wrong Sense on Orthodox Terms and Phrases To clear this I will only observe That as they will have the Term Instrument when spoken of Faith in Justification to signifie the same with Condition whereby there is a great Turn made in Controverse as the Arminians Improve it so they impose on the Phrases Vice nostra Loco nostro a Sense most contrary to their ancient and constant Meaning It's well known that Socinus Crellius and their nearest Followers did concur with the Orthodox about what was the Genuine Imports of those Phrases holding that they signified a Proper Surrogation where one is put into the Place State or Condition of another sustaining his Person and one with him In conspectu fori Sabrogatam sapit naturam ejus in cujus Locum Sabrogatur These Phrases taken in this Sense the Socinians stoutly opposed loading the Orthodox with all the horrid Consequences which slow only from an Assertion that Christ did take on him the Condition of the Sinner in every little Circumstance or Accident But my Lord Bishop of Worcester hath cleared the Maxim of Surrogation from the least Pretence of such a Charge by distinguishing Inter Naturam Primordialem Accidentalem and proving that Sarrogatum sapit tantum naturam Primordialem non Accidentalem That in this Sense the Orthodox Universally understand these Phrases Vice nostra Loco nostro is so manifest that whoever is acquainted with their Writings can't but acknowledge it And it 's no less Evident from the Scriptures That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for when it 's said Christ Suffered for us signifieth a Proper Surrogation which is Essential unto Satisfaction made to Punitive or Vindictive Justice However there are a set of Men of the Arminian Tang who will have it That Vice nostra or Loco nostro signifie no more than nostro â—â—co that when it 's said Christ dyed in our stead the meaning is Christ dyed to besâ—â—â—ad us and only that the Blessed Effect of his Death might be made ours Another expresseth it thus If Christ dyed for our Benefit so as some way or other by Virtue of his Death and Sufferings to save us from the Wrath of God this for ought he knows is All that any body means by his dying in our stead By such Practices as these it is that many are unawares ensnared into divers Pernicious and hurtful Errors First to the entertaining corrupt Apprehensions about Christâ—s Satisfaction and then to a downright denyal of it whence it is apparent that the Arminian Errors lead the way to the Socinian as the Socinian do to the Abomination of the Deist Thus much may suffice touching the Methods taken by Forreign Socinians and the Arminians to instill and propagate their Doctrines I will go on in the next place to consider what Arts are used by our English Socinians to spread their Heresies CHAP. IV. Some of the Various Methods taken by the English Socinians to Insinuate and spread their Errors Detected SECT I. The English Socinians can't agree in any one Particular Formula of Faith or Catechism Sundry Differences amongst themselves in Matters of Importance Their Unanimity in taring up the Foundations and commonly received Systems of Divinity IT being the Expectation of our English Socinians that Consid â—n the explic of the Trin. p. 32. if we attack the Doctrine of their Books or describe their Opinions we do it out of their own Writings not from the Books of Forreigners I will confine my self in the Account I give of them to their own Prints First then it must be observed That the English Socinians have not made such Advances in their New Divinity as to be able to give a distinct Idea of what it is they do Believe The Reason is Obvious To Invent 〈◊〉 Improve a New Religion which they who Reject the Old must do if they will have any is not Easy Nor is there a Man amongst them Great enough to Prescribe to the Party And the Fondness Hereticks have for their own Particular Notions is such as will not suffer them to Part with any thing of their Own for the sake of a Scheme or System of anothers Composure Though Mr. Biddle did some Years ago Emit a Confession Reprinted 1691. and a Catechisme yet I cannot find that the English Socinians do Adhere thereunto any more than the Followers of Socinus beyond the Sea's have done to the Racovian Catechisme which as My Lord of Worcester Observes was so far from Pleasing all that the New Editions were with some Important Alterations And whoever will Consult what hath been Written by our Gentlemen since 1690 will see that they Pretend not to give a Particular Summary of the Positive Parts of their Religion 'T is true they Generally Profess a Zeal for the Apostles Creed One of 'em tells us That he Resolves his System into the Creed of the Vniversal Church Some Thought supâ—â— Dr. Stel. Vindic. p. â—8 which by Reason of it's Antiquity but especially of the Authority of its Doctrines is Rightly called the Apostles Creed and Admitted of all Christians notwithstanding their Implacable Hatreds and Divisions Thus they Confining themselves to Generals leave us in the Darkâ— about the Particular Articles of their Faith besides their Presences about the ANTIQUITY of this Creed are as hath been Unanswerably Proved by the Learned Vossius most Weak and without the least Shaddow of Reason and their Sense of it if in favour of their Anti-Trinitarianism Contrary to that Received in the Churches ever since its first Composure whereby we are as much at a loss touching the System of their Faith as if they had said nothing at all of it We will therefore Look into the Brief Hystory of these Vnitarians Letter 1. p. 3. as they call themselves and see what they say there Sir In Answer to Yours Demanding a Brief Account of the Vnitarians called also Socinians also their Doctrine concerning GOD in which only they differ from other Christians the Remonstrants PROFESSEDLY Agreeing with them in other Points of Faith and Doctriney and the Defence they usually make of their Haeresie They Affirm GOD IS ONLY ONE PERSON not THREE They make our Lord Christ to be the Messenger Minister Servant and Creature of GOD They Confess He is also the Son of GOD because He was Begotten on Blessed Mary by the Spirit or Power of GOD Luke 1.35 But they Deny that He or any other Person but the Father is GOD Almighty and Eternal The Holy Ghost or Spirit according to them is the Power and Inspiration of GOD Luke 1.35 Tho' we might Reasonably Expect a very Particular and Exact Account in this History of what they hold yet they stick in Generals Referring Us to the Remonstrants for a Catalogue of all besides their Renouncing the Blessed Loctrine of the Trinity so that we are still where we were before we saw this History For as the Remonstrants do not PROFESSEDLY Agree with them in the other Points of
not the Essence of the Son and Holy Ghost These Essences they said were Caused the one by an Eternal Generation from the Father the other thro an ineffable Procession from the Father by the Son Thus by a deriving distinct Essences from the Essence of the Father they rejected the Autotheiry of the Son and Spirit and with their Causalities brought in such dependencies of the Son and Spirit on the Father as interfered with a being absolutely Infinite in every Perfection and thus in a more Artificial manner they ran the same length with the Arian and Socinian as to the Inequality For that Essence which is not of it self is not cannot be in a strict Proper Sence God for the Essence of God is only from it self uncaused unoriginated an Essence that hath a beginning and is caused cannot be Absolutely Eternal for what is Absolutely Eternal never had a beginning never was caused never receiv'd its Essence from another There is a Great difference between Causing a Distinct Essence and a communicating the same Individual Essence to another for though the causing another necessarily implies that the Caused Essence was from another a communicating it doth not so The Father 's communicating his own Essence unto the Son doth not argue the Son's Essence is from another for 't is still the same it was before it was communicated But the Father's causing an Essence distinct from his own imports Imperfection in the Caused Essence even the want of a truly proper and absolute Eternity and Independence and necessarily infers an Inequalâ—ty of Essence which is the thing the Arians and Samosatenians saw and asserted and the Pinczovians intended who as they observ'd their Disciples prepared to embrace this Error insinuated it This appears from Blandrata's Endeavour in an Epistle which Beza had of his â—pâ—st 81. p. 364 〈◊〉 to perswade Gregorius Pauli a Tritheist to close with the Opinions of Samosatenus and from what Petrus Statorius a Companion of Blandrata when he dwelt at Pinczow from which Place the Tritheists had their Name of Pinczovians with whom Franciscus Lismaninus Martin Crovicius Schomannus Gregorius Pauli â—relius Biblioth Antitrin p. 48. Tricessius and as Sandius observes Ochinus Stancarus Alciatus c had their Habitations did offer in a Synod at Pinczow about the Insufficiency of the Answer which a Synod held in the same place did some time before give unto Remianus Chelmius about what he wrote against the Invocation of the Holy Ghost The Story is thus Remianus Chelmius sent to a Synod held at Pinczow the 12th of November An. 1559 a Letter in which several things were objected against the Invocation of the Holy Ghost Peter Statorius who Biblioth Antitrin p. 48. as Sandius suggests instilled this Opinion into Chelmius doth with Gregorius Pauli and others move that the Doctrine of the Trinity might be diligently examined and tryed by the Holy Scriptures An Answer is sent from this Synod unto Chelmius But Statorius in a Synod held at the same place November the 19th 1561. declared that Chelmius was not satisfied with the Answer sent unto him The Synod therefore obliged him to return a fuller one which he did but in such a manner Epit. Hist Orig. Unit. in Pol. that no one could tell what it was he himself held Stoinius who was Grandson to Statorius represents matters of Fact thus In this Synod Anno 1561 Statorius was directed to write an Answer unto Chelmski which he did but so that it did not appear what he himself believed of it He only said that Blandrata was Represented by Calvin as one who had drank in the Poyson of the Serverian Impiety As for the Opinion which he proposed to the Synod 't was acceptable to all but Question'd by him whether the Relief that the Father was one Vnbegotten and the Son Begotten did not infer a Plurality of Gods But all they they are Statorius his own Words that dwell with Blandrata are suspected for holding some Heresies But if they are Hereticks who according to the Holy Scriptures Believe the Father Son and Holy Ghost I do chearfully saith he acknowledge my self to be of that Number c. Lubieniescius passing by what Regenvolsâ—ius in his History of the Sclavonian Churches saith of Statorius doth out of Budzanius tell us That Statorius succeeding Paulus Orsacius in the Government of the School at Finczow Professed the True Faith affirming that The Invocation of the Holy Ghost is Idolatry That there is not one Text in the Holy Scripture either for the Deity or Invocation or Adoration of the Holy Spirit Lulâ—en Hist l. 2. c. 8. p. 149. or for Faith in him That the Holy Ghost is not the third Person of the Deity nor God but the Power and Gift of God On this occasion there arose several Disputes amongst the Learned at which time Statorius perswaded many to embrace this Opinion notwithstanding which and altho Alexius Rodecius told Statorius to his Face that he Learned this Principle from him yet did he in the Year 1567 openly deny it declaring that the Spirit is God and to be Worshipped as God and whoever taught otherwise was of his Father the Devil for which Reason Budzinius look'd on him as a Proteus forsaken of the Holy Spirit And Orphinovius saith God Entrusted him with Sundry Talents which he did not Imploy in defence of the Truth but the Trinitarians being the stronger Party he did at last turn unto them Thus these Pinczovians vid. Lismaninus Gregorius Pauli Ochinus Statorius Stancarus Alciatus c. their Partizans did not only set up Tritheism with a Design to bring in the Samosatenian Heresie but formed themselves into sundry Shapes and were unwearied in their Attempts first to turn the Three Persons into Three distinct Essences insinuate an Inequality amongst them ascribing to the Father a Preheminence and then bring the Deity of the Holy Spirit into Doubt and make the Lord Christ a subordinate God and thus establish their Socinianism That Learned Doctor therefore who hath confuted this Pinczovian Heresie of Three distinct Essences in the Trinity deserves greatly from the Church of God For by turning his Strength against the Notion of Three distinct Infinite Essences Substances Spirits or Minds he hath taken an Effectual Course to break those Socinian Measures which were most likely to expose the blessed Trinity and prepare the Minds of many to take in their Vnitarianism or rather Bideism And they who have condemned the Assertion of Three distinct Essences or Minds for Heretical have done honourably to their Eternal Praise When the old Socinian Game is Playing over again and some who pretend a Zeal for the Trinity walk in the same Path and plead for Three distinct Essences as the Italian Hereticks heretofore did it is time for the Orthodox to look to themselves They cannot be too cautious in a matter of such Consequence and what Persons soever are industrious in their Endeavours to propagate this Doctrine
Titus 3. vid. Sommerum Lib. 2. cap. ult pag. 171. Besides whatever else is in the Holy Scriptures ascribed to the most High God or to his Son Jesus Christ or to the Holy Ghost which thro' haste we may have omitted we do most readily and with the Profoundest Submission ascribe to them most sincerely confess and without the least Hesitation believe I will add but one Authority more to clear this which you may see in the Polonian Catechism where they do not only acknowledge Sect. 3. c. 1. p. 18. that Mat. 28.19 1 Cor. 12.4 5 6 7. and 1 Joh. 5.7 do shew there is the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that they are Vnited but they constantly assert it So that say they we declare that he who is ignorant of this Doctrine or doth not believe it cannot be a Christian This Notion after much Deliberation had of it is Published as theirs by Crellius Sclichtingius a Bukowiec Martin Ruarus and Andreas Wissowatius and not only embraced by the Foreign but by the English Socinians as appears from what is in their Vnitarian History and in Biddble's Confession which by Reprinting and Placing it in the Collection of their Writers they have made their Own In this Confession it 's declared that they believe there is one most High God Creator of Heaven and Earth and that this God is none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the first Person of the Holy Trinity They believe there is one Chief Son of the High God and this Son of the most High God is none but Jesus Christ the Second Person in the Trinity They believe that there is comprized in the Holy Trinity the Holy Spirit the Minister of God and Christ But tho' they believe a Holy Trinity yet they cannot agree about what this Holy Trinity is They are Three Persons as Ruarus Przipcovius John Biddle and his Followers affirm They are but Two in the Judgment of Socinus Sclichtingius Crellius and the Generality of em both at home and abroad whose Sentiments I will examine and begin with what they say of the Holy Ghost 1. The Holy Ghost is in their Opinion one of the Three but not a Person nor God nor a Creature In their Attempts to Explain this Notion they heap up Mystery upon Mystery even such Mysteries as seem to our dull Understandings as full of Contradictions as a Mystery of the grossest sort can be For they Acknowledge that what is Peculiar unto God is Artributed to the Holy Ghost yea his very Eternity That the Holy Ghost is a thing truly Divine and Eternal and the Third in order with Respect to the Father and the Son and proceeding from the Father and the Son we shall Cont. Meis p. 604. saith Sclichtingius easily agree with them in but yet deny him to be God And altho it's natural for us to suppose that Being which is not God and yet exists to be a Creature they are express that he is neither God nor Creature In Grawerus Pol. Sacr. p. 635. the Controversie about the Spirits being the Third Person in the Godhead is fairly stated where among other Things he accquaints us with a Dispute between Ostorodius and Tradelius In this Dispute Tradelius arguing against the Socinian Notion said That in his Opinion if the Holy Spirit be not God seeing every Thing that is is either a Creator or his Creature he must necessarily be his Creature To him Ostorodius thus replied 1. T is one thing to say that an Absurdity flows from such a Man's Notion another to say that this Man holds the Absurdity For Doctor Tradelius doth not only endeavour to draw from what I hold that the Holy Spirit is a Creature but saith Categorically that I am of Opinion That the Holy Ghost is a Creature A thing that never came into my Mind For on the contrary I affirm that if the Holy Spirit be the Power of God he is not a Creature for the Power of God is not Created 2 I further say that tho' the Holy Spirit be not God 't will not immediately follow that he is a Creature for that Maxim Omne quod Creator non est est Creatura is Uncertain For the Justice Love Grace and other Properties and Attributes of God are not Creatures nor are they God in that sense Tradelius will have the Holy Spirit to be God Thus far Ostorodius who delivering the Socinian sense saith That the Holy Spirit is neither God nor a Creature but a Somewhat between them boeh tho' the Opposition between God and the Creature is so immediate that non datur Tertium Yet contrary to the Plainest Reason the Socinians Affirm the Holy Spirit to be an Eternal Somewhat that is neither Creator nor Creature A Contradiction so gross that it cannot be either solvâ—d oâ— covered by Ostorodius his Allusion to the Attributes of God for tho' they are not God in the Sense Tradelius saith the Holy Ghost is God that is they are not God Personally yet they are Essentially and are Infinite and whatever is Infinite is God Infinite Justice is God and yet not many Gods but One because there can be but One Infinite If then the Holy Ghost be the Power of God it is either Finite or Infinite If Finite it can't be Eternal it must have a Beginning receive its being from another and be a Creature If Infinite it is God or somewhat besides God is Infinite that is to say there are Two Infinites the One God the other not which to our understandings is Contradiction all over How they can come off I cannot see especially considering another Opinion of theirs which is That tho' it be a Sin to Worship the Holy Ghost yet it 's not Idolatry to do so Sclichtingius doth I confess Con. Meis p. 11 12. with much Candour towards us endeavour to Vindicate our Worshipping the Holy Ghost from being Idolatry tho he be not God But thus much he doth by affirming that there is so close an Union between the Holy Ghost and the most High God that the giving Divine Worship to him cannot be either Impious or Idolatrous And in his Answer to what Meisner urged from the Attribution of the Divine Properties to the Holy Ghost in Proving him to be God he turns it all off by saying That doth not Evince the Holy Ghost to be a Person but it is sufficient to my Purpose that they Acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be as Divine as Infinite and Eternal as the Attributes of God are seeing hereby they must either own him to be God or that somewhat besides God is Infinite II. As they say the Holy Ghost is neither a Creature nor God so on the other hand they make Christ to be but a Creature and yet to be God also 1. They affirm Jesus Christ to be a True God True in Opposition to the False Gods of the Gentiles who are indeed False Gods because they are Gods without a
their Candor and Integrity which is supposed to be conspicuous in the Representations they make of their own and their Adversaries Principles have walk'd in the same Path as I hope in the following History with some clearness to detect and make manifest SECT II. The seeming Approaches of Socinus and his Followers towards the Orthodox THE Socinians altho' they deny a Trinity of Persons in the God-head the Divinity of Christ and the Personality of the Holy-Ghost Christs Satisfaction and Merit Justification by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness the work of the Spirit in Conversion c. Yet in their Apologies Confessions and other Writings they give us their Opinions in such words as if they held all these necessary Doctrines Ruarus who is justly esteemed by the excellent â—â—lâ—husius Specimen Refut Crell de satisf p. 3.5 to be one of the most Learned Socinians amongst the Reasons annexed to the first Century of his Select Episiâ—les perswading the Papists to express more candor towards them closes with this Protestation That they do heartily believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit that they Baptize in the Name of the Father Son Ruar Epist Select par 1. pag. 464. and Holy Ghost and acknowledge an Vnity in this Trinity that they esteem Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the true God and as such worship him that they believe Christ to have abundantly satisfied the Will of the Father in all things which he imposed on him to do and suffer for our sins and so by the Victime of his Body hath expiated them In an Epistle to Heing Veglerus this Learned Ruarus thus writes Ruar Epist 16. P. 107. My most intimate Friends have oft heard me Profess that in most humble manner I adore the Divine Nature in Christ and am most hearty in acknowledging his true Merit and Satisfaction made for us altho these words are not in Scripture I Challenge 'em all to accuse me if they can for denying the Hypostasis or Subsistence of the Holy-Ghost or for rejecting Infant-Baptism or for placing our Righteousness in the Merit of our Works or any thing like it In an Epistle to Frederick Schossirus whose perversion Ruarus doth endeavour after he had advised him to cast off those prejudices he had received with hâ—s Mother Milk beseeches him to consider thâ—â— they do not deny Christ's satisfaction but hold that he satisfied the Will of his Father both by doing and suffering all those things imposed on him by the Father for the sake of us and our Sins Ruar Epist 23. p. 146 147. whence it comes to pass that our sins are pardon'd and Eternal Life given us He is more full in what he writes unto Nigrinus for saith he I do acknowledge that the Obedience which Christ as the Head of all the Elect did render unto God in his Life and much rather in his Death was a sufficient or full price for our Sins and so equivalent to the sufferings which by our Sins we had deserved But that I may more distinctly deliver my thoughts concerning the Fruits of Christs Death I will reduce what I have taken out of the Holy Scriptures to Three Heads answerable to his Three-fold Office For Christ being the Chief Prophet of God even as was Moses published a New Law unto the People and whatever he Taught Commanded Promised or Did when alive he by his Death Eminently Confirmed Sealed and Sanction'd whereby we are obliged to believe him and obey his Laws And God himself engaged to perform all that Christ hath promised in his Name Touching the Priestly Office which lyeth in making Prayers for the People and Sacrificing that is to say Killing the Victim and then according to the Law offering it for the Expiation of Sin Christ a little before his Death pouring out most ardent Prayers to God on behalf of all that then did or after should believe and entering into Heaven through Death doth now make Intercession for them and freely offer'd up himself upon the Cross as one to be made an Atoneing Victim and with this Victim of his Body prepared for an Oblation by Death he entered into the Heavens as into the Holy of Holies and offer'd up this Sacrifice of himself without Spot by the Eternal Spirit unto God who is amongst the Cherubims or rather with the Myriads of Angels there appearing for ever before the Throne of the Divine Majesty to expiate the Sins of the People and procure their Pardon And that he might enter on the Execution of his Kingly Office whereby he doth all things which belong to the Salvation of the Elect defending and freeing them from all Evil and at length making them meet for the partaking of Spiritual and Heavenly Blessings He did by rendring Obedience to the Death open a way whence we owe all unto Christ who so readily dyed for us The Causes also of our Salvation may be considered as Three fold The First the freest Grace of the Immortal God The Second is Christ who as our Head hath undertaken for his Body with God The Last is our Faith and Obedience towards God wrought by the Spirit of Regeneration To this of Ruarus I will annex what Slichtingius the Polonian Knight hath in the Pelonian Confession and Apology In the Preface to the Confession they say That the Apostles Creed is most Ancient containing the most pure and Apostolical Truth as first delivered that therefore in Publishing the Faith of their Churches to express their Consent with the whole World they keep most close unto this Creed and although they esteem the third Part about the Holy Ghost not to be so Ancient as the other two Parts yet they Profess that they believe all contained in it to be most true And in their Exposition of what is said about Christ's being Dead they declare That then Christ's Soul was made an Offering for Sin that all those Scriptures which assign the Expiation and Remission of our Sins to the Blood of Christ do make it clear that Christ's Death was tanquam victima â—iacularis that is as an Expiatory Sacrifice or Victim Besides on these Words the Remission of Sin it s thus We believe all past Sins how gross soever and all Sins of Infirmity committed after the Acknowledging of the Truth are through the Obedience Blood and Oblation of Christfully â—â—â—â—ven them that have the Communion 〈…〉 formerly spoken of For this 〈…〉 say they Justification is not 〈…〉 the Law or our own 〈…〉 That this Remission of 〈◊〉 and Justification is on our part obâ—â—â—ed by â—â—ith and Repeniance and contrued unto us by the Fruits thereof This is that part of the Socinian Confession Vid. Curcel â—uâ—â—ern Differ Theo. Adver Mares Differ 4. Sect. 13. with which Stephen Curcellaeus twits honest Maresius as what is more Sound than what is embraced by him and other Calvinists Michtingius in his Apology which was occasion'd by an Edict of the Lords of Holland and West
Frieseland for the supp essing all Socinian Prints and Conventicles which they sent out in pursuance of the Supplication made unto them by the Deputies of the Synod of South and North Holland approved of by Triglandius Heidanus and Cocceius Professors at Leiden I say in this Apology he doth his utmost by using Orthodox Phrases to make their Errors look as though they differd but little from the Common Faith For saith he 't was never in our thoughts to deny the Unity of the Trinity that we do with our whole Heart Believe and openly own the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One that we confess Christ to be God ascribing to him that Divinity which appertains to the Son of God the like of the Holy Ghost And whereas we are charg'd for Denying Christ's Satisfaction Apol. pro verit accusat p. 12. if it be meant of the thing which in the Holy Scriptures is assigned unto it we do most firmly believe that Jesus Christ to the end he might obtain for us the Remission of Sins hath so far satisfied the Divine Will P. 24. that there is nothing wanting to a most full and Compleat Satisfaction As to the Merit of Christ if by it they mean his Perfect Obedience and Righteousness we do freely confess that Christ's Obedience for our obtaining Eternal Life doth much more abound to us than Adam's Sin to our Condemnation Apol. 25. not excluding our Obedience which all that have received Faith and the Spirit of Christ have more or less whose Defects are through the Grace of God supplyed by Christ's most Compleat and Perfect Obedience We acknowledge that we are Sinners Apol. p. 53. and fall very short of the perfect Rule of Righteousness and therefore sly unto Christ that we may be justified by him without the Deeds of the Law nor do we by the Faith of Christ destroy the Law as it respects Moral Precepts which is the true Righteousness but establish it That Conversion is by the Power of the Spirit we never denied unless as held by such as make Men to be but as Stocks utterly rejecting and banishing from the Christian Religion all Vertue and Vice Reâ—â—ards and Punishments P. 26. leaving it destitute of all Encouragements to true Piety P. 87. We trust not to the Strength or Power of our own Will knowing that unless it be excited cherished and helped by a Heavenly Power we cannot so much as Will much less Perform any thing and seeing we can neither begin P. 65. nor finish any thing without the help of God's Grace we lift up our Prayers and Thanksgivings unto God â—or do we deny the Resurrection P. 76. but with the Apostle we have our Hope in God touching the Resurrection of the â—â—â—d both of the Just and Vnjust believing that the Just shall be raised to the Joys of an Eternal Life and the Unjust to the Punishment of Everlasting Fire wherefore knowing the Terrour of the Lord we perswade Men. â—ruâ—peorius a â—niâ—ht and Counsellor of the Flector of â—randenlurg Przipâ—â—v Apol. 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—cen in his Apology for afflicted Innocence directed to the Fâ—â—â—lar and Supreme Prince of Prussia seems to speak as Ortho loxly as any one could wish For saith he we with due Honour receive the Doctrine of the Triatry the Father Son and Holy Spirit in whose Name we are Baptized Concerning the Divinity of our Lord We acknowledge him to be properly and truly speaking the only Begotten Son of God not meerly because of the I ominion and Omnipotence given to him but because of that Divine Nature which he received by the voluntary Generation of his most loving Father in which the Character and Image of the Divine Sub stance of the Father shines and so we Worship Adore and Invoke him as the True God even by Nature in a proper Sence now and for ever Blessed Then of the Holy Ghost he says Nothing can by any Man be said so sublime concerning the Holy Spirit which we do not willingly admit so that the Name and Title of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ remain peculiar to the Omnipotent Person of the Father Then concerning the Merit of Christ's Death We acknowledge the Merit of the Death of Christ and our Redemption effected by his most precious Blood poured out but so as that the Grace and Favour of Forgiveness remain owing to his most merciful Father He is positive that touching Magistracy they confess with the Apostle Paul that the Magistrate is the Minister of God to Punish by the Sword evil Doers and protect the Innocent and that they are not to be removed out of the Church of Christ that in the other Articles of Religion they hold nothing Blasphemous Heretical or Absurd not daring to deviate in the least from the Apostle's Creed and Holy Scriptures Whoever considers that what is here delivered by this Author is done Apologetically to put a stop to the troubles they endured or at least to get 'em mitigated cannot but concur with me in concluding that He uses these Orthodox Phrases to the end He and they might be esteemed as Men Sound in the Faith far from holding the Heresies they were charged with and therefore no way deserving the Severities that were only due to Blasphemous Hereticks and yet as we shall hereafter shew as there is a mixture of Unfound Expressions even in the Places where he speaks thus of the Trinity and Christ's Divinity so doth he otherwhere deny these Doctrines â—nyedinus Superintendent of the Vnitarian Churches in Transilvania in his Preface to his Explication of those places in the Old and New Testament produced by the Orthodox to prove the Trinity doth positively aver Enjed. Praesâ—ad explicat Loc. V. N. Test That the whole they believe is owned by Papists Lutheran and Calvinist Namely That Jesus Christ called the Son of God the Father Almighty Maker of the Heavens and the Earth even he who was conceived by the Holy Ghost and Born of the Virgin the Man Christ Jesus is the One and only Mediator between God and Men by whose Death Salvation is procured for us and through whom both Jew and Gentile have Access to the Father and in whose Name by the Holy Ghost we obtain a Pardon and an Assurance of Eternal Life This is the summ of the New Testament-Doctrine and the Faith which we constantly Profess and Defend And who dares deny it Do the Papist Lutheran or Calvinist No by no means I could easily add many other Socinian Authors speaking after this very way as if they Dissented not from the Orthodox in any Important Points But these being enough to Evince the Truth of my Assertion I will go on to shew that notwithstanding these seeming Approaches towards the Truth they are at the utmost distance from it denying those glorious Doctrines they would be thought to embrace SECT III. The real Distance there is between the Socinian and Orthodox That
Men fearing God studied in Divinity and rightly judging of these things will be in this Particular of his Mind There was brought unto me when sick in Bed a Writing from Schomannus which I did no sooner read but found my Distemper to increase upon me so very much did it grief me to see such Hurtful Opâ—nions brought into our Church Opinions that disquiet the more Infirm and give Great Offence to others who are not of our way Once more If Socinus designs an Answer I wish he would not I must confess the Truth I must tell you that their Writings are stuffed which most Offensive Paradoxes to the extreme Grief of my Soul Besides this Disputation between Niemojevius and Schomannus makes it plain to me that this Notion about the Sacraments was not started 'till the Year 1588 altho' Socinus fixed his dwelling in Poland A. D. 15â—9 That when it did first arise it startled the more Pious of their own Party and that from Niemojevius his Resolution of Proposing it to the next Synod at Lublin it 's very likely the Generality were then against it so far were they from that full Agreement which our Gentlemen pretend to be almost their Peculiar Property SECT VIII An Account of the Italian Combination entred into to bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into Doubt The Chief of 'em Assert Three distinct Essences to introduce the Pre-eminence of the Father and a Subordination in the Essences of the Son and Holy Spirit These things cleared out of the Writings of Gentilis and others The late Assertion of Three Essences the same with that of Gentilis c. ALthough the English Socinians do in some Instances so very much differ from them beyond the Seas that an exact Description of them cannot be given out of the Writings of the Pratres Poloni yet it must be yielded that they are nevertheless of the Off-spring of that Faction For which Reason I will consider what Combinations have been amongst them what Shapes they have formed themselves into and what Principles they advanced to the end they might subvert the blessed Doctrine of the Trinity There was in Italy a strong Combination entred into by near Forty who form'd themselves into a Society had their Colleges and Conferences where they consulted how to bring the Doctrines of the Trinity and Christ's Satisfaction into Doubt This was saith Wissowatius about the Year 1546. The chief of their Number mentionâ—d by Sandius Narrat Compâ—nd Biblioth Antitrin p. 18. were Leonardus Abbas Busalis Laelius Socinus Bernardinus Ochinus Nicholaus Paruta Valentinus Gentilis Julius Trevisanus Franciscus de Ruego Jacobus de Chiari Tranciscus Niger Darius Socinus Paulus Alciacus c. who continued together till their Design took Air at which time they being severely prosecuted some of 'em went into Helvetia others into France Britain Holland Germany and Poland and some into the Turkish Territories where they had their Liberty only Julius Trevisanus and Franciscus de Ruego were taken and executed and Jacobus de Chiari as Lubieniescius saith died a natural Death These Men where-ever they went took all Occasions to instil their Errors which they did by offering Objections against the Truth that as was pretended they might be the more firmly established in the Faith and be more able to defend it And having sear'd their Consciences with fraudulent Subscriptions and Perjury they formed themselves into sundry Shapes not scrupling to subscribe and swear to what they neither Believed nor Intended nor did they care what Methods they used might they thereby subvert the Doctrine of the Trinity and Christ's Satisfaction That they were set at work by tâ—e Papists is no way improbable especially if we consider how at Lyons the Papists dâ—schâ—rged Valentinus Gentilis so soon as they undâ—rstood his Design was to oppose Calvin and how safely Servetus Lubieâ— Histâ—r Pâ—sâ—â— Poâ—oâ— l. 2. c. 5. p. 1â—â— c. notwithstanding his Blasphemies lived amongst them The Principle whâ—ch at first they advanced as what was most lâ—kely to bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into â—ontempt was their turning the Three Persons into Three distinct Essences and their appropriating a peculiar Preheminence to the Father Servetus who is by Stanislaus Lubieniescius in his History of the Polonian Deformation Lubiâ—n â—bi sup p. â—â— highly applauded for his Diligence in Consulting the â—lcoran of Mahomet out of which he extracted the Opinions he held about the Triniâ—y having by his Sufferings gotten a Reputation it became the Province of Valentinus Gentitis and Alciatus aâ—ter the Disperson of these designing Incendiaries to go to Geneva and try what they could do towards the carrying on that Work which Servetus had with so much Labour and Travail begun And that their Success might be the greater 't was the Care of Gentilis to clear himself as much as possibly he could from the Charge of being a Favourer either of Arius or Servetus and therefore pretends a Zeal for the True Trinity as he expresses it in a Letter to Copus Raymundus and Henocus learned Ministers in Geneva explaining his Notion thus Caâ—e Tâ—â—â—â—â— Thâ—â—â— pâ—â— 6â—0 6â—â— The Father is that one only Essence that is from it self The Word is the Brightness of the Glory of God the express Image of his Substance and in this respect distinct from the Father who is as Christ himself saith the only True God the Essentâ—â—tor that is the â—nformator Individuorum The Word is the Son and also he True God and yet not Two Gods but one and the same God Or as Aretius in his Brief Account of Valentinus Gentilis A True Trinity ought to consist of Three eternal distinct Spirits differing from each other essentially rather than personally The Father he stiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himself as he is more eminently truly and properly God But the Essence of the Son is not saith he of himself but an Essentiatum derived from the Essence of the Father and is a Secondary God And what saith Servetus of this Notion Deus pâ—st Christum manâ—e â—atum in ties Essentias Divisus maneat tamen Unâ—â— Deus â—â—ia haec Dispensâ—â—io nihil â—â—â—â—o mutat Tracâ— Theoâ— p. 657. Calvin tells 〈◊〉 That he holds the Deity to 〈◊〉 divided into Three Essences and yet there is but One God For the Socinians greater Satisfaction I will givâ—â— Servetus his Sense Histâ—â— for Poton l. 2. c. 5. p. 9â—â— c. out of a Discourse he delivered some time before his Execution 〈◊〉 published by Lubieniâ—scius from the Autoâ—raph In which he having opposed the Opinion of them who affirm Three substantial Persons to be jâ— God by Nature equal to one another which he looks upon to be Blasphemy and an execrable Impiety he freely gives us his own Sentiments to this effect 1. That the Name God is Appellative signifying one to whom all Power Dominion and Superiority doth properly belong who is above all the chief of all King
Lismaninus and Blandrata were very active Lismaninus who was first infected by the Endeavours of Laelius Socinus and confirm'd in his Heresies by George Blandrata falling into Suspicion takes Heart and in a Letter to Stanislaus Ivanus Karninscius boldly defends Blandrata But that he might do his part to remove all grounds of jealousie touching his Orthodoxy he Prefaces his Epistle with a short Prayer to God the Father from whom are all things through the Lord Christ by whom are all things Consubstantial and Co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Ghost And in the Epistle it self he gives a summary of his own Faith and of the Faith of them who dwelt at Pinczow in these words We Believe in God the Father from whom are all things who is Infinite without beginning and from whom not only all Creatures are but also the Divinity and Bonity of the Son and Holy Ghost as Nazianzen teacheth in his Apologie We Believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God who is the Incarnate Word God-man God of God Light of Light True God of True God Consubstantial Co-eternal and Coequal in Essence or Nature Power Glory Authority and Honour with the Father And We Believe in the Holy Ghost the True God of the Father and the Son or as the Greek Doctors teach in an unutterable manner from Eternity proceeding from the Father by the Son Consubstantial Coeternal and Co-equal with the Father and the Son in his Essence Power Majesty Glory Authority and Honour Blandrata in a Synod at Xiansia Anno Dom. 1562 declared his Belief Lubien Hist Ref. Pol. l. 2. c. 6. p. 130. In one God the Father in one Lord Jesus Christ his Son and in one Holy Ghost each of which is Essentially God A Plurality of Gods I Abhor saith he for with us there is but One God only whose Essence is Indivisible I do confess that there are Three distinct Hypostases that the Deity of Christ and his Generation is Eternal and that the Holy Ghost is True and Eternal God proceeding from both In these Confessions there is the Denial of a Plurality of Gods and a Profession that the Son and Holy Spirit are of the same Essence Consubstantial Co-eternal Coequal with the Father in words as full as its Possible for the Vindicated Author who holds the Persons of the Trinity to be Three distinct Essences to express it Howbeit these Men were justly Charged with the Tritheistical Heresie Peter Martyr as Lubieniescius reports doth in a Letter Anno Dom. 1558 Hist Ref. Pol. l. 2. c. 6. p. 126. speak of Blandrata's bringing into the Deity a Certain kind of Monarchy denying the Essence of the Father and the Son to be the same from whence a a Plurality of Gods doth follow which thing as he was told Gribaldus did in express words Assert In like manner Lubieniescius himself tells us That Lismaninus and Blandrata Agreed in this that unless it be setled Ibid. pag. 131. that God who in the Holy Scriptures is called the Father of Jesus Christ is the most High God no satisfying Answer can be made to Stancarus nor can that Worship which is due unto the most High God he given him for Christ himself doth say my Father is Greater than I. These Men and their Followers notwithstanding these Confessions were so far from believing the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be Coessential Coeternal and Coequal that as Gentilis made the Father to be the Essentiator and the Son and Spirit to be the Essentiati so these were Positive that there was a Preheminence of Causality in the Father above the Son and Holy Ghost that the Essence of the Son and Holy Spirit was not Vnoriginated Vncaused and from it self only but from the Essence of the Father that is to say the Father was the Essentiator and the Son and Spirit the Essentiati and making the Essence of the Son and Spirit so very distinct from the Essence of the Father they were for three Essences in the Trinity Three distinct Essences and therefore were call'd Trideitae which is not only the Observation of Beza but the Confession of Lubieniescius who saith That they were injuriously by the Adversary called Trideitae tho' nothing more manifest than that they being the Worshippers of God the Father by Jesus Christ the only mediator were therefore in Transilvania called Vnitarians The Notion then of Gentilis Lismaninus and Blandrata was that the Son and Holy Ghost were Consubstantial Coequal and Coeternal in Essence with the Father they were of one and the same Nature and yet three Infinite and Eternal distinct Essences and Spirits which is the same for substance with what our Vindicated Author so Vehemently Contends for whence I argue If our Authors Asserting one Individual Essence or Deity will secure his Three Infinite Essences or Minds from Heresie it must also clear Gentilis Lismaninus Blandrata and their disciples ay Severus and Theodosius too from the same Charge But if it won't clear them from being Heretical it cannot sufficiently Vindicate Him But this Tritheism is not only as I have already intimated an Heresie But the same that the Italian Hereticks pitched on to Introduce their Samosatenianism and whoever will make a close search will see that it hath a Tendency thereunto not only as hereby a Trinity of Persons is made a Trinity of Gods to the setting the Minds of many against the Truth it self but as this their Principle leads its Embracers to take into their Faith the several Consequences which Naturally and Necessarily flow from it For Answerable to the various Capacities Inclinations and Interesis of them who will have it that the Persons in the Trinity are three distinct Essences Sundry Errours do arise But 〈◊〉 to insist upon them to escape the Blasphemous Absurdities which flow from their aâ—â—erting Three distinct Infinite Essences Spirits or Minds As for instance their making them Three distinct Infinite Co-equal Gods they ascribed unto the Father an Hyperoche a Preheminence and Superiority above the Son and Holy Ghost But then the Inequality which did immediately follow from the Preheminence and Superiority assigned to the Father being such as was in every Bodies Judgment inconsistent with the Sons and Holy Ghosts being Consubstantial and Co-equal with the Father they were at a loss how to Explain themselves An Inequality as to the OEconomy Dispensation and Office they lookâ—d on as insufficient The Arians and Samosatenians therefore say it must be an Inequality of Essence But this being so Gross a Contradiction to the Son 's and Holy Ghostâ—s being of the same Nature and Co-equal with the Father Server us Gentilis with the Pinczovians would not at first expresly allow of more than an Inequality as a Cause or Principle making the Essence of the Father to be the Principle or Cause of the Essence of the Son and Holy Ghost affirming that tho the Essence of the Father was Vnoriginated and from it self yet so was
gross But to follow the Deist in his way of Arguing He makes a Mystery to be an unintelligible Doctrine that can only puzzle and amuse because in it there is somewhat above our Reason whereas it 's very clear that the Doctrine may have somewhat unsearchable in it and yet be intelligible enough thus when it 's said Man's understanding is Finite but God's is Infinite I clearly and distinctly enough perceive the meaning hereof and have as good reason to believe God's to be Infinite as I have that Man 's is Finite and tho' there is somewhat included in Infinity that is above my Reason yet the Revelation which saith that the Divine Understanding is Infinite and unsearchable is to instruct and not to puzzle or amuse Once more seeing God whose Perfections are Infinite in creating all things hath left such impresses of his Infinity on the things Created that the profoundest Philosopher in his Closest searches into their Nature sees enough to conclude there is somewhat in them unsearchable and past finding out which to me is an uncontroulable Argument that an Infinitely wise Agent is their Maker Even so when I read the Holy Scriptures look into the Doctrines therein contained there are such clear and distinct Revelations of sundry Glorious Mysteries touching infinite Wisdom and the other Divine perfections that I cannot but with strongest Assurances conclude that God is their Author too An Anti-Trinitarian in a Letter to the Clergy of both Vniversities pag. 33. concerning the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed doth I confess hope to extricate himself out of this difficulty by distinguishing between the things themselves and the manner of them affirming that the things themselves that is God's Eternity Infinity Omnipresence are intelligible but the manner of them is impossible to be apprehended The Idea's saith he we have of God's Eternity Infinity Omnipresence Omniscience and all that we are required to believe concerning them are so clear and distinct that an ordinary Capacity apprehends what we mean when we say God is Eternal Infinite Omniscient Omnipresent though these things themselves are intelligible yet the manner of them is impossible to be apprehended and as we are now framed we are not capable of having it revealed to us and none but a blind Metaphysician who pretends to know all things but really knows nothing would be so vain as to attempt to explain the manner of God's Omnipresence or his Omniscience It is no wonder there are insuperable difficulties about the manner of things of this Nature when there are as great difficulties in apprehending the manner of Nature's Operating in the most common things which things none disbelieveth because he does not apprehend how they are done Who disbelievth there is such a Creature as Man though he does not know how he was formed But it is quite otherwise when we cannot apprehend the things themselves there is then an absolute impossibility of believing them A perfect Idea of the things themselves that is of Eternity Infinity c. he saith we may have but not of the manner whereas if the Reason why we can't have a perfect Idea of the manner of Infinity Eternity c.. can be no other than what makes it as impossible to have an Adequate Idea of Infinity Eternity c. the things themselves it cannot be more possible to apprehend Eternity than the manner of it And it 's manifest that the difficulty of apprehending the manner arises from its Infinity we cannot have a perfect Idea of the manner of Eternity because of the Infinity is in it and as we can't comprehend how God is Eternal neither can we have a perfect Idea of Eternity It 's true the Doctrine of Eternity Omniscience c. is intelligible we know what we mean when we discourse of Eternity c. But then must add that we mean by Eternity somewhat with respect to duration that exceeds the Bounds of the most enlarged Create understanding of which we cannot have a perfect Idea This Distinction then between the things themselves and their manner is in this Case insufficient to solve the difficulty for there is as much of Infinity in the things themselves as is in their manner and therefore equally above our Reason and the impossibility to frame a perfect Idea of either is the same The Nature of God is as unsearchable as his ways are past finding out Besides if we apply this distinction to the Doctrine of the Trinity it must be acknowledged that the Idea we have of a Person in the Blessed Trinity is as Intelligible as any one of the Divine Attributes and that the difficulty in Controversie is about the manner how three persons can be in the unity of Essence not in the things themselves A Trinity of Persons is as intelligible as a Variety of Attributes and the manner of Conciliating a variety of Attributes with absolute simplicity is as impossible as the conciliating a Trinity of Persons with Unity of Essence The Error therefore of these Men lyeth in their insinuating that it 's not impossible to have a perfect Idea of Eternity Infinity Omniscience c. the things themselves but of their manner when as the one and the other is equally impossible and that touching the Trinity the Controversie is not about the manner but the thing it self and yet nothing more evident than the thing it self to wit the Trinity hath nothing more insuperable in it than a variety of Attributes and that in reality the objections are in this Case raised from the manner of the thing not from the thing it self It is about how it can be not what it is Another therefore is more bold averting that he can comprehend Infinity and whatever is truly predicated of God but not being able to comprehend the Trinity it cannot be true whereby his own understanding is not only made the measure of Divine Truths but according to what I have already suggested he himself made equal with God or the Infinite God made such another as himself When I read that great is the Mystery of Godliness 1. Tim. 3.16 God manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory Prov. 8.22 to 31. And when I reflect on those Sacred Texts which speak of the Eternal Generation of the Son his being in the Bosome of the Father from everlasting his Revealing the Father to Us clearly that we with open Face beholding Mat. 11.27 2 Cor. 3.18 1 Cor. 13.12 as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord are changed into the same Image from Glory unto Glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord And now tho' we see but through a Glass darkly yet shall we hereafter see face to face I say when I meditate on these Parts of the Holy Revelation whilst I am convinc'd that these and such like Texts speak of things Mysterious and Vnsearchable past finding out yet
am I hereby instructed to believe and hope that though the Saints shall never know the Almighty to Perfection yet shall they be raised to a clearer and more distinct knowledge of those now unconceiveable as well as ineffable Glories And when I read in the Writings of some Men who in Reasoning about other things are strong and nervous yet weak and feeble in their arguings against the profound Mysteries of Christ's Gospel I cannot but clearly perceive a Truth in those words of the Apostle the Natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are Foolishness unto him 1 Cor. 2.14 neither can he know them because they are Spiritually discerned for which reason these Men are rather to be pityed than envyed prayed for than Reviled that 2 Tim. 2.25 if 't would please the Lord they might come to the acknowledgment of the Truth and see how great their Folly was in making their Confin'd Understandings the measure of all Knowledge which undoubtedly is done by them that reject all things as Absurd and False which are above or beyond their Reason But the Deist adds 'T was once to serve a Turn against the Papists that our Church held all Doctrines necessary to save Souls were plainly Revealed in Scripture How could you say plainly revealed unless you understood the Revelation And why to serve a Turn and that once 't was so as if we had now forsaken our Principles and profess'd to believe unintelligible Revelations whereas 't is our constant Judgment that the Doctrines necessary to Salvation are not dark and obscure but Clear Evident and Perspicuous that what is not clearly delivered in the Scripture is not of indispensible Necessity to be Known and Believed and Consistently assert that the Mysteries our Adversaries reject are clearly revealed The Revelation is very Plain Clear and Open though the things Reveal'd are Mysterious Inscrutable and past finding out And yet these Mysterious Points are in themselves Great Glorious True and Evident and only because our Understandings are Finite Weak and Feeble are we unable to comprehend them This Truth is by a Learned Divine thus Illustrated We can see other things by the Light of the Sun better than we can see the Sun it self not because the Sun is less visible and discernable in it self but because our Visive Faculty is too weak to bear its Resplendent Light The Deists mistake therefore into which the Socinian hath led him is complicated and lyeth in a Confounding the Revelation with the thing Revealed and in a Perswasion that because the Mystery is past out Knowing to Perfection therefore not in it self Evident Clear or Knowable And if not to be fully known by vain Mortals it cannot he thinks be true but must be False Absurd and Irrational And thus according to the Scripture-Revelation being Puff'd up in his fleshly Mind Col. 2 1â— intrudes into those things which he hath not seen and contrary to the Apostolical Prohibition thinks of himself more highly than he ought to think Rom. 12.3 is resolved to penetrate into the Secrets of the Almighty to make his own mistaken fanciful and narrow Understanding the Measure Rule and Standard of Truth and like a Man who is so weak as to imagine his visive Faculty able to bear the Resplendent Light of the Sun looks on it till his Eyes are so Dazled that he cannot rightly judge of Colours even to the Presuming Deist and Ami-Trinitariants who think they can look into the Deep things of God and Comprehend the Divine Perfections are overcome by the Glory of Divine Mysteries their Minds darkened and they plunged into the Depths of Error and thus in a Measure 't is with others that have Erred from the Truth CHAP. II. Radicated Prejudices against Gospel Doctrines the Cause of Error This seen in the Opposition Man makes to Christ's Righteousness for Justification II. ANother thing that occasions Error is a Radicated prejudice against Gospel Doctrines as their Tendency is to Exalt God Depress man and engage him to Acts of greatest self-denyal The Holy Ghost having with much clearness shown the insufficiency of Mans best Righteousness for Justification and his inability to think a good Thought or do the least good Work and that the Righteousness of Christ who is God-Man can alone justify a believing Sinner and the Omnipotent Spirit alone enable us to believe these Doctrines though they are a display of the manifold Wisdom of God of the Glory of his Holiness Justice and Mercy and an illustrious Evincement of the satisfaction and Merit of the Death and obedience of Christ God-Man as also of the Powerful Operation of the third Person in the Blessed Trinity yet because they lay us low discovering the Imperfection Insufficiency and Vanity of our own Endeavours they reject these Truths exposing them as if hereby a Door had been open'd to let in all manner of Vice and Licentiousness and rather than they will submit themselves to the Righteousness of God or be owing to the power of the Holy Ghost they 'll venture first to publish that the believing in God the Son and in God the Holy Ghost is not necessary to Salvation and at length go on to deny the Personality both of Son and Spirit As Adam on the Fall instead of seeking unto God leaned to his own understanding and strength so it hath been ever since the way of his Off-spring In the Old Testament instances of Mens Glorying in their own Power and performances are innumerable and the Apostle Paul assures us in the New that this was the way of his Kindred the Jews And ever since those days it hath been the general method of Hereticks to trust in their own Righteousness and despise others This they found to be a Notion as plausible as it was to their Corrupt Minds agreeable and because the Orthodox who pressed a Holy Life and Conversation as necessary to Salvation could not put their own Obedience into the place and room of Christ's it hath been the common practice of the Erroneous to reproach them as Enemies to Holyness and Mortification as tho' they held that we might live as lewdly as we listed and die as we lived yet in the end obtain Salvation through the Death and Righteousness of Christ And as this was the burden of their Writings in like manner 't was the care of the most Eminent Heresiarchs to give an agreeable Exemple by which means Multitudes of the weaker but more zealous sort were ensnared to embrace their Errors And tho at this time the Professors of Arminian and Secinian Errors have in this respect degenerated and thereby have lost the advantage of this pretence yet Socinus and after him Slichtingius with many others valued themselves upon the Holiness of them of their way which they assign'd to the hower and Influence of their Principles However these Gentlemen not being able intirely to crase those Idea's which at first were implanted in their Souls
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
Doctrine They in like manner send us to the Calvinists with an Assurance we shall find a great Part of Socinianism in their Writings Episcopius I Presume doth in the Opinion of these Gentlemen Understand what the Remonstrants held as well as any man who notwithstanding the High Thoughts He had of the Socinians doth positively Aver that there is a most Exact Agreement betwixt them and the Calvinisis Having Cap. 2. saith he in his Podecherus Ineptians sufficiently Cleared the Remonstrants from the Calumny of being Socinian I will Retort upon them and show that with much more Appearance of Argument we can fasten on the Contra-Remonstrants the Charge of Socinianism even in those Points which are Proper and Peculiar to Socinus and are Deservedly called Socinian This Episcopius tho' probably enough touching the Trinity an Arian and in other Points a Professed Remonstrant will yet by no means Allow a PROFESSED Agreement between the Remonstrants and Socinians How then can we Hope to find in Their writings a Formula or Summary of Socinian Doctrines That there is too great an Allyance between the Remonstrants and the Socinians that the Doctrines of the Former are too near akin to what are held by the Latter and Praeparatory unto them I have cleared But Chap. 3. Sect. 6. c. that in ALL other Points excepting the Trinity the Remonstants PROFESSEDLY Agree with the Socinians is too Notorious a Mistake for the Socinian Historian to Impose upon us However they go on to Assure us they sincerely Believeâ— That GOD is truly Omniscient Consider on the Explic of the Trin. p. 32. That he Foreseeth all Events how Contingent soever they may be to us But are they all of this mind No Others of 'em Ask Def. Reason of Christianity against Mr. Edwardâ— p. 18. Which is more Dishonourable to God to be the Author of all the Sin and Wickedness that ever was or ever will be in the World or to Deny his Fore-knowledge of the Certainty of that which is not Certain 2. They Believe the Real Omnipresence of God That He is Present in his Essence or Person in all Places And not only by his Power Knowledge or Ministers There are others of them who Deny such an Immensity of God which makes him to be ESSENTIALLY and wholly in every Point of Space because such IMMENSITY would take away all Distinction between God and the Creature And as the Examiner of Edwards affirmes has indeed an ATHEISTICAL TANG for the greater part of Atheists hold the Universe to be God Another of 'em saith To Know whether there is an Immensity of ESSENCE or Operation these are Metaphysicks out of my Reach Some Tho. upon Dr. S. Vindic. p. 14. and are no Helps to the Setling my Confidence and Trust in God Therefore it is that Revelation doth not speak Precisely of this These Passages do not only show how much our English Socinians Disser from each other in matters of most Importance But some of them as well as Forreign Socinians Deny Gods Omniscience and Immensity One can't be some of 'em suggest without making God the Author of Sin And the other hath an Atheistical Tang. Why then are they so Angry with the Learned Dr. Edwards for charging them with the Denyal of those Essential Perfections of the Divine Nature 'T is also affirmed by the English Socinians 3. That the Holy Ghost is a Person How could the Holy Spirit search all things Biddles Confes of Faith p. 21 22. even the Depths of God 1 Cor. 2. How make Intercession for the Saints with Greans Vnutterable Rom. 8 How could He say to the Christians at Antioch Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have Called them Acts 13.2 If these things and sundry more which may be alledged out of Scripture do not Evince the Holy Spirit to be a Person what can In Opposition hereunto they say Brief Hest Sect. 1. p. 7. That Rom. 8. God's Spirit or Inspiration being Designed to be a continual Director and Guide to the Faithful is spoken of in these and some other Texts as a Person by the same Figure of speech that Charity is Described as a Person c. The Holy Spirit you see is and is not a Person with them 4. They Generally not only Grant Brief Hist Sect. 3. p. 38. but Earnestly Contend that Christ is to be Worshipped and Prayed to because God hath say they by his inhabiting word or Power given to the Lord Christ a Faculty of Knowing all things and an Ability to Relieve all our Wants In Opposition hereunto 't is said Ans to Mith. p. 50. There are no Acts of Worship ever Requir'd to to be Paid to Christ but such as may be Paid to a Civil Power to a Person in High Dignity and Office or to Prophets or Holy Men or to such as are actually Possessed of the Heavenly Beatitudes They are I confess Answer to Milb p. 49. so Ingenuous as to Acknowledge That the Question about the Invocation of Christ has very much Divided them and if I take 'em Right the English Socinians generally fall in with the Notions of Francisous Davidis and Christianus Franken in Opposition to George Blandraâ—â— and Faustus Socinus who were followed by the Forreign Vnitarians as they call themselves and notwithstanding the specious Pretences to Liberty of Conscience Brief Hist Let. 4. p. 48. which they Reckon the Peculiar Principle of the Socinians and Remonstrants the prevailing Party severely Persecuted their Brethren They in Transylvania would not suffer any to come into any Places in the Ministry unless they obliged themselves under their Hands not to speak against Worshiping Jesus Christ They in Poland more Rigid â—xcommuniâ—ating and Deposing from the Ministry such as held Christ might not be Worshiped with Divine Worship This Persecution had some what of Extraordinaty Cruelty in it as it was against men who differ'd so very little from them For the Persecutors did not affirm that they were always bound to Invocate and Worship Christ but that it might Lawfully be done Nos non teneri Invocare Christum sed tantum Jure omnino Posse saith Socinus again and again Ay so often that he thought himself Obliged in a Praemonition to what he Wrote against Francisous Davidis to Explain himself which he did briefly by declaring that there were Two Cases in which to omit the Worshiping of Christ is a Sin The first when they joyn with them in Worship who call on the Name of Christ The second When the Spirit doth move them to do it not to call on Christ in these Two Cases is a Sin These few Intimations make it Plain that aâ—tho ' they give us no Formula nor Catechism in which we may find a particular Account of what it is they Believe yet in those few things they Profess to Own they can't Agree about the Nature of God whether Omniscient and Immense About the Holy Ghost whether