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
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
about the Holiness and Rnighteousness of God cannot but profess to believe that there is no Justification to be had in the sight of God wâ—â—o it a perfect Righteousness and to the end they may the more easily quiet an awakenâ—d Conscience without the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness they either hold that the Law of Works is Abolished and a New Law Erceled A New a mere easie Law so siamâ—d and squar'd to their corrupt Natures as to make their Defective Obedience a perfect Gospel Righteousness fully answering the New Rule they have invented Or affirm That their Faith though it falls short of the Law is nevertheless counted by God for a compleat Performance of it as a late Author supposed to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ hath expressed it in his Reasonableness of Christianity who saith The Law of Works is that Law which requires Perfect Obedience without any Remission or Abatement The Language of this Law is Do this and Live Transgress and Die. P. 20. Those that Obey are Righteous those that in any part Disobey are Unrighteous and must not expect Life the Reward of Righteousness But by the Law of Faith Faith is allowed to supply the Defect of full Obedience and so the Believers are admitted to Life and Immortality as if they were Righteous P. 22. The Moral Law which is every where the same the Eternal Rule of Right obliges Christians and all Men every where and is to all Men the standing Law of Works But Christian Believers have the Privilege to be under the Law of Faith too which is that Law whereby God justifieth a Man for Believing though by his Works he be not Just or Righteous i. e. though he come short of Perfect Obedience to the Law of Works God alone does or can justifie or make just those who by their Works are not so which he doth by counting their Faith for Righteousness i. e. for a compleat Performance of the Law So far this Learned Author who in Opposition to the former that destroys the Old and invents a New Law so framed as to turn our Defective into a Perfect Obedience doth first by Reasons Invincible Establish the Law of Works in all its Parts and then adds a New Law unto it and God's Gracious Esteeming our Faith as fully answering the Law of Works and so stretcheth our Defective Faith to the utmost length of Perfect Obedience As the one brings down the Law to our Imperfection the other raises our Imperfection to the same height with the Law But so long as the Law of Works remains in its Strength there can be no New Rule brought down to make Sin cease to be Sin or turn a Defecrive into a Perfect Obedience And so long as the All-knowing God Judges of things as they are Imperfect Faith can never pass at his Tribunal for a Compleat Performance of the Law there must be then a Perfect Righteousness fully answering the Law of Works or no Justification And it 's more easie as well as more conform to Holy Scripture to believe That the Righteousness of Christ which consists in a full Performance of the Law of Works is given to all that have Faith and by Donation is really made theirs and being really theirs may be justly esteem'd to be theirs and they justified by it But these Men if not mistaking yet surely misrepresenting the old Doctrine as covered with innumerable Absurdities do not only drive their Admirers off from Examining it but so sill their Minds with Prejudices against it as to make them willing to take up with any thing rather than with the Truth especially in a Case so pleasing because somewhat of their own is made their Justifying Righteousness CHAP. III. The deceitful Methods used by Hereticks a cause of Error more generally proposed The approaches of Socinus and his Followers towards the Orthodox The real difference there is between them in Fundamentals A Reflection on these Methods Arminians take the same course c. SECT I. The deceitful methods used by Hereticks more generally proposed Their rise in the Apostles days The deceitful Methods used by some Men of great Learning is another Cause of the growth of Error THERE being some Foundation-Truths so fully clearly and distinctly reveal'd in Holy Writ as to command the Assent of the Church Vniversally in all Ages excepting that in which the Christ an World became Arian they who have been their chief Opposers have retained the Words and Phrases by which those Truths have been transmitted down unto us and introduced their particular Opinions by an Heterodox sense they have fixed on them And when suspected that they might the more effectually conceal their Errors have subscribed sound Catechisms and Confessions whereby they have had the fairer opportunity to instil their Dogmata into the minds of Youth and other less studied Persons and under the Notion of being firm Adherers to the common Faith have engaged them to a closure with the unsoundest Parts of their Heretical Scheme In the Apostles days they who err'd from the Faith attempted by good words and fair speeches to seduce the simple Rom. 16.18 And Irenaeus who lived near that time Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans describing the Hereticks of that Age Digres de 〈◊〉 â—heol Helmstad Râ—g Syn◠〈◊〉 pag. â—88 as Calevius observes tells us that they speak like unto the Orthodox This was the way Arius after he was driven from Alexandria for his Heresie took to be restored to the Emperour's favour tho' he retained his Error yet subscribed a found confession of Faith as 't is reported by Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. l. c. 25 c. Pelagius when conven'd before a Provincial Synod at iâ—iospolis in Pelaestine at which Fourteen Bishops were present but not his Accusers August â—eâ—ract lib. 2 〈◊〉 47. 〈◊〉 ad 〈…〉 doth concur with the Orthodox in condemning his own Opinions but as Vossius out of St. Austin observes he dâ—d it very deceitfully Pelagianamsententiam pectore quidem ficto sed tamen Catholicos judices timens Pelagius ipse damnavit And as the same Possius adds Hierom. Epist 79. St. Hierom calls this Synod a miserable one because tho' they err'd not in Doctrines yet not discerning the falshood of the man they â—rrâ—d in the Judgment they past on him who being better known at Rome could not conceal his Treacherous Endeavours but was soon detected by the Bishops of that place Vâ—ss Hest Pelar lib. 1. Cap. 41. Hareâ—ici imitantur Catholicos fâ—eut simiae imitantur homineâ— Cyâ—â—â—ian ad Jubajanum This being the common practice of Hereticks St. Cyprian compares them to Apes saying they imitate the Orthodox as Apes do Men. Now this having been a very successful as well as a most pernicious Articice in constant practice amongst the Ancients the Socinian and Armintan Leaders whose Reputation hath been and is still so great that the respect multitudes have for them in regard to
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
only so deceitfully deliver his Sence as to bring the Truth in doubt but urges Arguments so closely in defence of Error as to give it the Advantage Though Sandius in his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec accuses Hoornbeck for misunderstanding Zarnovecius and Zarnovecius for misrepresenting Matters of Fact when in the Preface of his Answer to Socinus de Servatore he makes Ochinus to be his Master from whom he had his Errors Sandius is under the Mistake and Zarnovecius in the right Zarnovecius in his Preface Zarvov contra Socinum de servat Praef. having in one Paragraph shown too great an Agreement between Socinus the Jews and Turks doth in the next assure us That Socinus had not his Blasphemies against the Son of God out of the Holy Scriptures nor from the ancient consent of godly Men professing the Orthodox Faith from the Apostle's Days to our Times but out of the Dialogues of his Country-Man and undoubtedly his Master Ochinus who had written at large thirty years before By Master Zarnovecius cannot well be supposed to mean any more than One from whom Socinus took his Notions which is freely confessed by Socinus himself Socin Epist Vadovit in an Epistle to Vadovita Professor at Cracovia where he is positive That as he never Published any thing but by the Importunity of others so the very Notions complained or had been long before propagated by others both in Poland and elsewhere particularly by Ochinus as Zarnovecius had observ'd For really that Opinion saith Socinus is clearly asserted and inculcated in those Dialogues and it is in short this That Christ did indeed by his Blood wash away and expiate our Sins but in another Manner than that vulgarly received viz. That he by pouring out his Blood paid to Divine Justice all that we by reason of our Sins were indebted to it or that he made Satisfaction for us and our Sins for neither was there any need of it nor would God require the Punishment of our Sins from another or transact our Debts on him but freely forgive them This Passage of Socinus doth at once clear Zarnovecius from Sandius his Charge and prove Ochinus to be for the very Notions Socinus most heartily espoused which compared with the Profession Ochinus makes of the Orthodox Faith and his manner of handling it may convince an Unbyassed Mind that he made the first Publication of those Errors in that deceitful way since taken up by his Socinian Followers for tho' Socinus himself asserts That Ochinus openly delivered and inculcated the same Notion about Satisfaction he was charged with yet Ochinus doth it by his Friend Jacobus the other Dialogist pretending an Answer to the Arguments he had urged as if he had been a Zealous Asserter of the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction SECT IV. A Reflection on the deceitful Methods of the Socinians THESE few Instances are I presume sufficient to Evince that the Socinians are not the Fairest and most Candid Adversaries nor ever can be justly so esteemed except Deceit double Dealing and Hypocrisie be made the Ingredients of true Candor and a generous handling of Controversies For as you have seen their Method is first to make their Heresies look most like the Doctrines they oppose and as soon as they find their ensnared Proselites able to bear it they take of their Mask acknowledge the difference to be great and then go on to treat the Doctrines that just before they would be thought to be for to use Dr. Edwards his Word most n = * See Dr Edward's Preface to his Preservative against Socinianism scurrilously and with the greatest Impudence insinuating as if they had been the only Masters of Reason and sincerest Professors of true Piety and Holiness They are so humble and modest that it 's become impossible for them to forbear either the Despising others or Applauding themselves Socinus therefore could not but write a Treatise on purpose to prove That it 's the Duty of every good Man among the Reformed in Poland Socin in Append. to separate from them as from Persons too Impious to be Communicated with and joyn themselves to the more Holy Assemblies of those falsely and undeservedly to use his own Words called Afrians and Ebâ—onites He takes it for granted that the Reformed were very Vicious and Debauch'd and assigns the Reason partly to their Doctrines and partly to their Neglect of Discipline And glories in the Holiness of their own Assemblies pretending that such are their Principles and such the exactness of their Discipline that it could not well be otherwise This Book of Socinus was answered by Balthazzar Meisner Slicht cont Meis p. 485. a Lutheran but defended by Slichtingius who to expose the Reformed enumerates many vile Practices observed in common by them And in Vindication of Socinus and his Followers makes no scruple to assert That their Glorying not being Rash but well grounded is no more than what the Apostle hath done before them Ubi sup p. 488. nor did the Pharisee Sin in Publishing his Vertues but in Exalting himself and Contemning others when he should humbly have sought for the Pardon of his own Sins a thing they endeavoured even when they modestly mention the things done by their Assemblies that were worthy of Praise But though they usurp to themselves this Title viz. Great Masters of Reason they will not allow Reason the Privilege of being Competent enough to discover the plainest and most necessary Truth in the whole of our Religion namely That there is a God and in some of those very Instances in which they ascribe most unto it they oppose its clearest Maxims which is most effectually done in their Essays to destroy the Divine Nature of our Blessed Redeemer where struggling between plain Scripture and their own Error to maintain the latter which lyeth in their making him but a Finite Creature and own what is the burthen of the former that Infinite Perfections belong unto him and he the proper Object of our highest Adoration and Worship They contradict the clearest Reason as grosly as ever the Papists do by making a Finite Subject the Seat of Infinite Perfections Of this Przipcovius being aware he roundly asserts That Jesus Christ is truly God in a proper Sence and truly Man but not at the same time when on Earth he was properly Man and after his Resurrection and not till then truly and properly God A Notion as gross as the former a true God in a proper Sence and by Nature and yet a God but Sixteen or Seventeen Hundred Years ago Nor are they more happy in their Morals for beside their Hypocrisie their denying all secret Assistances and the certainty of God's fore-seeing all future Events that depend upon the freedom of Man's Will as a very learned Person hath lately observed must cut off the Exercise of many Devotions and much weaken our Confidence in God our Patience under all Misfortunes and our Expectations of a Deliverance in due
a Person or not About the Invocation of Jesus Christ whether a Duty or not So that from any thing hath been Published by â—em we can't be sure that any two of them are of the same Religion Howbeit altho' they can't Agree what Religion to be of they are most Vnanimous in Determining what to be against it being their Master-piece to Quarrel with our Confessions and Catechisms Destroy our Systems and Tare up old Foundations One saith He can't find any Satisfaction or Consistency in any of our Systems Praes to Reas of Christian Another Complains that there is no Catechism yet Extant that he could ever see or hear of from whence he could Learn the True Grounds of Christian Religion Praes to Bid. Catechism as the same is Delivered in the Holy Scriptures The Examiner of Mr. Fdward's Exceptions runs higher Declaring that the Obscurity p. 4. â— Numerousness and Difficulty of Understanding Systematical Fundamentals Promotes Deism and Subverts the Christian Faith These are some of their ways SECT II. The English Socinians do studiously Endeavour to Conceal the Religion They are of THat they may make it the more Difficult for us to Know what it is they are for they Hide themselves under the Comprehensive Name of Vnitarians and Anti-Trinitarians whereby they Reserve to themselves the Liberty of setting up either for Arians Photinians Jews Mahometans or Deists who Call themselves Vnitarians nor will they when hard Put to it Undertake the Defence of any One no not of Socinus himself altho' they hold what is Peculiar to men of his Spirit Tho' they say That Jesus Christ was the Son of God Some The. p. 4. only in a sense of Consecration and of Mission and consequently that his Unity with the Father is not an Essential and Natural Vnity but a meer Moral and Relative Vnity which consisting in the Equality of Works not of Essence which is Absolutely Incommunicable c. When this is Socinianism all over p. 18. yet are they not Socinians any more than they are Papists Lutherans or Calvirists Answer to Dr. Wallis Four Letters p. 16. They do not Profess to Follow Socinus but the Scripture If Socinus has at any time spoken Erroneously or Vnadvisedly or Hyper bolically 't is not Socinus who is their Master but Christ When they Pretend to tell us what they are it 's so Mysteriously that no one can tell what to make of ' em They are Christians they thank God they Side with Truth Some The p. 18. and take Shelter in the Bosom of that Catholick Church which stands Independently upon any thing that goeth under the Name of a Party But where shall we find such a Church Not among Ebionites Nazarenes Meneans Alogi Arians or Socinians All these go under the Name of Parties Wherefore seeing they Renounce the Fundamentals of Christianith as Embraced by us they must be Acknowledged to wrap themselves up in some Mastery Or to have no Catholick Church to Shelter themselves in To Compleat the Mystery They are upon Dr. S's Terms heartily of the Communion of the Church of England but Independently upon any Faction whatsoever It 's like we have Anti-Trinitarians as well as Trinitarians in the Communion of the Church of England which is not more Possible nor less Mysterious than that the Denyal of the Trinity should fignify the Affirmation and Belief of it However giving them this 't will unavoidably sollow that two Distinct Parties as contrary to each other as Light and Darkness do constitute the Church And such of us as want their Sagacity are Tempted to conclude that so long as they are against the Doctrine of the Trinity they are Anti-Trinitarians And if they think we are a Faction we know them to be so If therefore they are not of the Orthodox Party except they believe with Teague that my Lord Duke is neither Dead nor Alive they must be of the Anti-Trinitarian Faction and yet be heartily of the Communion of the Church Independently upon any Faction whatsoever That is to say they are of a Communion made up of but two Parties vid. Trinitarian and Anti-Trinitarian without being in Communion either with the One or the Other But do we what we can seeing they Profess to Believe there is but One Person Only in the God-Head they must be we count Anti-Trinitarians and the Belief of the Trinity being essential to our Christianity as Christianity is to Church Communion t is as impossible for any One to be of the Communion of the Church whilst an avowed Anti-Trinitarian as it is to be a Christian without the Essentials of Christianity We can't therefore Comprehend How these Men can be of the Churches Communion If they have a Distinction to solve this Difficulty it must be a monstrous Mysterious One Whether Intelligible or Contradictions let them Judge Touching their Sincerity in the using these Methods I will not concern my self knowing that however it be it 's clear that their Design is to Conceal their Religion which I confess is their wifest Course seeing it is such as can't bear the Brightness and Glory of the Light SECT III. The English Socinians judge more Charitably of the Salvation of Jews and Turks than of Orthodox Christians whom they make to be as Bad as Egyptian and Roman Pagans WHen I first made Enquiry after the Reason why these Gentlemen declined a Defence of the Foreign Socinians and Refused to be Described from their Books I was of Opinion they thought themselves Unable for so great an Undertaking But on a more close Examination I am convinced that this is not the Only Reason there is another namely this They can't Extend their Charity so far towards us as Foreign Socinians have done How ill soever I have Proved the Forreign Socinians to be it must still be Acknowledged that not only in Learning but in Temper they greatly Excel the English And tho' they look'd upon the Orthodox to have Erred from the Truth yet esteemed them not to be either Idolaters or Hereticks or out of the Way to Salvation Ruarus in an Epistle to Mersennus Ruarus Epist 56. p. 260. doth clear us from the guilt of Idolatry tho we Worship the Divinity of Christ as Eternal which he esteems an Error For saith he Who is there of our own way that dares arrogate to himself so perfect a Knowledge of the Divine Nature that another more sharp and acute than himself may not Convince him that in some respect he had Framed a False Idea of God Socinus in his second Answer to Volanus enters his Protestation against the making us Hereticks Partic. 5â— His words are Altho' I hold that Christ before he was Born of Mary had no Existence yet do I Confess him to be God even to be True God in Opposition to a False and Imaginary God And altho' I Deny Christ to be that God who Created the Heavens and the Earth yet do I not make them
of Socinus How then could our Historian Venture to make him Socinian all over It is because Grotius wrote a Letter of thanks unto Crellius on the Publishing his Book To this I 'll give you Grotius's own Reply which is 3. An Eminent English Divine spake to me of some Letters Epist ad Gul. Gâ—te p. 8â—â— which a while ago I had written unto Crellius who writing with the greatest Candour and Civility unto me I returned an Answer with the same Respect unto him This Civility and Respect of mine to Crellius the Followers of Socinus have turn'd into an Argument for my Agreement with them and to Insinuate thus much have scattered abroad some Parts of my Letters I wish with all my heart they had Published them whole and entire Then it would appear plainly that I have not in the least altered my Judgment In another Letter to his Brother William he saith I have had some Discourse about these things with Bisterfield pag. 884. who told me he understood from you and I also have heard the same that Crellius a little before his Death should say that had he seen what I have written de Poenarum Communicatione in my Book de Jure Belli Pacis he would never have answered my Book de Satisfactione 4. That he could not be Socinian all over is Evident from what he wrote to Graswinkelius to whom he declared Epist ad Graswink p. 53â— That he did strictly Adhere to the Doctrines of the Fathers not only about the Trinity but the Two Natures in Christ satisfaction and other Points oppugned by Socinus and his Followers 5 As for his Annotations it 's not clear to me that the Socimanism which is in them is his it looks rather as if those parts were some Excerpta taken out of Socinian Commentators with a Design to Examine them And sure I am that Grotius did not only suspect Curcellaeus Fâ—ct 〈…〉 Grot. 〈◊〉 â—93 the Correcter of the Press as an Inconstant Man under the Influence of such as were no Friends to him hoping to be Restor'd to his Ministry in â—â—anceâ— but is Positive that Curcellaeus made several changes in his Annotations contrary to his mind and will In Annotatis quaedam contra meum Sensum Pag. 910. Curcellaeus mutavit quod nolim fieri However the English Socinians say That Grotius is for them even in his Notes on the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel but then they Confess He hath written them so Artificially and Interwove them with so many Quotations that he hath coverâ—d him self and his sense of that Portion of Scripture from such as do not read him carefully This is a Generous sort of Confession cunningly devised and might have passed had there not been some Learned and Careful Readers amongst us to Detect the Falshood of the Insinuation which is very Excellently well performed to the Reproach of these bold Assertors and pretendedly Wise Interpreters of Scripture These few Intimations I suppose may suffice to show what Pitiful Shifts the English Socinians are driven to for the support of their Tottering Cause wherein I confess they fail of the Learning Candor and Integrity of some Foreign Socinians If Grotius must be lookt on as a Socinian saith Gittichius who hath with a freedom Answerable to his Heat Expressed his Resentments he is a Betrayer of the Faith To this Purpose Gittichius expresses himself in an Epistle to Ruâ—rus where he charges Grotius for Writing in such a way that without putting his Words on the Rack 't is impossible to secure 'em from Error Thus it is with what he saith concerning an Appeasing of the Wrath of God against us by the Grievous Sufferings of Christ When Grotius saith that the Pardon of Sin first offered to the Israelites then to the whole World Preached by Christ Confirmed by his Miracles Death and Exaltation was Purchased for us by that most Perfect Sacrifice the Bloody Death of Christ he affirms what is most contrary to the Holy Scriptures and yet thus doth he do in his Explicating the sixth Verse of the first of the Ephesians Gittichius concludes his Epistle with this Prayer The Lord grant unto Grotius a Sounder Judgment and secure his Church from such as he is and put forth his uttermost Power that there may not be at any time such Grotius's in his Church seeing the Church is in much greater Danger from such than from any open Enemies and Antichrists Thus much Gittichius wrote to Ruarus who because of Grotius's Candour represented him a Friend to their Party but as any one may see Grotius was far from being Socinian all over SECT VII The deceitful Practices of Foreign and English Socinians Blandrata the Socinians Patron by Flatteries and Subscriptions gains a Reputation amongst the Orthodox Calvin detects his Heresies and Frauds He is reprimanded by Protestants who look on Blandrata as an Angel Calvin continues his Opposition English Socinians break through Subscriptions and profane Sacraments for the carrying on thir Designs THE English Socinians suspecting the Success of those deceitful and unrighteous Methods which they use to propagate their Errors openly tho they reject what is most valuable in their Brethren abroad yet have imitated them in what hath in the Esteem of their candid and judicious Adversaries most exposed them Thus much they have done by joyning themselves â—o the Orthodox with no other Design than to subvert the Foundations of that Religion they profess subscribe and swear unto Valentinus Gentilis and Blandrata amongst many others are famed Instances of the Truth of this Assertion but I will only observe what manner of Person Blandrata was and what were his Practices George Blandrata Vid. Socin Epist ad Blandrat p. 687. edit 1618. an Italian by Birth and sometimes chief Physician and Counsellor to Stephen King of Poland was highly esteem'd by Faustus Socinus who dedicated to him his Answer to Volanus as the great Patron of their Religion as undoubtedly he was However Blandrata did for a long while so behave himself as to obtain Applauses from the most eminent amongst the Orthodox for the soundness of his Faith and unspotted Sincerity 'T is true Calvin after some considerable Converse with him began to suspect him and at last detected some of his Heresies and the fraudulent Practices by which he attempted their Propagation But soon was he reprimanded by Men sound in the Faith and of great Worth One eminent Person rebukes him for exposing Blandratâ— his singular Friend and as a Father to him most dear Felix Cruciger a Polonian Minister after he had in an Epistle to Calvin evinced their Faith to be exactly the same with what was embraced by the Reformed at Geneva and elsewhere saith That it appear'd to em that George Blandrata did some Weeks ago seriously Vid. Cat. Ep. p. 25â— subscribe their Confession and say they we earnestly pray you diligently and prudently to consider his Case and impart to us a faithful
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
Disbelief of it men were Pronounced Believers or Unbelievers Thus you see that the whole of Christianity is brought within the Compass of these few words To believe that Jesus of Narareth or Jesus the son of Mary is the Messiah They that Believe thus much are Good Christians such as were Received into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body as far as meer believing could make them so Now I say that according to this Principle the Mahometans are good Christians and ought to be Receivâ—d into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body For they do Profess to believe That Jesus the Son of Mary is the Messiah in the second Chapter of the Alcoran Certainly we gave the Law to Moses and after him sent many Prophets We Inspired Knowledge into Jesus the Son of Mary and Strengthened him by the Holy Ghost In the next Chapter The Angels called Zachary and said unto him I Declare to thee from God that thou shalt have a Son called John he shall affirm the Messias to be the Word of God that he shall be a Great Person Chaste a Prophet and one of the Just Remember thou how the Angels said Oh! Mary God Declareth unto thee a Word from which shall Proceed the Messias named Jesus the Son of Mary full of Honour in this World and that shall be in the other of the Number of Intercessors with his Divine Majesty I will teach him the Scriptures the Mysteries of the Law the Old Testament and the Gospel and He shall be a Prophet sent to the Children of Israel Jesus said to the Children of Israel I come to you with evident signs of my Mission from your Lord I am come to you with Signs of my Mission that Testifie that I am truly sent from your Lord Remember thou how the Lord God sald O Jesus I will cause thee to Die I will Raise thee to my self and Remove thee far from Infidels and Prefer those that have Obeyed thee to Infidels at the Day of Judgment And of the Jews in the fourth Chapter it 's said God Imprinted Infidelity in their Hearts they shall never Believe in his Law except very Few of them because of their Malice and the Blasphemies they Vomited against Mary They said we have slain the Messiah Jesus the Son of Mary the Prophet and Apostle of God Chap. 5. Chap. 61. The Messiah the Son of Mary is a Prophet and Apostle of God Remember thou that Jesus the son of Mary said to the Children of Israel I am the Messenger of God He hath sent me to Confirm the Old Testament so far the Alcoran Mahumed Ben Achmed an Eminent Interpreter of the Alcoran by His Word understands the Son which when spoken absolutely points us only unto the Son of God Lib. 1. c. 1. Elmacinus in his History of the Saracens saith that the Mahometans hold Christ the Son of Mary to be the Son of God And as Borcardus The Saracens do affirm and confess Christ to be truly the Son of God De Ter. S. p. 1. c. 7. Sect. 12. Besides it 's also said that they believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God Ascended into Heaven setting on the Right hand of the Father and Mahomet on the Left Thus Sandius in his Church History so much Admired by our English Socinians Hist Enuc lib. 3. Sec. 7. p. â—2 c. Now seeing what our Author Insists on as Necessary to make a man a True Believer is in the Turkish Alcoran I wou'd fain know whether the Mahometans who Believe these Points are not in his Esteem such Christians as ought to be Received into the Church of Christ as Members of his Body What is it that He requires as necessary to our being such that the Turks do not profess to hold Doth not he enjoyn them to Believe that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Messiah sent of God which he proved by Miracles that he Dyed Rose again and is one the Right Hand of the Omnipotent God The Turks Believe the same Will he have us worship Christ but not with that Adoration which is due to the most High God The Turks will do it so Sandius Christum essè adorandum sed non eo summo Cultu 〈…〉 â—â—i suâ— quo Adoratur ejus Dominus Deus Doth he say that Jesus is more highly exalted than Mahomet himself Mahomet in his Alcoran grants it not only that Jesus is on the Right Hand and himself on the Left but that he is Inferiour to the Blessed Virgin the Mother of our Lord So Sandius out of Bellonius Cusanus Richardus and others Doth He Require us to Believe that Christ Dyed Rose again and that there shall be a Resurrection of our Souls and Bodies the Turks Believe it Will he have it that Christ shall Appear Personally and erect a Glorious Kingdom on Earth when all must Believe in him The Mahometans say the same only they will allow unto Jesus but forty not a thousand years for his Personal Reign Doth he Require us to Believe the Old and New Testament to be Inspired It is no more than what is affirm'd in their Alcoran where it 's express Chap. 2. that God sent Mahomet to Confirm the Scriptures namely the Old Testament and the Gospel that God Inspired into him to Confirm the Ancient Scripture And Nicholaus Cardinal de Cusa in the Prologue to his Cribratio Alcorani saith that Balthasar de Luparis sometime a Merchant at Constantinople oft told him that the Mahometan Doctors did greatly respect and love the Gospel preferring it to the Book of their own Law That one of the most Learned of their Doctors being Instructed out of the Gospel of John touching the Truth Proposed to Balthasar his Design of going to Rome with Twelve others might he have safe Conduct which the Cardinal de Cusa procured but the Learned Turk was hindred by Death And Sandius â—hi supra out of Borcardus Reports That these Saracens have Saint John in the Highest Esteem next unto Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin counting Him the greatest and most Holy amongst the Prophets Doth our Author urge the Necessity of Repentance The Turks press the same as necessary unto the Pardon of Sin though not of that Sin which is unto Death What then is it that can hinder their being good Christians in the Judgment of our English Socinians Or seeing our Socinians believe no more touching what they judge necessary to Salvation than the Turks do what is it that makes them better Christians than the Mahometans are Our Author is pleased to challenge Us to shew that there is any other Doctrine upon our Assent to which or Disbelief of it Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers But I crave leave to tell him amongst other Doctrines that of Christ's Divinity is one If he will consult John 5.18 23 24 c. He 'll find it to be clearly Revealed and sufficiently proved by the Lord