time Further their vacating and making void the Fourth Commandment which is attended with a neglect of the Lord's Day is an in-let into all manner of Vice and the very Notions they frame of God to support their other Errors are such as lessen the Fear Men ought to have of God's Judgments And as Dr. Edwards hath well observed Socinus by denying the Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ hath plainly over-turn'd the Foundation Preser against Socin p. 42. 43. upon which the Christian Church and Religion have been built and by his other Methods hath given a shrew'd blow to all Religion whatsoever whether Natural or Revealâ—d so that an unwary Reader by perusing his Writings may find himself an Atheist before he well perceives how he comes to be so as he saith in another Case viz. His Opinion against Hell Torments that he had so contriv'd the Matter Vt lector prius sentiat Doctrinam istam sibi jam persuasum esse quam suaderi animadvertat When I most impartially weigh these things I mean their deceitful Attempts to ensnare the Unwary to favour their Opinions their Contemptuous Treatment of the Blessed Mysteries of the Gospel and its Advocates together with their assuming to themselves the Character of being the most Rational Divines and Men of Excelling Piety and Holiness even when none do more contradict the plainest Maxims of Reason and lay a surer Foundation for the utmost Immoralities When I lay these things together I am so far from thinking as those great Men do who represent them to be the fairest Adversaries that I rather incline at least to fear that the Account given of them by the despised Lubbertus which I will lay down in his own Words is most true They are saith he Arrogant and Proud who measure all things by vaâ—n Glory and empty Names of Honour when they see that those who in other Disciplines invent some new Notions to be Commended they think it will be Laudable in them to Innovate in Sacred Theology And being unskill'd in true Divinity they despair of gaining a Name by Explicating or Defending the Orthodox Doctrine But burning with a desire of Praise they disturb every thing that they may be Famous and had rather be talk'd of for breaking of Churches than grow old without Fame in the true and Orthodox Religion When they perceive other Learned Men to be preferr'd before them they are angry and what is most base they Dissemble and Counterfeit the Orthodox Religion pretend to a Zeal for defending sound Doctrine Lubbert Praef. ad lib. de Jesu servat cont Socin p. 2. swear to our received Confessions and Catechisms and with their own Hands subscribe to what they swore and yet they with utmost Endeavours oppose the Sound and publickly embraced Doctrine and craftily instill a new and wicked One into their Disciples and carry about Calumnies against the Orthodox Thus much touching the Methods used by Foreign Socinians to insinuate and spread their Errors I will in the next place show how exactly they are followed by the Remonstrants and then acquaint the Reader with the Arts of out English Socinians SECT V. The Arminians imitate the Socinians They pretend an Agreement with the Orthodox THE Arminians to the end they might with the greater Success insinuate their Errors do also their utmost to cover them Nothing therefore they say can be found amongst their Assertions but what is conform to the Holy Scriptures the Heidelberg Catechism established A. D. 1578. by a Synod of Dort for the publick use of their Churches the Belgick and other Reformed Confessions Armin. Epist ad Hypolit Arminius in his Epistle to Hypolitus à Collibus protests that he never either in the Church or University taught any thing but what was according to the Holy Scriptures the Belgick Confession and Heidelberg Catâ—echism In a Letter to Johannes Matthisius These things which I have at this time delivered as they do agree with the Holy Scriptures so they are not contrary to our Confession and Catechism for which reason I do the more freely express my self In another to Sebastian Egbert I do publickly preach to a numerous Auditory and frequently dispute when my Reverend Collegues are present at which times I have used the greatest freedom in the Answers I have return'd to Objections Besides I have a private College at which thirty Students or more attend and yet never hath there been the least mention that I ever uttered any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures or our Confessions and Catechism although some of my Collegues whose Zeal is such for the Purity of Doctrine that they would never have been silent had they whereof to accuse me have been instigated thereunto And whereas it 's spread abroad that I direct my Pupils to Read the Writings of the Jesuits and Coornhertius the slander is so gross that I cannot find softer Words to express it by than to say It is a down right Lye for I never advis'd so much as one to any such thing But this indeed I do after the Reading of the Scriptures which I do most earnestly press yea more than any other as the whole Academy can testifie I do direct to the reading of Calvin's Commentaries which I praise much more than Helmichius himself ever did as he hath confess'd For I do esteem them to excell all others so much in the Interpretation of Scriptures that there are none to be compared with them in the Bibliotheca Patrum that there was a more excellent Spirit in him than in any other As for Common Places I Recommed his Institutions to be read after the Catechism as containing the best Explication of it For the truth of this I can bring a multitude of Witnesses In a Declaration of his Sentiments made to the States of Holland and West-Frâ—ezeland wherein are the Reasons why he declin'd to give any Answer to the Questions propos'd by Lansbergius Fraxinus and Dolegius Deputies from the Synod of South-Holland and by Eogardus and Rolandus Deputies from the Synod of North-Holland his endeavour is to show an Agreement between his Notions in each of the controverted Articles and the Belgick Confession and Catechism I will give you what he saith touching the Grace of God in Conversion and the Justification of a Sinner in the sight of God What concerns the Grace of God I do first of all saith he believe it to be that gracious and free Affection whereby God doth take pity on a miserable Sinner by which he doth in the first place give his Son that whoever believes in him may have Everlasting Life then doth he justifie him and give him the Privilege of a Child by Adoption even a Right to Salvation 2. This Grace is an infusion of all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which are for the Regenerating and renewing of the Vnderstanding as well as Will and Affections such as Faith Hope Charity c. without which Gifts of Grace no Man is able
to Think Will or Do any good thing 3. It is the continued Assistance and help of the Holy Spirit according unto which the Holy Ghost does excite and stir up the Regenerate unto Good by infusing into them Spiritual and Heavenly Thoughts inspiring them with good Desires and enabling them actually to Will that which is good yea more according to this Grace the Spirit doth Will and work with the Man that what he Wills he may be enabled to Perfect After this manner I ascribe unto Grace the Beginning Continuation and Consummation of all Good even so far that a Regenerate Man without this Preventing Exciting Continued and Co-operating Grace can never think will or do any good nor resist the feeblest Temptation to Evil. How then can I be said to be injurious to the Grace of God or attribute too much to free Will The Controversie is not about the Actions or Operations ascribed to Grace I am for as much as any Man whatsoever but it is only about the Mode or Manner of its Oprations whether it be by an Irresistible Force or not Here indeed I do with the Holy Scriptures hold that many resist the Holy Ghost and reject the offer'd Grace And in his Letter to Hypolitus à Collibus Concerning Grace and free Will according to the Scriptures and consent of the Orthodox I do declare That Free Will without Grace can neither begin nor perfect any true Spiritual good Work and least any think I do as Pelagius did play with the Word Grace I mean that Grace which is the Grace of Christ and belongs to Regeneration which I hold to be simply and absolutely necessary for the inlightning the Understanding regulating the Affections and inclining the Will to what is good that infuses saving Light into the Mind inspires the Affections with Holy Desires and boweth down the Will to act according to that saving Light and these good Desires This Grace Prevents Begins Accompanies and Follows It stirreth up helps and works that we may Will and that we may not Will in vain Co-operates with us It secures us from Temptations Assists and helps us against them upholding us against the Flesh the World and the Devil In the Conflict it gives us the Victory and if at any time we are overcome and fall in the Temptation this Grace recovers us establishes and gives new Strength making us more watchful It begins the Work of Salvation promoves perfects and consummates it The mind of a Carnal Man is I confess dark'ned his Assections vile and inordinate his Will disorderly yea he is dead in Sin and that Preacher is most highly esteemed by me who attributes most to Grace if so be that whilst he is extolling Grace he doth neither Impeach God's Justice nor take from Man Free Will to what is Evil What any Man can desire more I know not About the Justification of a Man in the sight of God Jacoh Armin Decla sentent p. 127. I am not sensible saith he that I either teach or hold any thing but what is Vnanimously received by the Reformed Protestant Churches and most exactly agrees with their Sense There hath been I know a Controversie in this particular between Piscator and the French Churches as whether the Obedience or Righteousness of Christ which is imputed to Believers and in which the 'r Righteousness before God doth consist be only Christ's Passive Obedience as Piscator affirmed Or whether it be also his Active which all his Life he rendred to the Law of God and that Holiness in which he was conceiv'd as the Gallick Churches hold But I never interested my self in it And how oddly soever he expressed himself in this place he would still be thought a good Calvinist Armin. Decla ubi sup For saith he whatever I have in this Point delivered I differ not so much from Calvin but that I am ready with my own Hand to subscribe what he hath on this Subject in the third Book of his Institutes In his Disputations Armin. Disput Thes 48. Sect. 5. he is more particular speaking distinctly of the several Causes of Justification Of the Meritorious and Material thus That Christ by his Obedience and Righteousness is the Meritorious Cause of Justification who may therefore be deservedly called the Procatartick Cause The same Christ in his Obedience and Righteousness is also the Material Cause of our Justification that is as God gives to us Christ for Righteousness and imputes his Obedience and Rignteousness unto us in respect to this double Cause namely the Meritorious and Material we are said to be constituted Just or Righteous by Christ's Obedience In this place Arminius you see doth distinguish between the Meritorious and Material Cause of Justification the One being Extrinsick belonging to the Efficient the other Intrinsick or made the Matter of our Justification The first is Christ by his Obedience the other is Christ for Righteousness Christ Given and his Righteousness Imputed He was too Learned to confound the Material and Intrinsick with the Meritorious which is an External and Efficient Cause asserting that as Christ is the Meritorious Cause so he as an Efficient justifieth us by his Righteousness As he is the Material he is given by God for Righteousness and his Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification His Thoughts touching the Instrumental Formal Cause he expresses in these Words Faith is the Instrumental Cause Armin. ubi sup Sect. 7 8. or Action by which we apprehend Christ and his Righteousness offered unto us by God according to the Order and Promise of the Gospel where it is said That whoever Believes shall be Justified and Saved The Form of Justification is the gracious Estimation of God whereby he imputes the Righteousness of Christ unto us and imputes Faith for Righteousness that is God doth forgive unto us who believe our Sins for the sake of Christ apprehended by Faith and esteems us as Righteous in him which Estimation hath annexed unto it the Adoption of Sons and a Collation of Right to the Inheritance of Eternal Life And among the Corollaries deduced from what he had asserted in his Disputation he is positive That it is impossible for Faith and Works to Concurr to Justification that Christ did not Merit that we be justified by the Dignity and Merit of Faith much less that we be justified by the Merit of Works But the Merit of Christ is opposed to Justification by Works and Faith opposed to Merit These Appeals to the Catechism and Confession and the consent of the Reformed Protestants his recommending Calvin's Commentaries and Institutes to his Pupils and these and such other Passages make it clear That Arminius would fain be thought an Orthodox Calvinist which was also the desire and endeavour of his endeared Companions and Followers even of Vytenbogart Borrius Poppius Grievenchovius Arnoldus Corvinus and Episcopius at their Conference A. D. 1611. with Ruardus Plancius Becius Fraxinus Bogardus and Festus Homnius at the
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
the Difference lyeth in Fundamentals THAT they deny the Trinity of Persons in the God-head the Divinity of Jesus Christ and Personality of the Holy Spirit is the Burthen of all their Writings Who can cast his Eye on Socinus Slichtingius Crellius Wolzogenius and Smalcius and not see how much they expose these Doctrines Enjedinus hath a large Quarto to prove that not one Word either in the Old or New Testament can be found to favour the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ Franciscus Davidis and George Blandrata in their Refutation of George Major insinuate that this Blessed Doctrine is a Papal Antichristian Invention The Blasphemies of Servetus may be seen in Calvin's Refutation of them but too vile at this time to be mentioned And in Calvin's Explication of Valentinus Gentilis his Perfidiousness there is an account of his Opposition to the same Truths And whoever will may consult Sandius his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec where is a large Catologue of Socinian Writers against the Trinity c. And Christ's Satisfaction which is really subverted by the denyal of his Divinity is also expresly Exploded Though they grant a Satisfaction the Payment of a Price the enduring a Punishment a Punishment equipollent to what we have by our Sins deserved yet they mean quite another thing than what is generally understood by us which as soon as they have by the use of Orthodox Expressions ensnared their Readers to put a favourable Sence upon their Writings they discover Insinuating that the Satisfaction they and as they will have it the Holy Scriptures are for is not to God's Justice it is not properly by paying a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price a full Price nor an Equivalent to what we deserved It is only a Satisfaction improperly and in a Figurative a Metaphorical Sence and that only to the Divine Will and called Satisfaction for no other Reason than because God is pleased freely to accept on 't as such Ruarus therefore having called Christ's Sufferings a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Price Equipollent to what our Sins deserved adds Not that it is so any otherwise than Exclementi Deâ—â—â—cceptatione that is to say Christ's Sufferings are Satisfactory through God's Gracious Acceptation not to his Justice but Will which Smalcius in his Answer to Smiglecius his Preface to his Discourse about Christâ—s Satisfaction doth thus explain We do acknowledge that Christ did satisfie in all those things imposed on him by God Smal. Fraef ad Smigl de Satisf for the procuring our Salvation but Christ did not satisfie that Justice of God which cannot suffer any Sin to go unpunished and appease God's Anger reconcâ—le him unto us by enduring those Punishments in our Stead that were due unto us and meriting Salvation for us Though there can be no Redemption without a full and satisfying Price and notwithstanding the Holy Scriptures speak much of Redemption and of a Price a full Price and of Christ's Redeeming us by his Blood as the Price which Expressions can import nothing less than a proper Satisfaction yet have they the Confidence to assert not only that Christ's Redemption may be but must be without Satisfaction that such is the transcending Mercy of God in our Redemption that it cannot be otherwise That the Righteousness of God exacting Satisfaction in order to the Pardon of our Sins is not so much as to be mentioned that there is no such Righteousness in God That it 's inconsistent with the Excellency of his Grace and Mercy So Smale ubi sup To put the best Colours they can upon this their odd Notion they having granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Price and full Price doth signifie a proper Price paid for the Redeeming a Slave out of Captivity they averr that in the Holy Scriptures it must be taken otherwise viz. improperly and Metaphorically Wolzogenius in his Commentary on Matthew interpreting these Words Chap. 20.28 The Son of Man gave his Life a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ransom for many confesseth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wolz. Mat. 20.28 Ransom doth properly signifie the Payment of a Price for a Captive and a Liberation or Deliverance from his Captivity However it is taken amongst Prophane Writers and almost every where in the Holy Scripture Metaphorically for a Liberation without respect to the Payment of any Price for it cannot saith he be proved That Christ did make any Payment to the Justice of God by his Death for there is no such Justice in God as doth exact Vindictive Punishment for Sins Crellius in his Answer to Grotius de Satisfactione Crel Respons ad Grot. de Satisf c. 6. Socin Praelect Theol. 6.19 argues after the same manner Wolzogenius doth and what both urge was more fully done before by Socinus himself in his Theological Prelections As Redemption which properly is the Paying a full Price for the Deliverance of a Slave carries in it Satisfaction and therefore by the Enemies of Christ's Satisfaction the Scriptures which speak of Redemption without the least shadow of a Reason are turn'd into Metaphors so Christ's â—earing our Sorrows though granted by them meets with the same Treatment For as Smalcius We confess that Christ did truly bear our Griefs and Sorrows Smalâ— contra Smigl de Satisf c. 6. p. 223. but we deny it to be in that manner which Smaglecius affirms it to be namely that Christ bore the Punishment of our Sins for as in this manner 't is Impossible Blasphemous and Pernicious so there are other ways in which Christ may be said to bear our Sins and they such as are more conform to the Holy Scriptures more worthy of God and safe for Men namely That Christ suffered Death by Reason of our Sins That he would never have Suffered if Man had not Sinned and that he himself bore our Sins that is abolished them it being most certain that the Word Bearing in Scripture signifieth a Power to take away Further God exacted not any Punishment due ex Justitia being an absolute Soveraign Smalc ubi sup p. 293. p. 300. who can as he pleaseth forgive the Sins committed against him nor did Christ offer up himself to bear the Punishment of our Sins nor if Christ had so offerd up himself might God accept it For if God had Punished the Innocent for the Nocent he would have been not only Cruel but Injust and Unwise And within a few Pages after this he insinuates as if the Doctrine of Satisfaction as held by the Orthodox makes God more Cruel than any Tyrant And whereas it is expresly asserted by the Holy Ghost in 2 Cor. 5. and last Verse That Christ is made Sin to take off the Force of the Argument we draw from thence Smalcius doth assert Smalc Refut Smigl de satisf c. 7. p. 229. That to be made Sin cannot signifie a Sacrifice for Sin but Christ is said to be made Sin because he was dealt with by God as if
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