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
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
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
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
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
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
Jesus Himself that the Belief of his being God Equal with the Father is so necessary that without it we can't be pronounced Believers The Holy Evangelist in the Account he gives of the Discourse that was between Christ and the Jews expresly declares that the Jews sought to kill Jesus because he said that God was his Father making Himself equal with God Notwithstanding which the Lord Jesus went on to the Proofs assuring them that His doing the same Works which the Father doth doth evince him to be God equal with the Father adding that the Father hath so committed all Judgment unto the Son that all Men should Honour the Son even as they Honour the Father That is with the same Honour Worship and Adoration For he that Honoureth not the Son Honoureth not the Father which has sent him which Words do plainly shew that 't is the Will of the Father That we believe his Son Jesus to be God equal with himself For a rendring the same Honour to the Son which is due unto the Father carrieth in it an Ascription of those Essential Perfections of God to him which make him to be God equal with the Father which cannot be lawfully done by any but such as believe him to be so as appears not only from the Nature of the thing but from Rom. 10.14 where it 's said that we can't call or give Divine Honour to him in whom we have not believed If then Honouring the Son as we Honour the Father be so necessary a Duty that they who neglect it do not Honour the Father a believing the Son to be God in the same Sense the Father is God is so necessary as a believing the Father to be God which is so very necessary that on the Disbelief of it Men were pronounced Unbelievers This is I confess a Parting Point between Orthodox Christians on the one Hand and the Mahometans and English Socinians on the other For if Assent to this Doctrine viz. That Jesus Christ is God equal with the Father be so necessary that without it we can't be pronounced Believers they who disbelieve it cannot be Christians whence it is that the Mahometans and English Socinians denying the Divinity of Christ and the lawfulness of rendring to him Divine Worship are for the same Reason linkâ—d together as Enemies to the Christian Religion The most learned and sober amongst Foreign Socinians being aware of this tho' they denied Christ's Deity yet urged the giving Divine Worship unto Christ as necessary to the distinguishing themselves from the Mahometans and proving themselves to be good Christians But the English Socinians falling in with Franciscus Davidis and that Party in Poland are of opinion that they must be guilty of Idolatry if they give Divine Worship to him that is but a Creature and to escape Idolatry refuse to give to the Son Divine Worship and so put it out of their Power to prove themselves to be better Christians than the Turks are or to plead their own Cause without defending the Mahometans which as I take it is the true Reason why the more Learned amongst them do write so Respectfully and Charitably of these Ishmaelites and do not only speak Honourably of the Impostor Mahomet's Design as if it had been only to reform the Christian Religion but assign the Reason of the Propagation of that Religion not to the Sword but to their Denial of the Blessed Trinity And yet it is most manifest that Mahomet a very vicious Man being under the Conduct of Sergius a Nestorian did by his Assistance invent a Religion with a Design if possible to please the Pagan Jew and Christian and considering the Ignorance and Debauchery of the People amongst whom he was He prepar'd such a Heav'n for them who observed his Alcoran as mostly suited their sensual and voluptuous Dispositions And being himself a most lascivious Wretch whilst he would by his Alcoran restrain others pretends to have an Indulgence from Heaven for the Gratification of his own Lusts Thus the Amorous Prophet being taken with the Beauty of his Slave Zeid's Wife obliged Zeid to Repudiate her bringing in the one God Chap. 33. saying When Zeid did Repudiate his Wife we married thee to her to the End there might remain no Errour among the True Believers The Prophet sins not in doing what God has permitted O Prophet we permit thee to know the Women to whom thou hast given Dowry the Women slaves which God hath given thee the Daughters of thine Uncles and of thine Aunts that have abandon'd with thee the Company of the Wicked Thou shalt retain whom of thy Wives thou shalt desire to retain and shalt repudiate such as thou shalt desire to repudiate and shalt lie with them that shall please thee Thus much out of the Alcoran where t is also said that amongst his Slaves which were many he might if their Beauty pleased him make exchanges and least his lascivious Practices should encourage his Wives to do the like with True Believers He charges his Believers not to come into his Houses without Permission and when permitted not to tarry long for that molesteth the Prophet and modest Man he is ashamed to bid them be gone The Wives of the Prophet shall have their Faces covered when they speak unto 'em they ought not to importune the Prophet of God neither to know his Wives this would be a most Enormous Sin Besides Mahomet did constantly Preach that God had sent him to confirm his Law by Force of Arms and not by Miracles This is so notoriously true that it cannot but amaze the least acquainted with the Turkish Stories to hear any Pretender to Learning affirm that Mahomet was against forcing any to a Closure with his Blasphemies Though they proclaimed Liberty to all that would submit to their Alcoran yet so far resolv'd on the propagating their Religion by Force that no Truce could prevent their using violent Methods when they had a Tendency to promote their Design whence it is that in the Alcoran the ninth Chapter entituled by the Mahometan Doctors the chapter of Punishment but by Mahomet the Chapter of Conversion beginneth not as the rest with these Words in the Name of God Gracious and Merciful because these are Words of Peace and Salvation and Mahomet in this Chapter commands to break Truce with his Enemies To kill them where-ever they shall meet them take them Slaves detain them Prisoners and observe where they pass to lay Ambush for them But if they be converted if they pray at tâ—me Appointed and pay Tithes leave them in Quiet God is merciful to them that repent Whether the lascivious and bloody Mindedness of this Mahomet and his Partizans be some of the Trifles of whom Sandius speaks who after he had given the fairest Representation of the Faith and Morals of the Turks adds Caetera quae in Alcorano invenimus sunt merae nugae I submit to the Reader it being to me very clear that they who
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
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
look to themselves SECT IV. The Difference there is between the English and Foreign Socinians The Foreign Socinians Represent the Principles Embraced by the Generality of the English to be Heretical tending to Mahometanism and Judaism THE English Socinians do not make us so bad but Socinus and his Partizans abroad are even with them making their Case the same with the worst of Hereticks Mahometans and Jews To clear thus much I must show what the Foreign Socinians hold touching Christ's Divinity and the Worship due unto him together with the Representation given of such as do herein differ from them When Vujekus charged the Socinians with Mahometanism Socinus in his Answer declares Resp ad Praef. Vujek p. 8. Ed. A. D. 1624. That they held Jesus Christ to be that Man who was by the Holy Ghost Conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and Born of her that this Man is the only begotten Son of God whom the Holy Scriptures Recommend unto us nor is there any other besides or before him To this Man is given by God the Father such a Divine Power and Authority that the Name of God and Divine Worship is Deservedly and Necessarily perse given unto him This is their Doctrine the Foundation of their Religion the Great and Glorious Mystery of their Gospel without the Belief of which no Salvation can be had Although say they Christ never Expresly said He was the true God Sâ—â—in ubi sâ—p p. 19. yet from what he has oft declared it may Easily yea Necessarily be inferred that He is that is to say as he is really and truly Invested with Divine Power and Authority And there are several Texts in the Holy Scriptures which make it most clear that not only the One God p. 26. but that Jesus Christ also as he is distinguished from that One God is to be Adored with Divine Worship Time would fail me to enumerate the many Texts that are not only in the New Testament but also in the Old for the Worshipping Jesus Christ as distinguished from that One God with Divine Adoration They then ubi sup p. 27. who deny it to be Lawful to give Divine Worship to Two Gods whereof One is Subordinate unto the Other and wholly depends on him may as well deny the Sun shines in the clearest Day and do moreover discover their Ignorance of the Greatest Mystery of Christian Religion and if Treated with Rigor must be Deprived of the very Name of Christians That they who are against rendring unto Christ Divine Worship or oppose the Invocating him are to be Condemned for Hereticks yea for worse than Hereticks in that truly they deny unto him the Care of the Church which is the same with their Denying him to be Christ This is the Notion they have Espoused of Jesus Christ They Affirm him to be a True God a True Subordinate God entirely depending on that One Most High God A True God because this One God hath given to him Divine Power and Authority or as they sometimes Express it because God hath by his Inhabiting Word or Power given to the Lord Christ a Faculty of Knowing all things and an Ability to Relieve all Wants This Divinity in Christ they make to be the Ground and Reason of their Adoration and Invocation They do also make God's dwelling in Christ by his Spirit a Ground of Worship Socinus in the Defence of his Animadversions on the Theological Assertions of the Posnan College Cap. 8. p. 250 251. Ed. A. D. 1618. against Gabriel Eutropius tells us To justify our Adoring Christ it 's sufficient that God doth in an Eminent manner by his Spirit dwell in him speak in him give Answers whence he is called the Image of the Invisible God and they who have seen Christ are said to have seen the Father and they who Adore him do in him Adore the Father If then the Israelites who Worshiped before the Ark of the Covenant because God shewed himself in it present to them and as from his proper and peculiar Place There gave Answers and after a sort There dwelt were free from the Guilt of Idolatry much more may we be so tho' we Worship Christ of whom the Ark was but a Type or Shadow and infinitly below him This way of Arguing tho' used by a Man of Note amongst our selves was so turn'd by Vujekus and Bellarmine two Jesuits against Socinus as to Confound him That Christ is worthy of Divine Worship say they because God dwells in him Res ad Vujek p. 418. is by no means to be Allowed For then 't would follow that the whole World may be Worshiped especially the Angels and â—oly Men in whom God doth in a more peculiar manner dwell And as the Socinians do make this sort of Divinity the Reason of their giving Divine Worship unto Christ even so their Ascribing this Divinity and giving Divine Worship unto him makes the Discriminating Character Animadv in Assert p. 49. by which alone they hope to clear themselves from being of the Religion Invented by Mahomet which doth not Invocate nor Worship him No One saith Socinus who is in his Wits will affirm that False Notion Mahomet had of Jesus of Nazareth Vid. Defens Animadv p. 373. is what Paulus Samosatenus held For Samosatenus acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the True and only Begotten Son of God and our Lord affirming that he ought to be Worshiped c. which things Mahomet denyed They insist so very much on the Adoration of Christ that they esteem those who are against it to be such Hereticks as subvert the very Foundations of Christianity and deserve not the Name of Christians I do not saith Socinus see any thing throughout the whole Christian Religion of more Importance to be Published De Invocat Christ ex Epist ad Quend Tom. I. p. 353. than a Demonstration that Invocation Adoration or Divine Worship belongs to Christ altho' he is a Creature If this be but once fully proved all the strong holds of the Trinitarians will fail them For they lean on this one Foundation viz. That that Adoration and Invocation which is due only to the Most High God must be given unto Christ And on the other hand the True Power and Majesty of Christ will hereby be cleared and firmly fixt in the minds of all whereas without the Knowledge of it neither God himself nor any thing Divine can be Rightly Understood nor the way of our Salvation clearly Known but what is said in the Holy Scriptures of the Expiation of our Sins by Christ will be strangely mistaken the whole of Christian Religion brought into Doubt or at least be expos'd to a sudden Change if not to utter Ruin and the Chiefest and most Principal Foundations of our Hope and Trust in God destroyed And elsewhere he saith Socin Christ Rel. Instit Tom. I. p. 656. That they who are against the Worship of Christ cannot be Christians because in
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
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
Account thereof The Ministers and Elders of the Church at Vilna were much movâ—d at Calvin's writing against him and therefore after they had reprovâ—d him do advise him to reconcile himself unto Blandrata who was to their Knowledge Ubi sup 258. a most sincere Man free from the least Suspicion of Errors For they believed not a word of what Calvin had said to the contrary However Calvin persists in the Opinion he had of Blandrata and can by no means be taken off from exposing his Heresies and evil Practices expressing his Trouble to observe him by his crafty method to get such an Interest in the favour of so eminent a Person as his Anonymous Friend was In his Letter to Stanislaus saith he I cannot but observe how all men in a manner as if they had been under a Fascination admire Blandrata 't is you alone who begin to suspect the Truth of what is said of him but that you may obtain a more certain Knowledge of him I must tell you that Valentinus Gentilis whose wild Notions I have confuted is of the same Faction and another Blandrata altho the one will not give place unto the other If his Frauds his Ensnaring and crafty Courses had not been taken notice of in Poland it might have been more tolerable but I am amaz'd to think that a Man who hath nothing else but Pride and Ostentation to recommend him should get such a Reputation amongst you as to be esteemed the Atlas that bears the Church on his Shoulders In his Answer to Felix Cruciger and his Collegues and other faithful Pastors and Ministers in Lesser Poland There is oâ—e thing I cannot but suggest unto you saith he that they who did with so much Humanity and Respect entertain Blandrata were not so cautiâ—ns and wary nor did they consult your Reputation as they should have done and am more surprized that some of the Chiefest Rank are greatly offended because I did as it became me discover the Man I beseech you not to believe that I have hastily taken up any Reports I have written a Narrative which will clear the Truth of Matter of Fact And to the Ministers and Elders of the Church at Vilna Tho you saith he have no Suspicion touching Blandrata his Errors and Practices yet with me he is clearly convicted and so he is before this Church Ye believe not what I say why then should I believe what you say You have much time to spare to call Synods about such Tristes You admire him as if he had been an Angel dropt down from Heaven but he is in other Nations a Man of no Account A brief History of him I will give you and lest you should have no regard to what I say it is attested by the Elders of the Italian Church with us and by the Renowned Peter Martyr The History they give of him is to this purpose 〈◊〉 â—â—orge Blandrata a Physician demeanâ—d himself amongst us for some time very peaceably and with much Temper desirous of Instruction so that we innocently receivâ—d him into our Number At length he began to talk as if he designed to call in question the Article of Christ's Divinity and privately spread this Notion amongst the more ignorant Then would he weary Calvin with his Enquiries and seem abundantly satisfy'd with his Answers but carry'd it so that at last Calvin discover'd his persidious and deceitful Courses and his Carriage to be such as made it necessary for the Senate to deal with hâ—m where altho he was convicted of notorious Falshoods against Calvin yet never blush'd His intimate Friend and Companion was Johannes Paulus Alciatus who said that we worship three Devils much worse than all the Popish Idols because we hold Three Persons There arose a fresh Complaint of the Italian Church against him for using Clandestine Arts to ensnare the Vulgar to a Closure with his Dotages Thus this Man a real Enemy to the Fundamental Doctrines of Christian Religion the great Patron of Socinus and his Partizans to the end he might the more effectually propagate his Errors pretends a Zeal for the Truth joyns himself to the Orthodox subscribes sound Confessions gains a Reputation amongst the châ—efest of the Orthodox for being sound and sincere This deceitful Method of â—landrata hath been exactly observ'd as by many of the same Principles abroad so by the Socinians in our Country who notwithstanding the Contradiction there is in the Doctrines by Law established to their Tenents and the strict Subscriptions required of all that enter into the Ministry get into the Church and fix their Communion there That they may pave the way for the Consciences of others their Attempts are to make the Subscription to the Thâ—rty-nine Articles to signify nothing The Belief of the Athanasian Creed not requiâ—ed by the Châ—ef Eng. p. 2. Those Thirty-nine Articles say they are not Articles of Faith but Peace As several of her most learned Bishops have declared and in a word the Title of the Articles says as much and the Preface before them And yet in the Title 't is declared that these Articles were agreed upon for the avoiding Diversities of Opinion and for the Establishing of Consent touching true Religion And in the Preface 't is declared That the Articles do Contain the True Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods word And the Charge his Majesty gives is That no Man shall either Print or Preach to draw the Article aside any way but shall submit to it in the Plain and full meaning thereof And shall not put his own sense or Comment to be the Meaning of the Article but shall take it in the Literal or Grammatical Sense So that whatever any Bishops have declared The Import of the Title and Preface is That the Subscribers Agree in Believing the Doctrines contained in the Articles to be True that the Articles taken in the Literal and Grammatical Sense are agreeable to God's word How can a Socinian then subscribe the first Article where 't is said There is but One Living and True God and in Unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Doth this Article contain in it the Truth If it doth the Socinian Principle is False If it doth not they subscribe to a Lye And tho' the Church did not Require the Belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity as delâ—vered in the Athanasian Creed as Necessary to Salvation Yet seeing it Requires the Belief of this Doctrine as True they who deny this Doctrine can't without being guâ—lty of grossest Hypocrisy subscribe it But what can't a designing English Socinian do Thus you see that tho' the Thirty-nine Articles are as expressly against the Dogmata of our â—nglish Socinians as words can make them yet can they not keep an English Socinian out of the Church And having broken their Subscriptions they go on to tell us Trinitar Scheme
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
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