilis and his Disciples started a peculiar Notion about Christ's Mediatorship affirming That the Word God in Scripture signified Trinity that when 't was said There is one God the Meaning is there is Vnus Deus Trinitas for which Reason if Christ be Mediator as God the Trinity saith he must be the Mediator or Christ must be God of a distinct Essence from the Father and inferiour to him And the Orthodox believing Christ to be Mediator as God-Man were accused by Stankarus for being Arians This Notion occasionâ—d Great Distractions amongst the reformed in Poland as appears from what some of â—em wrote to Calvin craving his Thoughts of it and from what Felix Cruciger Gregorius Pauli Stanislaus Latomirski Paulus Gilovius Martinus Crovitius Franciscus Lismaninus and Sundry others who met in a Synod at Pinczow did Anno 1562. send to the Professors of Divinity and Pasâ—ors of the Church at Argentine where was a particular Account of Mankarus his Errors with a Confession of the True Faith But as Calvin seared Blâ—ndrata and his Partizans pretending a Great Zeal for the Doctrine of the Trinity did in a seeming Opposition to Stankarus own the Consequences he had saâ—â—ed on the Doctrine embraced by the Orthodoâ— as what did naturally flow from Christs being Mediator as God-Man and a Table was soon published Taâ—â—â—am nusâ—â—â— Poâ—â—â— Ediâ—am quae Christum Spiritum Sanctum alios a Patre Deo facit noâ— sine moerore inspexi Calv. Tract Theol. p. 683. in which they declared Jesus Christ anc the Holy Ghost to be Two Gods distinct from the Father and that the Three Persons were Three distinct Essences This Table as Calvin apprehended was written by Blandrata but Sandius saith that Gregorius Pauli in an Epistle to the Tigurine Ministers owns himself to be the Author of it For tho' Gregorius Pauli Latomirski Lismaninus and many others subscribed a sound Confession of Faith in Opposition to the Errour of Stankarus yet did they fall in with Blandrata and tho' Calvin sent them an Admonition in which he dehorted them against taking the Three Persons to be Three Essences least they should Frame to themselves Three Gods yet it was saith Beza to very little purpose For the Polonian Ministers Epist 81. p. 363. being bewitch'd with Blandrata's Hypocrisies were generally ensnared to a Closure with his Errors And Blandrata himself Observing how efficaciously this Engine wrought An docuit te Dei verbum multiplicari posse Dei Essentiam Epist Bez. ad Pet. Stator call'd in the Help of Valentinus Gentilis and Petrus Statorius who with Matthaeus Gribaldus and others were indefatigable in their Labours to establish a sort of Tritheism as the most Effectual Means to Introduce their Samosatenian Heresies And their Success this way was Answerable to their Industry and Expectations for in a little time to the Admiration of the Orthodox in other Parts of Europe many of the Reformed in Poland were insnared into a Closure
about the Holiness and Rnighteousness of God cannot but profess to believe that there is no Justification to be had in the sight of God wâ—â—o it a perfect Righteousness and to the end they may the more easily quiet an awakenâ—d Conscience without the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness they either hold that the Law of Works is Abolished and a New Law Erceled A New a mere easie Law so siamâ—d and squar'd to their corrupt Natures as to make their Defective Obedience a perfect Gospel Righteousness fully answering the New Rule they have invented Or affirm That their Faith though it falls short of the Law is nevertheless counted by God for a compleat Performance of it as a late Author supposed to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ hath expressed it in his Reasonableness of Christianity who saith The Law of Works is that Law which requires Perfect Obedience without any Remission or Abatement The Language of this Law is Do this and Live Transgress and Die. P. 20. Those that Obey are Righteous those that in any part Disobey are Unrighteous and must not expect Life the Reward of Righteousness But by the Law of Faith Faith is allowed to supply the Defect of full Obedience and so the Believers are admitted to Life and Immortality as if they were Righteous P. 22. The Moral Law which is every where the same the Eternal Rule of Right obliges Christians and all Men every where and is to all Men the standing Law of Works But Christian Believers have the Privilege to be under the Law of Faith too which is that Law whereby God justifieth a Man for Believing though by his Works he be not Just or Righteous i. e. though he come short of Perfect Obedience to the Law of Works God alone does or can justifie or make just those who by their Works are not so which he doth by counting their Faith for Righteousness i. e. for a compleat Performance of the Law So far this Learned Author who in Opposition to the former that destroys the Old and invents a New Law so framed as to turn our Defective into a Perfect Obedience doth first by Reasons Invincible Establish the Law of Works in all its Parts and then adds a New Law unto it and God's Gracious Esteeming our Faith as fully answering the Law of Works and so stretcheth our Defective Faith to the utmost length of Perfect Obedience As the one brings down the Law to our Imperfection the other raises our Imperfection to the same height with the Law But so long as the Law of Works remains in its Strength there can be no New Rule brought down to make Sin cease to be Sin or turn a Defecrive into a Perfect Obedience And so long as the All-knowing God Judges of things as they are Imperfect Faith can never pass at his Tribunal for a Compleat Performance of the Law there must be then a Perfect Righteousness fully answering the Law of Works or no Justification And it 's more easie as well as more conform to Holy Scripture to believe That the Righteousness of Christ which consists in a full Performance of the Law of Works is given to all that have Faith and by Donation is really made theirs and being really theirs may be justly esteem'd to be theirs and they justified by it But these Men if not mistaking yet surely misrepresenting the old Doctrine as covered with innumerable Absurdities do not only drive their Admirers off from Examining it but so sill their Minds with Prejudices against it as to make them willing to take up with any thing rather than with the Truth especially in a Case so pleasing because somewhat of their own is made their Justifying Righteousness CHAP. III. The deceitful Methods used by Hereticks a cause of Error more generally proposed The approaches of Socinus and his Followers towards the Orthodox The real difference there is between them in Fundamentals A Reflection on these Methods Arminians take the same course c. SECT I. The deceitful methods used by Hereticks more generally proposed Their rise in the Apostles days The deceitful Methods used by some Men of great Learning is another Cause of the growth of Error THERE being some Foundation-Truths so fully clearly and distinctly reveal'd in Holy Writ as to command the Assent of the Church Vniversally in all Ages excepting that in which the Christ an World became Arian they who have been their chief Opposers have retained the Words and Phrases by which those Truths have been transmitted down unto us and introduced their particular Opinions by an Heterodox sense they have fixed on them And when suspected that they might the more effectually conceal their Errors have subscribed sound Catechisms and Confessions whereby they have had the fairer opportunity to instil their Dogmata into the minds of Youth and other less studied Persons and under the Notion of being firm Adherers to the common Faith have engaged them to a closure with the unsoundest Parts of their Heretical Scheme In the Apostles days they who err'd from the Faith attempted by good words and fair speeches to seduce the simple Rom. 16.18 And Irenaeus who lived near that time Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans describing the Hereticks of that Age Digres de 〈◊〉 â—heol Helmstad Râ—g Syn◠〈◊〉 pag. â—88 as Calevius observes tells us that they speak like unto the Orthodox This was the way Arius after he was driven from Alexandria for his Heresie took to be restored to the Emperour's favour tho' he retained his Error yet subscribed a found confession of Faith as 't is reported by Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. l. c. 25 c. Pelagius when conven'd before a Provincial Synod at iâ—iospolis in Pelaestine at which Fourteen Bishops were present but not his Accusers August â—eâ—ract lib. 2 〈◊〉 47. 〈◊〉 ad 〈…〉 doth concur with the Orthodox in condemning his own Opinions but as Vossius out of St. Austin observes he dâ—d it very deceitfully Pelagianamsententiam pectore quidem ficto sed tamen Catholicos judices timens Pelagius ipse damnavit And as the same Possius adds Hierom. Epist 79. St. Hierom calls this Synod a miserable one because tho' they err'd not in Doctrines yet not discerning the falshood of the man they â—rrâ—d in the Judgment they past on him who being better known at Rome could not conceal his Treacherous Endeavours but was soon detected by the Bishops of that place Vâ—ss Hest Pelar lib. 1. Cap. 41. Hareâ—ici imitantur Catholicos fâ—eut simiae imitantur homineâ— Cyâ—â—â—ian ad Jubajanum This being the common practice of Hereticks St. Cyprian compares them to Apes saying they imitate the Orthodox as Apes do Men. Now this having been a very successful as well as a most pernicious Articice in constant practice amongst the Ancients the Socinian and Armintan Leaders whose Reputation hath been and is still so great that the respect multitudes have for them in regard to
their Candor and Integrity which is supposed to be conspicuous in the Representations they make of their own and their Adversaries Principles have walk'd in the same Path as I hope in the following History with some clearness to detect and make manifest SECT II. The seeming Approaches of Socinus and his Followers towards the Orthodox THE Socinians altho' they deny a Trinity of Persons in the God-head the Divinity of Christ and the Personality of the Holy-Ghost Christs Satisfaction and Merit Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the work of the Spirit in Conversion c. Yet in their Apologies Confessions and other Writings they give us their Opinions in such words as if they held all these necessary Doctrines Ruarus who is justly esteemed by the excellent â—â—lâ—husius Specimen Refut Crell de satisf p. 3.5 to be one of the most Learned Socinians amongst the Reasons annexed to the first Century of his Select Episiâ—les perswading the Papists to express more candor towards them closes with this Protestation That they do heartily believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit that they Baptize in the Name of the Father Son Ruar Epist Select par 1. pag. 464. and Holy Ghost and acknowledge an Vnity in this Trinity that they esteem Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the true God and as such worship him that they believe Christ to have abundantly satisfied the Will of the Father in all things which he imposed on him to do and suffer for our sins and so by the Victime of his Body hath expiated them In an Epistle to Heing Veglerus this Learned Ruarus thus writes Ruar Epist 16. P. 107. My most intimate Friends have oft heard me Profess that in most humble manner I adore the Divine Nature in Christ and am most hearty in acknowledging his true Merit and Satisfaction made for us altho these words are not in Scripture I Challenge 'em all to accuse me if they can for denying the Hypostasis or Subsistence of the Holy-Ghost or for rejecting Infant-Baptism or for placing our Righteousness in the Merit of our Works or any thing like it In an Epistle to Frederick Schossirus whose perversion Ruarus doth endeavour after he had advised him to cast off those prejudices he had received with hâ—s Mother Milk beseeches him to consider thâ—â— they do not deny Christ's satisfaction but hold that he satisfied the Will of his Father both by doing and suffering all those things imposed on him by the Father for the sake of us and our Sins Ruar Epist 23. p. 146 147. whence it comes to pass that our sins are pardon'd and Eternal Life given us He is more full in what he writes unto Nigrinus for saith he I do acknowledge that the Obedience which Christ as the Head of all the Elect did render unto God in his Life and much rather in his Death was a sufficient or full price for our Sins and so equivalent to the sufferings which by our Sins we had deserved But that I may more distinctly deliver my thoughts concerning the Fruits of Christs Death I will reduce what I have taken out of the Holy Scriptures to Three Heads answerable to his Three-fold Office For Christ being the Chief Prophet of God even as was Moses published a New Law unto the People and whatever he Taught Commanded Promised or Did when alive he by his Death Eminently Confirmed Sealed and Sanction'd whereby we are obliged to believe him and obey his Laws And God himself engaged to perform all that Christ hath promised in his Name Touching the Priestly Office which lyeth in making Prayers for the People and Sacrificing that is to say Killing the Victim and then according to the Law offering it for the Expiation of Sin Christ a little before his Death pouring out most ardent Prayers to God on behalf of all that then did or after should believe and entering into Heaven through Death doth now make Intercession for them and freely offer'd up himself upon the Cross as one to be made an Atoneing Victim and with this Victim of his Body prepared for an Oblation by Death he entered into the Heavens as into the Holy of Holies and offer'd up this Sacrifice of himself without Spot by the Eternal Spirit unto God who is amongst the Cherubims or rather with the Myriads of Angels there appearing for ever before the Throne of the Divine Majesty to expiate the Sins of the People and procure their Pardon And that he might enter on the Execution of his Kingly Office whereby he doth all things which belong to the Salvation of the Elect defending and freeing them from all Evil and at length making them meet for the partaking of Spiritual and Heavenly Blessings He did by rendring Obedience to the Death open a way whence we owe all unto Christ who so readily dyed for us The Causes also of our Salvation may be considered as Three fold The First the freest Grace of the Immortal God The Second is Christ who as our Head hath undertaken for his Body with God The Last is our Faith and Obedience towards God wrought by the Spirit of Regeneration To this of Ruarus I will annex what Slichtingius the Polonian Knight hath in the Pelonian Confession and Apology In the Preface to the Confession they say That the Apostles Creed is most Ancient containing the most pure and Apostolical Truth as first delivered that therefore in Publishing the Faith of their Churches to express their Consent with the whole World they keep most close unto this Creed and although they esteem the third Part about the Holy Ghost not to be so Ancient as the other two Parts yet they Profess that they believe all contained in it to be most true And in their Exposition of what is said about Christ's being Dead they declare That then Christ's Soul was made an Offering for Sin that all those Scriptures which assign the Expiation and Remission of our Sins to the Blood of Christ do make it clear that Christ's Death was tanquam victima â—iacularis that is as an Expiatory Sacrifice or Victim Besides on these Words the Remission of Sin it s thus We believe all past Sins how gross soever and all Sins of Infirmity committed after the Acknowledging of the Truth are through the Obedience Blood and Oblation of Christfully â—â—â—â—ven them that have the Communion 〈…〉 formerly spoken of For this 〈…〉 say they Justification is not 〈…〉 the Law or our own 〈…〉 That this Remission of 〈◊〉 and Justification is on our part obâ—â—â—ed by â—â—ith and Repeniance and contrued unto us by the Fruits thereof This is that part of the Socinian Confession Vid. Curcel â—uâ—â—ern Differ Theo. Adver Mares Differ 4. Sect. 13. with which Stephen Curcellaeus twits honest Maresius as what is more Sound than what is embraced by him and other Calvinists Michtingius in his Apology which was occasion'd by an Edict of the Lords of Holland and West
the Difference lyeth in Fundamentals THAT they deny the Trinity of Persons in the God-head the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Personality of the Holy Spirit is the Burthen of all their Writings Who can cast his Eye on Socinus Slichtingius Crellius Wolzogenius and Smalcius and not see how much they expose these Doctrines Enjedinus hath a large Quarto to prove that not one Word either in the Old or New Testament can be found to favour the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ Franciscus Davidis and George Blandrata in their Refutation of George Major insinuate that this Blessed Doctrine is a Papal Antichristian Invention The Blasphemies of Servetus may be seen in Calvin's Refutation of them but too vile at this time to be mentioned And in Calvin's Explication of Valentinus Gentilis his Perfidiousness there is an account of his Opposition to the same Truths And whoever will may consult Sandius his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec where is a large Catologue of Socinian Writers against the Trinity c. And Christ's Satisfaction which is really subverted by the denyal of his Divinity is also expresly Exploded Though they grant a Satisfaction the Payment of a Price the enduring a Punishment a Punishment equipollent to what we have by our Sins deserved yet they mean quite another thing than what is generally understood by us which as soon as they have by the use of Orthodox Expressions ensnared their Readers to put a favourable Sence upon their Writings they discover Insinuating that the Satisfaction they and as they will have it the Holy Scriptures are for is not to God's Justice it is not properly by paying a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price a full Price nor an Equivalent to what we deserved It is only a Satisfaction improperly and in a Figurative a Metaphorical Sence and that only to the Divine Will and called Satisfaction for no other Reason than because God is pleased freely to accept on 't as such Ruarus therefore having called Christ's Sufferings a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price Equipollent to what our Sins deserved adds Not that it is so any otherwise than Exclementi Deâ—â—â—cceptatione that is to say Christ's Sufferings are Satisfactory through God's Gracious Acceptation not to his Justice but Will which Smalcius in his Answer to Smiglecius his Preface to his Discourse about Christâ—s Satisfaction doth thus explain We do acknowledge that Christ did satisfie in all those things imposed on him by God Smal. Fraef ad Smigl de Satisf for the procuring our Salvation but Christ did not satisfie that Justice of God which cannot suffer any Sin to go unpunished and appease God's Anger reconcâ—le him unto us by enduring those Punishments in our Stead that were due unto us and meriting Salvation for us Though there can be no Redemption without a full and satisfying Price and notwithstanding the Holy Scriptures speak much of Redemption and of a Price a full Price and of Christ's Redeeming us by his Blood as the Price which Expressions can import nothing less than a proper Satisfaction yet have they the Confidence to assert not only that Christ's Redemption may be but must be without Satisfaction that such is the transcending Mercy of God in our Redemption that it cannot be otherwise That the Righteousness of God exacting Satisfaction in order to the Pardon of our Sins is not so much as to be mentioned that there is no such Righteousness in God That it 's inconsistent with the Excellency of his Grace and Mercy So Smale ubi sup To put the best Colours they can upon this their odd Notion they having granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Price and full Price doth signifie a proper Price paid for the Redeeming a Slave out of Captivity they averr that in the Holy Scriptures it must be taken otherwise viz. improperly and Metaphorically Wolzogenius in his Commentary on Matthew interpreting these Words Chap. 20.28 The Son of Man gave his Life a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ransom for many confesseth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wolz. Mat. 20.28 Ransom doth properly signifie the Payment of a Price for a Captive and a Liberation or Deliverance from his Captivity However it is taken amongst Prophane Writers and almost every where in the Holy Scripture Metaphorically for a Liberation without respect to the Payment of any Price for it cannot saith he be proved That Christ did make any Payment to the Justice of God by his Death for there is no such Justice in God as doth exact Vindictive Punishment for Sins Crellius in his Answer to Grotius de Satisfactione Crel Respons ad Grot. de Satisf c. 6. Socin Praelect Theol. 6.19 argues after the same manner Wolzogenius doth and what both urge was more fully done before by Socinus himself in his Theological Prelections As Redemption which properly is the Paying a full Price for the Deliverance of a Slave carries in it Satisfaction and therefore by the Enemies of Christ's Satisfaction the Scriptures which speak of Redemption without the least shadow of a Reason are turn'd into Metaphors so Christ's â—earing our Sorrows though granted by them meets with the same Treatment For as Smalcius We confess that Christ did truly bear our Griefs and Sorrows Smalâ— contra Smigl de Satisf c. 6. p. 223. but we deny it to be in that manner which Smaglecius affirms it to be namely that Christ bore the Punishment of our Sins for as in this manner 't is Impossible Blasphemous and Pernicious so there are other ways in which Christ may be said to bear our Sins and they such as are more conform to the Holy Scriptures more worthy of God and safe for Men namely That Christ suffered Death by Reason of our Sins That he would never have Suffered if Man had not Sinned and that he himself bore our Sins that is abolished them it being most certain that the Word Bearing in Scripture signifieth a Power to take away Further God exacted not any Punishment due ex Justitia being an absolute Soveraign Smalc ubi sup p. 293. p. 300. who can as he pleaseth forgive the Sins committed against him nor did Christ offer up himself to bear the Punishment of our Sins nor if Christ had so offerd up himself might God accept it For if God had Punished the Innocent for the Nocent he would have been not only Cruel but Injust and Unwise And within a few Pages after this he insinuates as if the Doctrine of Satisfaction as held by the Orthodox makes God more Cruel than any Tyrant And whereas it is expresly asserted by the Holy Ghost in 2 Cor. 5. and last Verse That Christ is made Sin to take off the Force of the Argument we draw from thence Smalcius doth assert Smalc Refut Smigl de satisf c. 7. p. 229. That to be made Sin cannot signifie a Sacrifice for Sin but Christ is said to be made Sin because he was dealt with by God as if
he had been a Sinner from which 't will not follow that therefore Christ made Satisfaction for us or endured the same Punishment that was due to us We all acknowledge that on him who knew no Sin the Punishment that was due unto Sinners was inflicted but not the same Punishment nor what was Equivalent unto it was or could be laid on him wherefore what we have said concerning laying the Punishments due for our Sins on Christ By Punishments we mean Afflictions which signifies no more than what was carefully delivered a Page or two before Smalc ubi sup p. 226. Slicht Annot. in 2 Cor. 5.21 Crell Respons ad Grot. de satisf c. 4. Apol. Pol. Equit. p. 13.14 Przipcov Cogit in â—oc when he desires it may be Remarked That when they speak of Christ's being Punished for our Sins they mean only that he was Afflicted The same is affirmed both by Slichtingius and Crellius Again they own no other Imputation of Righteousness besides that of our Faith for saith the Polonian Knight in his Apology The Scriptures makes no mention of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness but simply of a Righteousness imputed unto us by God through Christ which is when God doth of his Grace and Mercy raise our Faith in Christ a living Faith working by Love so high that by it we who are guilty of most gross Sins may be esteemed Just and Righteous which is also called the Righteousness of God not ours because it 's given us freely and not for any Merit in us Now as they do thus set the Imputation of an Inherent Righteousness of our own in the stead of Christ so notwithstanding their many Pretences about ascribing Conversion to the Power of the Spirit they mean nothing less Ruarus in his Epistle to Peuschelius Ruar ad Joan. Peuschel Epist 9. doth very fully express the Socinian Sence Conversion which lyeth in a Reformation of the Vnderstanding approving the Gospel and of the Will resolved to Obey or actually observing it is caused immediately by that Conception we have in the Mind concerning God and Christ and the things appertaining to Religion and by such Arguments as move the Vnderstanding to approve and the Will to obey the Gospel This Conception is begotten in the Mind either by hearing the Word Preached or Reading it whence it is that the Word whether by Voice or Writing expressed is a kind of Remote Cause of Conversion yet such as ought necessarily to go before and if diligently heard or Read is ordinarily sufficient to begin it in all excepting some dull Persons whose Minds are too much under the influence of wicked Opinions and Wills distorted by a long custom in Sin I say that the Word is sufficient to begin our Conversion for I do not deny but that after we have rightly used our Natural Faculties the Help of the Divine Spirit is given for the encreasing the Strength is in us to the compleating and finishing of our Conversion which yet we could not know how to use to so Holy an End unless we had been first moved by God and excited by his Word Hence it doth appear that it is God who works in us both to Will and to iâ—o the first when invited by a putting us in mind of the Gospel the other when by the moving of his Spirit he strengthens us yet so that there is still Room left for the being excited to Vertue by the Proposals of Rewards and deterr'd from Vice by the threatning of Punishments To which I add That if any will have it that this Knowledge in our Mind which precedes our Assent be rather a part of our Conversion than a Cause I will not content with him only then the Word of God Preached or Read must not be esteemed the Mediate but immediate Cause of our Conversion Thus far Ruarus who makes it very manifest that the Socinian Notion touching the Power of the Spirit to Convert lyeth in ascribing the great turn from Darkness unto Light and from the Power of Satan to God unto the Hearing or Reading of the Word without any special Help of God's Spirit There being then so great a Difference between the Orthodox Expressions used by the Socinians and the corrupt Sense foâ—sâ—ed in under their Covert we need not wonder at Ruarus his asserting that the Papists amongst all other Sects have most Reason to be kind unto the Socinian for how Orthodox soever they would seem to be they embrace the most corrupt and hurtful parts of the Popish Religion I will clear this Assertion by giving you Ruarus his own Words which are amongst the Reasons given by him to show why the Papists ought not to be so very angry with the Vnitarians whom they call Socinians or Arians Another Reason saith he is Ruar because in the chief Articles of the Christian Faith they agree with the Church of Rome more than any other Sect whatsoever namely in the Doctrine of Predestination â—lection and Conditional Reprobation the Vniversality of God's Grace and Fruits of Christ's Death of free Will and its Interest in the Conversion of Man to the Faith of Justification which is made effectual by Charity of the Necessity of Good Works which they urge more vehemently than any other Church of the Possibility of keeping all God's Commands of the Difference between the Old and New Testament preferring the New before the Old with respect to the Promises and Precepts of the Difference between Venial and deadly Sins It is also manifest That how Orthodox soever Przipeovius would have his afflicted Innocence esteemed and though he differs from Socinus about the Divinity of Christ affirming him to be God truly in a proper Sence and by Nature Yet he is as far from the Truths he would be thought to embrace as any of that Gang. For in that very place where he opposes them who ascribe to Jesus Christ Divine Attributes and yet deny his Divine Nature to expose the Ridiculousness of this Notion he tells his Readers that it 's as Absurd as the Doctrine received by the Orthodox about Distinction of Persons in the same Essence And although he speaks of Christ's being God truly in a proper Sence yet denies him to be Co-eternal and Co equal with the Father and makes him to be but a Subordinate God Przipcov Hypera p. c. 4. not properly God and Man at the same but at distinct Seasons first Man then God Nor doth he hold that the Holy Ghost is a Person distinct from the Father and is of the same Opinion with the Socinians about Satisfaction giving the same Interpretation of those Texts that speak of Christ's being made Sin and giving himself a full Price that Wolzogenius Crellius and Slichtingius have done before him as may be seen in his Cogitations on the New Testament What Socinus and his Followers have herein done it 's very probable they learned from their chief Leader Bernhardinus Ochine who Writing more Academicorum did not
only so deceitfully deliver his Sence as to bring the Truth in doubt but urges Arguments so closely in defence of Error as to give it the Advantage Though Sandius in his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec accuses Hoornbeck for misunderstanding Zarnovecius and Zarnovecius for misrepresenting Matters of Fact when in the Preface of his Answer to Socinus de Servatore he makes Ochinus to be his Master from whom he had his Errors Sandius is under the Mistake and Zarnovecius in the right Zarnovecius in his Preface Zarvov contra Socinum de servat Praef. having in one Paragraph shown too great an Agreement between Socinus the Jews and Turks doth in the next assure us That Socinus had not his Blasphemies against the Son of God out of the Holy Scriptures nor from the ancient consent of godly Men professing the Orthodox Faith from the Apostle's Days to our Times but out of the Dialogues of his Country-Man and undoubtedly his Master Ochinus who had written at large thirty years before By Master Zarnovecius cannot well be supposed to mean any more than One from whom Socinus took his Notions which is freely confessed by Socinus himself Socin Epist Vadovit in an Epistle to Vadovita Professor at Cracovia where he is positive That as he never Published any thing but by the Importunity of others so the very Notions complained or had been long before propagated by others both in Poland and elsewhere particularly by Ochinus as Zarnovecius had observ'd For really that Opinion saith Socinus is clearly asserted and inculcated in those Dialogues and it is in short this That Christ did indeed by his Blood wash away and expiate our Sins but in another Manner than that vulgarly received viz. That he by pouring out his Blood paid to Divine Justice all that we by reason of our Sins were indebted to it or that he made Satisfaction for us and our Sins for neither was there any need of it nor would God require the Punishment of our Sins from another or transact our Debts on him but freely forgive them This Passage of Socinus doth at once clear Zarnovecius from Sandius his Charge and prove Ochinus to be for the very Notions Socinus most heartily espoused which compared with the Profession Ochinus makes of the Orthodox Faith and his manner of handling it may convince an Unbyassed Mind that he made the first Publication of those Errors in that deceitful way since taken up by his Socinian Followers for tho' Socinus himself asserts That Ochinus openly delivered and inculcated the same Notion about Satisfaction he was charged with yet Ochinus doth it by his Friend Jacobus the other Dialogist pretending an Answer to the Arguments he had urged as if he had been a Zealous Asserter of the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction SECT IV. A Reflection on the deceitful Methods of the Socinians THESE few Instances are I presume sufficient to Evince that the Socinians are not the Fairest and most Candid Adversaries nor ever can be justly so esteemed except Deceit double Dealing and Hypocrisie be made the Ingredients of true Candor and a generous handling of Controversies For as you have seen their Method is first to make their Heresies look most like the Doctrines they oppose and as soon as they find their ensnared Proselites able to bear it they take of their Mask acknowledge the difference to be great and then go on to treat the Doctrines that just before they would be thought to be for to use Dr. Edwards his Word most n = * See Dr Edward's Preface to his Preservative against Socinianism scurrilously and with the greatest Impudence insinuating as if they had been the only Masters of Reason and sincerest Professors of true Piety and Holiness They are so humble and modest that it 's become impossible for them to forbear either the Despising others or Applauding themselves Socinus therefore could not but write a Treatise on purpose to prove That it 's the Duty of every good Man among the Reformed in Poland Socin in Append. to separate from them as from Persons too Impious to be Communicated with and joyn themselves to the more Holy Assemblies of those falsely and undeservedly to use his own Words called Afrians and Ebâ—onites He takes it for granted that the Reformed were very Vicious and Debauch'd and assigns the Reason partly to their Doctrines and partly to their Neglect of Discipline And glories in the Holiness of their own Assemblies pretending that such are their Principles and such the exactness of their Discipline that it could not well be otherwise This Book of Socinus was answered by Balthazzar Meisner Slicht cont Meis p. 485. a Lutheran but defended by Slichtingius who to expose the Reformed enumerates many vile Practices observed in common by them And in Vindication of Socinus and his Followers makes no scruple to assert That their Glorying not being Rash but well grounded is no more than what the Apostle hath done before them Ubi sup p. 488. nor did the Pharisee Sin in Publishing his Vertues but in Exalting himself and Contemning others when he should humbly have sought for the Pardon of his own Sins a thing they endeavoured even when they modestly mention the things done by their Assemblies that were worthy of Praise But though they usurp to themselves this Title viz. Great Masters of Reason they will not allow Reason the Privilege of being Competent enough to discover the plainest and most necessary Truth in the whole of our Religion namely That there is a God and in some of those very Instances in which they ascribe most unto it they oppose its clearest Maxims which is most effectually done in their Essays to destroy the Divine Nature of our Blessed Redeemer where struggling between plain Scripture and their own Error to maintain the latter which lyeth in their making him but a Finite Creature and own what is the burthen of the former that Infinite Perfections belong unto him and he the proper Object of our highest Adoration and Worship They contradict the clearest Reason as grosly as ever the Papists do by making a Finite Subject the Seat of Infinite Perfections Of this Przipcovius being aware he roundly asserts That Jesus Christ is truly God in a proper Sence and truly Man but not at the same time when on Earth he was properly Man and after his Resurrection and not till then truly and properly God A Notion as gross as the former a true God in a proper Sence and by Nature and yet a God but Sixteen or Seventeen Hundred Years ago Nor are they more happy in their Morals for beside their Hypocrisie their denying all secret Assistances and the certainty of God's fore-seeing all future Events that depend upon the freedom of Man's Will as a very learned Person hath lately observed must cut off the Exercise of many Devotions and much weaken our Confidence in God our Patience under all Misfortunes and our Expectations of a Deliverance in due
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
à multis retro seculis imo ab ipso paene Apostolorum aevo inaudita fuêre Once more I must Observe that this Renowned Zuicker was so puffed up with the Conceit he had of his Catholicon that he cannot forbear making a Break in the Beginning of his Book to the end he might insert another Pompous Title before the third Branch of his Argument by which he endeavours to Prove the Soundness of his Conciliatory Rule The Title begins thus ORBIS CATHOLICUS in potissiâ—is suis Traditionibus de Fide primorum Christianorum EXTREME ERRANS seu VERA primae Antiquitatis fideique primorum Christianorum MONUMENTA Ad dudum anissam Veritatem pacemque Ecclesiae post liminio restituendam ORBI CHRISTIANO clarius quam unt quam antehac ob oculos posita This is it our Socinian Doctor tells the World He hath a rare Secret scarce heard of since the Apostles Days till he Discovered it but now so admirably well done that if there be an Observing his Fundamental and Infallible Decisions 't will without any other help safely and suddenly decide the most Important Controversies Recover lost Truth Judge Convince Confound any Adversary with their Heretical Counsels be they never so Pertinacious and Obstinate And whereas the Catholick World hath been extâ—eamly Ignorant of the Traditions of the Primitive Christians unknown to every body 〈◊〉 he took 'em out of Petavius and Published them But what is this rare Secret this Wonderful Catholicon I mean his Conciliatory Rule It lyeth only in the Denial of Christs Divinity All if they will have Peace with them must hold that Jesus Christ is not the most high God This is his healing Truth which he undertakes to prove from the Holy Scriptures Sound Reason and Ancient Tradition being induced to pitch on this as the most likely Expedient â—â—â—nicamast pag. 14. by the Observations he made of Men's casting off their malevolent Humour on their turning Socinians Of the certainty and clearness with which 't was Demonstrated and the Hopes he hereupon conceived of the Conversion of Infidels But can any Man in his Wits think that we who are fully Perswaded in our Consciences of the Truth of Christ's Divinity and that the Belief of it is absolutely Necessary to Salvation can renounce this Principle for the sake of Peace with them This is as if one amongst us should start up and cry earnestly for a Peace with France proposing no other Terms than an entâ—re Resignation of our Laws Liberty and Property to the Pleasure of their Grand Monarch What could the English think of such a Fellow would they think him Compos Mentis or would they not be for sending him to Bedlam And yet of this Nature is Zuicker's Project for a Catholick Union And that made Doctor Bull speak so Rightfully of it Whether the Doctor hath herein broke the Chartel of Honour and Civility or deserved such Vsage from this English Socinian I leave to the Palate of the whole English Church unto whom a Belief of Christ's Deity which he would have us Reject is as Necessary to our Future Bliss as our Laws Liberties and Properties are to the Present Peace and Tranquillity of the Nation These few Intimations are sufficient to convince us that the English Socinians have undertaken the Defence of a bad Cause and therefore are driven to so many miserable shifts one while striking in with the Papists yet otherwile with the Quakers crying down Learning Railing at Learned Men and become more shameful Revilers of their Adversaries than others SECT VI. Their Boasts of Learned Men on their Sid. Their Claim to the Fathers in the Opinion of some Foreign Socinians Groundless Calvin not Displeased with the Term TRINITY Grotius not Socinian allover A Suspicion that these Methods may fail of the desired Success puts 'em on Attempts of a contrary kind And therefore in case Learning and Learned Men keep up their Esteem they tell us That the â—â—nitarians have a particular Reputation Exhort to a Free Enq. p. 3. as most skillful in that which is the Proper Learning of Divines The Sacred Criticism and are talk't of by their Adversaries as a sort of Subtile Rational and Discerning Men. They lay a Claim to the Anti-Nicene Fathers and to several Learned Men amongst Modern Writers who indeed are none of theirs Whence it is that the most Learâ—â—â— â—â—â—â—ians abroad such as Socinus Crellius a â—ittichius averrs confin'd themselves in their Arguments to the Holy Scriptures and Sound Reason This Gittichius saw the Fathers to be so much against them that instead of Appealing unto them He represents them as a Company of Ignorant Foolish Scriblers Epist Resp ad Ruar not more sit to determine Controversies of this Nature than Blind Men are to Judge of Colours And whereas a very Eminent Person had offered some Scruples against the Doctrines of Socinus amongst which one was their being Embraced only by the Thionites Cerinthians and Arians in the first Ages of Christianity Socinus in his Answer tells us that their Doctrines were clearly Revealed in Scripture That if some men perceiv'd it not it was their own Fault That how great soever their Ignorance was 't was not in those Points without the Knowledge of which there could be no Salvation And what was said of Ebion Cerinthus and Arius concern'd not them Quae hic de Ebione Cerintho Ario dicuntur ad rem non faciunt cum nemo illorum ipsam sententiam nostram Defenderit Socin Solut Scrupul for not one of them Defended what they held And in his Answer to Vujekus he is more full Declaring that as the Authority of the Fathers could be of no weight when put in the Scales against the Holy Scriptures so they lay no claim unto them no not to those who were before the Nicene Council The many Authorities and Testimonies saith he taken out of the Fathers and Councils are of no Force at all especially amongst us who Own that we dissent from them which are extant Nor can it be shown Socin Resp ad Vujek p. 444. that any of our way affirmed the Anti-Nicene Fathers which are now extant to be of our Opinion Altho we are all perswaded they are no less if not more against our Adversaries Howbeit there have been some feeble Efforts put forth towards the Proving that the Fathers are Theirs but such as have been to their shame fully Confuted They have therefore endeavoured to shelter themselves under the Wings of Calvin and Luther as if They had been such Nominal Trinitarians as the Sabellians and much displeased with the Use of the Term Trinity M. Luther complains the word Trinity sounds odly Nom. Real Trin. p. 40. it were better to call Almighty God GOD than Trinity Postil major Dominic Mr. Calvin is less pleased with these kind of Terms He says I like not this Prayer O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity it savours of Barbarity The Word Trinity is Barbarous
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
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
Disbelief of it men were Pronounced Believers or Unbelievers Thus you see that the whole of Christianity is brought within the Compass of these few words To believe that Jesus of Narareth or Jesus the son of Mary is the Messiah They that Believe thus much are Good Christians such as were Received into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body as far as meer believing could make them so Now I say that according to this Principle the Mahometans are good Christians and ought to be Receivâ—d into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body For they do Profess to believe That Jesus the Son of Mary is the Messiah in the second Chapter of the Alcoran Certainly we gave the Law to Moses and after him sent many Prophets We Inspired Knowledge into Jesus the Son of Mary and Strengthened him by the Holy Ghost In the next Chapter The Angels called Zachary and said unto him I Declare to thee from God that thou shalt have a Son called John he shall affirm the Messias to be the Word of God that he shall be a Great Person Chaste a Prophet and one of the Just Remember thou how the Angels said Oh! Mary God Declareth unto thee a Word from which shall Proceed the Messias named Jesus the Son of Mary full of Honour in this World and that shall be in the other of the Number of Intercessors with his Divine Majesty I will teach him the Scriptures the Mysteries of the Law the Old Testament and the Gospel and He shall be a Prophet sent to the Children of Israel Jesus said to the Children of Israel I come to you with evident signs of my Mission from your Lord I am come to you with Signs of my Mission that Testifie that I am truly sent from your Lord Remember thou how the Lord God sald O Jesus I will cause thee to Die I will Raise thee to my self and Remove thee far from Infidels and Prefer those that have Obeyed thee to Infidels at the Day of Judgment And of the Jews in the fourth Chapter it 's said God Imprinted Infidelity in their Hearts they shall never Believe in his Law except very Few of them because of their Malice and the Blasphemies they Vomited against Mary They said we have slain the Messiah Jesus the Son of Mary the Prophet and Apostle of God Chap. 5. Chap. 61. The Messiah the Son of Mary is a Prophet and Apostle of God Remember thou that Jesus the son of Mary said to the Children of Israel I am the Messenger of God He hath sent me to Confirm the Old Testament so far the Alcoran Mahumed Ben Achmed an Eminent Interpreter of the Alcoran by His Word understands the Son which when spoken absolutely points us only unto the Son of God Lib. 1. c. 1. Elmacinus in his History of the Saracens saith that the Mahometans hold Christ the Son of Mary to be the Son of God And as Borcardus The Saracens do affirm and confess Christ to be truly the Son of God De Ter. S. p. 1. c. 7. Sect. 12. Besides it 's also said that they believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God Ascended into Heaven setting on the Right hand of the Father and Mahomet on the Left Thus Sandius in his Church History so much Admired by our English Socinians Hist Enuc lib. 3. Sec. 7. p. â—2 c. Now seeing what our Author Insists on as Necessary to make a man a True Believer is in the Turkish Alcoran I wou'd fain know whether the Mahometans who Believe these Points are not in his Esteem such Christians as ought to be Received into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body What is it that He requires as necessary to our being such that the Turks do not profess to hold Doth not he enjoyn them to Believe that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Messiah sent of God which he proved by Miracles that he Dyed Rose again and is one the Right Hand of the Omnipotent God The Turks Believe the same Will he have us worship Christ but not with that Adoration which is due to the most High God The Turks will do it so Sandius Christum essè adorandum sed non eo summo Cultu 〈…〉 â—â—i suâ— quo Adoratur ejus Dominus Deus Doth he say that Jesus is more highly exalted than Mahomet himself Mahomet in his Alcoran grants it not only that Jesus is on the Right Hand and himself on the Left but that he is Inferiour to the Blessed Virgin the Mother of our Lord So Sandius out of Bellonius Cusanus Richardus and others Doth He Require us to Believe that Christ Dyed Rose again and that there shall be a Resurrection of our Souls and Bodies the Turks Believe it Will he have it that Christ shall Appear Personally and erect a Glorious Kingdom on Earth when all must Believe in him The Mahometans say the same only they will allow unto Jesus but forty not a thousand years for his Personal Reign Doth he Require us to Believe the Old and New Testament to be Inspired It is no more than what is affirm'd in their Alcoran where it 's express Chap. 2. that God sent Mahomet to Confirm the Scriptures namely the Old Testament and the Gospel that God Inspired into him to Confirm the Ancient Scripture And Nicholaus Cardinal de Cusa in the Prologue to his Cribratio Alcorani saith that Balthasar de Luparis sometime a Merchant at Constantinople oft told him that the Mahometan Doctors did greatly respect and love the Gospel preferring it to the Book of their own Law That one of the most Learned of their Doctors being Instructed out of the Gospel of John touching the Truth Proposed to Balthasar his Design of going to Rome with Twelve others might he have safe Conduct which the Cardinal de Cusa procured but the Learned Turk was hindred by Death And Sandius â—hi supra out of Borcardus Reports That these Saracens have Saint John in the Highest Esteem next unto Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin counting Him the greatest and most Holy amongst the Prophets Doth our Author urge the Necessity of Repentance The Turks press the same as necessary unto the Pardon of Sin though not of that Sin which is unto Death What then is it that can hinder their being good Christians in the Judgment of our English Socinians Or seeing our Socinians believe no more touching what they judge necessary to Salvation than the Turks do what is it that makes them better Christians than the Mahometans are Our Author is pleased to challenge Us to shew that there is any other Doctrine upon our Assent to which or Disbelief of it Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers But I crave leave to tell him amongst other Doctrines that of Christ's Divinity is one If he will consult John 5.18 23 24 c. He 'll find it to be clearly Revealed and sufficiently proved by the Lord