OF THE GROWTH OF ERROR.
The Introduction.
GREAT and Pernicious Errors having been insensibly spread through this Nation, an Account of their Rise, and Progress, and of the various and sundry Methods which have been taken for their Propagation, will not, I presume, be unnecessary; but rather a Caution to young Students, a prevention of their Fall, if not a means to recover others, that have been already tainted.
And, that I may be the more clear and distinct in the Account I give, I must, in the first place, mention the Errors my Discourse is of. For, though there is a great Cognation and Alliance between one Error and another, and the most opposite Heresies [Page 2]at last, center in the same Point: Yet on an easie search, we shall find vast Differences between them, some greater, others less; some in one, others in a contrary extream: But, in all, a Tendency to Atheism; or, to use the new and finer word to express the same thing, Deism.
As there are gradual Recesses from Truth, the first, and least observable Turn from it, prepares the way for a greater; but whilst near unto Truth, the Error is so like it, that it cannot be easily discern'd, or detected: And he, who makes the first step towards it, doth, er'e he is aware, slide into a greater; and no sooner perceives where he is, but thinks himself too far gone to make an honourable Retreat; whereby the Error which had it's first rise from Inadvertency, is upheld, and supported by the Lust, or sensual Interest of its Embracers.
Thus the Amyraldians, amongst whom, they who are sincere in what they Profess, as I doubt not, but there are many such, cannot see wherein they differ from their Brethren, except in the way and method of Explaining, and Defending the same Doctrine; and therefore assume to themselves the Title of New Methodists, firmly adhering to old Truths.
Now, of these, how many slide into Arminianism? and from thence pass over unto the Tents of [...]ocinus: Though they set up for Men of a middle way, between the extreams of Calvin, and the Excesses of Van Harmine; yet, on the turn from the former, [Page 3]they fall in so far with the latter in their Concessions, that it's become impossible for them to make a just Defence of what they hold in opposition to the other Parts of the Arminian System; and therefore at last, fall in entirely with them, and run their length.
In like manner the Arminians, who pretend a middle way between the Orthodox and Socinian, are in the twinkling of an Eye, fallen under Socinus his Banner; confounding Holy Scripture with their odd Glosses, and unintelligible Interpretations; framing Idea's of the Divine Being, so unworthy of it, as to provoke some to deny all reveal'd Religion, and others to turn Atheists.
Now 'tis the rise and progress of these mischievous Errors, embracd and propugnd by the followers of Arminius, and Socinus, that my Discourse is design'd to be of. Errors which, above Fifty years ago, on their first appearances amongst us, so alarm'd the Nation, as to put it into a very terrible Convulsion.
But since that day, through the force of an Arminian Dose, or some such like methods, we have fallen into an Amazing slumber, and no sooner doth any one awake out of it, but he is fill'd with wonder to behold the Nation to be so much Socinian and Deist; Nor can he easily imagine how it came to be so?
And, that we may obtain some Light about what it is, that hath influenced so great a part of Mankind to embrace these Errors; I have spent some thoughts about it, the Result of which, I offer to Consideration.
CHAP. I.
The first Particular, instanced in as an Occasion of Error, is a Prejudice against Gospel Doctrines, because of their Mysteriousness. The unreasonableness of this Prejudice discovered.
THE first thing I shall observe, which for the most part runs through all the rest, their [...], the chief Ground and Reason of their many Mistakes and Errors, is the Prejudices they have conceived against the Mysteriousness of our Holy Religion, which is founded on a grand Maxim, they have fixed as the Rule and Standard by which they [...]ll try what is Truth, and what is Error: It's this, Nothing is to be receiv'd into our Religion, as true, but what we have an Adequate and Comprehensive Idea of.
When therefore, in our Systems, they meet with what transcends their understandings, they reject it as False, Absurd and Ridiculous.
This was the way of the Remonstrants, touching the Doctrine of particular Election, Reprobation, Irresistible Grace, &c. And of the Socinians, about Christ's satisfaction; the Incarnation of the Son of God; the Blessed Trinity, &c. And of the Deist against all reveal'd Religion; who by a Late Ingenious Author, in the Account he gives [Page 5]of the growth of Deism, is brought in, (saying) ‘Many Doctrines are made necessary to Salvation, pag. 20 which 'tis impossible to believe, because they are in their Nature Absurdities. I replyed (saith the Author) That these things were Mysteries, and so above our Ʋnderstandings. But he asked me, to what end could an Ʋnintelligible Doctrine be revealed? Not to instruct, but to puzzle, and amuse. What can be the effect of an Ʋnintelligble Mystery upon our minds, but only Amusement? That which is only above Reason, must be above a Rational Belief; and must I be saved by an Irrational Belief? If a proposition be inconsistent with its self, I cannot but believe it to be false.’
But what doth this signifie less, than that whatever transcends our Understandings, and is above our Reason, is an Absurdity, an Unintelligible Doctrine, fit only to puzzle and amuse, and the belief thereof Irrational; so that, if they can't frame an Adequate Idea, or comprehend the whole of what their thoughts are conversant about; if they can't reduce every thing to their own Preconceived order, and know it to perfection, it cannot in their opinion be true, but must, you see, be rejected as Absurd, False, and Irrational.
Though nothing more manifest and clear, than that the most enlarged Create Mind is Finite, Confin'd and Limited, and that there is a Being whose Essence and Perfections are Boundless, Unconfin'd, Incomprehensible, [Page 6]and past finding out; and that it's impossible, and a contradiction to suppose a Finite Mind, able to comprehend what is Incomprehensible, or to get to the uttermost Bounds and Limits of what is Boundless, and Unlimitable; yet with these Men the notion of a Deity, if we assign unto it Infinite Perfections, though essential thereunto, must be rejected, that is, they will believe nothing of God, unless they may take him to be such another as themselves, or themselves such as He is, as to the extent of his Being; nor must any things be received into our Religion as true, that speak of his Transcendency, but must be esteemed as false and irrational, which amounts to thus much, nothing in these matters must be believ'd to be true, but what is impossible to be so.
However, to an unbyassed mind, its most evident that there is a God, with whom are the Secrets of Wisdom, Job 11.7. whose Being by searching cannot be found out, and who cannot be known to Perfection? And that the Life of true Religion lyeth in the knowledge of this God; and seeing an Adequate Knowledge, which is the same with a knowing to Perfection, is impossible, and yet there can be no true Religion without some knowledge of God; the inference is Manifest, Natural and Easie, viz. That we may attain to a knowledge of God according to Truth, tho' we can't have an Adequate and Comprehensive knowledge of him, and that it's not sufficient to say, we can't comprehend it, therefore not true.
The most Momentous parts then of true Religion, being about the Perfections of God; such as his Holiness, his Justice, as distinct from his Goodness and Mercy, together with the unchangeableness of his Being, and the like, must be above our Reason too, and yet may be true: The same may be said of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God; which are not more Transcendent and Incomprehensible than what we find to be said of the Essential Perfections of his Nature; nor is there any thing more difficult, and inscrutable in what is reveal'd about the Eternal Decrees, and the Modes of Divine Operation, than there is in the Doctrine of the Trinity, or Divine Attributes, and therefore our belief of them equally Rational.
Well then, if the points in Controversie between us are all reduced to one, or other of these heads, as really they are, for either to the Glorious Attributes, Personalities, Decrees or Modes of Divine Operations; the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son, the necessity of a proper satisfaction to Justice, and those other points about Election, Reprobation, Irresistible Grace, are reducible; a rejecting these Doctrines, because there is somewhat in them, exceeding the utmost extent of our Knowledge, and Unsearchable; or, which is the same because there is somewhat Mysterious in them, must be upon a reason, that necessarily obliges us to cast off the Belief of a Deity.
Besides, the Grand Maxim of those Gentlemen, who pretend so much to Reason, being, as I have already noted, this; that nothing is to be received into our Religion as true, but what we can Comprehend; a spice of the first sin must be at the bottom, as the cause of all their Errors; namely, an ambition to be like unto God, in his essential Perfections; which, in good earnest, is the import of this Maxim; for it's impossible for them to know God to Perfection, unless the extent of their Understandings bears a proportion to his Perfections: So that in the issue, they cannot fairly deny the mysteries of our Holy Religion; but on a Topick, whereby they make themselves equal with God.
Thus you see, that by opposing our Holy Religion, for the sake of the Mysteries there are in it; they are driven either to the denyal of a God, or to the making themselves Gods; either of which is, of all Absurdities, the most vile and 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 [Page 9]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 Ʋniversities, 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 [Page 10]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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]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; [Page 13]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 Ʋnsearchable, 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 'twould 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 [Page 14]them that reject all things as Absurd and False, which are above, or beyond their Reason.
But the Deist adds, ‘'Twas 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 'twas so, as if we had now forsaken our Principles, and profess'd to believe unintelligible Revelations, whereas 'tis 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. 2.1 [...]. 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, 'tis 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 [Page 17]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, 'twas 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, 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 w [...]o it a perfect Righteousness, and to the end they may the more easily quiet an awaken [...]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 siam [...]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 [Page 19]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 [Page 20]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 Ʋniversally 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; [Page 22]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 [...] [...]heol. Helmstad. R [...]g. Syn [...]. [...]. pag. [...]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 'tis reported by Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History. Lib. l. c. 25, &c.
Pelagius, when conven'd before a Provincial Synod at i [...]iospolis, in Pelaestine, at which Fourteen Bishops were present, but not his Accusers, August. [...]e [...]ract. lib. 2 [...]. 47. & [...]. ad [...]. doth concur with the Orthodox in condemning his own Opinions; but as Vossius out of St. Austin observes, he d [...]d it very deceitfully. Pelagianamsententiam pectore quidem ficto, sed tamen Catholicos [Page 23]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 [...]rr [...]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. V [...]ss Hest. Pelar. lib. 1. Cap. 41. Hare [...]ici imitantur Catholicos f [...]eut simiae imitantur homine [...] Cy [...]ian. ad Jubajanum.
This being the common practice of Hereticks, St. Cyprian compares them to Apes, saying they imitate the Orthodox as Apes do Men.
Now this having been a very successful, as well as a most pernicious Articice, in constant practice amongst the Ancients; the Socinian and Armintan Leaders, whose Reputation hath been, and is still so great, that the respect multitudes have for them, in regard to their Candor, and Integrity, which is supposed to be conspicuous in the Representations they make of their own, and their Adversaries Principles, have walk'd in the same Path, as I hope in the following History, with some clearness to detect and make manifest.
SECT. II.
The seeming Approaches of Socinus, and his Followers towards the Orthodox.
THE Socinians, altho' they deny a Trinity of Persons in the God-head, the Divinity [Page 24]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 [...]l [...]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 Episi [...]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 Ʋnity 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 [Page 25]'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 h [...]s Mother, Milk, beseeches him to consider, ‘th [...] 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 [Page 26]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 [Page 27]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 [...]iacularis, that is, as an Expiatory Sacrifice, or Victim.’
Besides on these Words, [the Remission of Sin] its 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 [...]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 ob [...]ed by [...]ith, and Repeniance, and contrued unto us by the Fruits thereof.’
This is that part of the Socinian Confession, Vid. Curcel. [...]u [...]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,) 'twas never in our thoughts to deny the Unity of the Trinity; that we do with our whole Heart Believe, and openly own [Page 29]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, Re [...]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 [...]or do we deny the Resurrection, P. 76. but with the Apostle we have our Hope in God, touching the Resurrection of the [...]d, both of the Just and Ʋnjust, 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.’
[...]ru [...]peorius, a [...]ni [...]ht, and Counsellor of the Flector of [...]randenlurg, Przip [...]v. Apol. [...] [...]cen. in his Apology for afflicted Innocence, directed to the F [...]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 [Page 31] 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.
[...]nyedinus, Superintendent of the Ʋnitarian 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. Praes [...]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. [Page 33]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 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 [Page 35]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 De [...]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 Christ [...]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, reconc [...]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 [Page 36]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 [Page 37]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 [...]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, Smal [...]. 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, 'tis 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, [Page 38]as if the Doctrine of Satisfaction, as held by the Orthodox, makes God more Cruel than any Tyrant.
And whereas it is expresly asserted by the Holy Ghost, in 2 Cor. 5. and last Verse, That Christ is made Sin, to take off the Force of the Argument we draw from thence, Smalcius doth assert, Smalc. Refut. Smigl. de satisf. c. 7. p. 229. ‘That to be made Sin cannot signifie a Sacrifice for Sin, but Christ is said to be made Sin, because he was dealt with by God, as if he had been a Sinner, from which 'twill 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 [...]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, [Page 39]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 Ʋnderstanding, 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 Ʋnderstanding 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 [Page 40] 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 i [...]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 [Page 41]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 fo [...]s [...]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 Ʋnitarians, 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, [...]lection, and Conditional Reprobation, the Ʋniversality 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 [Page 42]the Old, with respect to the Promises and Precepts, of the Difference between Venial, and deadly Sins.’
It is also manifest, That how Orthodox soever Przipeovius would have his afflicted Innocence esteemed; and, though he differs from Socinus about the Divinity of Christ, affirming him to be God, truly, in a proper Sence, and by Nature: Yet he is as far from the Truths he would be thought to embrace, as any of that Gang. For in that very place, where he opposes them, who ascribe to Jesus Christ Divine Attributes, and yet deny his Divine Nature, to expose the Ridiculousness of this Notion, he tells his Readers, that it's as Absurd as the Doctrine received by the Orthodox about Distinction of Persons in the same Essence: And, although he speaks of Christ's being God truly, in a proper Sence, yet denies him to be Co-eternal, and Co equal with the Father, and makes him to be but a Subordinate God, Przipcov. Hypera. p. c. 4. not properly God, and Man at the same, but at distinct Seasons, first Man, then God: Nor doth he hold, that the Holy Ghost is a Person distinct from the Father, and is of the same Opinion with the Socinians about Satisfaction, giving the same Interpretation of those Texts that speak of [Christ's being made Sin] and [giving himself a full Price] that Wolzogenius. Crellius, and Slichtingius have done before him, as may be seen in his Cogitations on the New Testament.
What Socinus, and his Followers have herein done, it's very probable they learned from their chief Leader, Bernhardinus Ochine; who, Writing more Academicorum, did not only so deceitfully deliver his Sence, as to bring the Truth in doubt, but urges Arguments so closely in defence of Error, as to give it the Advantage.
Though Sandius, in his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec, accuses Hoornbeck, for misunderstanding Zarnovecius; and Zarnovecius, for misrepresenting Matters of Fact, when in the Preface of his Answer to Socinus de Servatore, he makes Ochinus to be his Master, from whom he had his Errors, Sandius is under the Mistake, and Zarnovecius in the right.
Zarnovecius, in his Preface, Zarvov. contra Socinum de servat. Praef. having in one Paragraph shown too great an Agreement between Socinus, the Jews, and Turks, doth in the next assure us, That Socinus had not his Blasphemies against the Son of God out of the Holy Scriptures, nor from the ancient consent of godly Men, professing the Orthodox Faith from the Apostle's Days to our Times, but out of the Dialogues of his Country-Man, and undoubtedly his Master Ochinus, who had written at large thirty years before.
By [Master] Zarnovecius cannot well be supposed to mean any more than One from whom Socinus took his Notions, which is freely confessed by Socinus himself, Socin. Epist. Vadovit. in an Epistle to Vadovita Professor at Cracovia, where he is positive, ‘That as he never [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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 Eb [...]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 [Page 47]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 [Page 48]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 time. Further, their vacating and making void the Fourth Commandment, which is attended with a neglect of the Lord's Day, is an in-let into all manner of Vice, and the very Notions they frame of God to support their other Errors, are such as lessen the Fear Men ought to have of God's Judgments. And as Dr. Edwards hath well observed. ‘ Socinus, by denying the Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ, hath plainly over-turn'd the Foundation, Preser. against Socin. p. 42. 43. upon which the Christian Church, and Religion have been built, and by his other Methods hath given a shrew'd blow to all Religion whatsoever, whether Natural, or Reveal [...]d, so that an unwary Reader, by perusing his Writings, may find himself an Atheist, before he well perceives how he comes to be so, as he saith in another Case, viz. His Opinion against Hell Torments, that he had so contriv'd the Matter, Ʋt lector prius sentiat Doctrinam istam sibi jam persuasum esse quam suaderi animadvertat.’
When I most impartially weigh these things, I mean, their deceitful Attempts to ensnare the Unwary to favour their Opinions, their Contemptuous Treatment of the Blessed Mysteries of the Gospel, and its Advocates, together with their assuming to themselves the Character of being the most [Page 49]Rational Divines, and Men of Excelling Piety and Holiness, even when none do more contradict the plainest Maxims of Reason, and lay a surer Foundation for the utmost Immoralities: When I lay these things together, I am so far from thinking, as those great Men do, who represent them, to be the fairest Adversaries, that I rather incline at least to fear, that the Account given of them by the despised Lubbertus, which I will lay down in his own Words, is most true ‘They are (saith he) Arrogant and Proud, who measure all things by va [...]n Glory, and empty Names of Honour, when they see that those, who in other Disciplines invent some new Notions to be Commended, they think it will be Laudable in them to Innovate in Sacred Theology. And being unskill'd in true Divinity, they despair of gaining a Name by Explicating, or Defending the Orthodox Doctrine: But burning with a desire of Praise, they disturb every thing, that they may be Famous, and had rather be talk'd of for breaking of Churches, than grow old without Fame in the true and Orthodox Religion. When they perceive other Learned Men to be preferr'd before them, they are angry; and what is most base, they Dissemble and Counterfeit the Orthodox Religion, pretend to a Zeal for defending sound Doctrine; Lubbert. Praef. ad lib. de Jesu servat. cont. Socin. p. 2. swear to our received Confessions and Catechisms, and with their own Hands subscribe to what they swore; and yet, they with utmost [Page 50]Endeavours oppose the Sound, and publickly embraced Doctrine, and craftily instill a new and wicked One into their Disciples, and carry about Calumnies against the Orthodox.’
Thus much touching the Methods used by Foreign Socinians to insinuate, and spread their Errors, I will in the next place show how exactly they are followed by the Remonstrants, and then acquaint the Reader with the Arts of out English Socinians.
SECT. V.
The Arminians imitate the Socinians. They pretend an Agreement with the Orthodox.
THE Arminians, to the end, they might with the greater Success insinuate their Errors, do also their utmost to cover them. Nothing therefore (they say) can be found amongst their Assertions, but what is conform to the Holy Scriptures, the Heidelberg Catechism established A. D. 1578. by a Synod of Dort, for the publick use of their Churches, the Belgick, and other Reformed Confessions. Armin. Epist. ad Hypolit.
Arminius, in his Epistle to Hypolitus à Collibus, protests, that he never, either in the Church, or University, taught any thing, but what was according to the Holy Scriptures, the Belgick Confession, and Heidelberg Cat [...]echism.
In a Letter to Johannes Matthisius. ‘These things, which I have at this time delivered, as they do agree with the Holy Scriptures, so they are not contrary to our Confession, and Catechism, for which reason I do the more freely express my self.’
In another to Sebastian Egbert. ‘I do publickly preach to a numerous Auditory, and frequently dispute when my Reverend Collegues are present, at which times I have used the greatest freedom, in the Answers I have return'd to Objections: Besides I have a private College, at which thirty Students, or more attend; and yet never hath there been the least mention, that I ever uttered any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or our Confessions, and Catechism; although some of my Collegues, whose Zeal is such for the Purity of Doctrine, that they would never have been silent, had they whereof to accuse me, have been instigated thereunto. And whereas it's spread abroad, that I direct my Pupils to Read the Writings of the Jesuits, and Coornhertius, the slander is so gross, that I cannot find softer Words to express it by, than to say, It is a down right Lye, for I never advis'd so much as one to any such thing. But this indeed I do, after the Reading of the Scriptures, which I do most earnestly press, yea more than any other, as the whole Academy can testifie, I do direct to the reading of Calvin's Commentaries, which I praise much more than Helmichius himself [Page 52]ever did, as he hath confess'd. For I do esteem them to excell all others so much in the Interpretation of Scriptures, that there are none to be compared with them, in the Bibliotheca Patrum, that there was a more excellent Spirit in him than in any other: As for Common Places, I Recommed his Institutions to be read after the Catechism, as containing the best Explication of it. For the truth of this I can bring a multitude of Witnesses.’
In a Declaration of his Sentiments made to the States of Holland, and West-Fr [...]ezeland, (wherein are the Reasons, why he declin'd to give any Answer to the Questions propos'd by Lansbergius, Fraxinus, and Dolegius, Deputies from the Synod of South-Holland, and by Eogardus, and Rolandus, Deputies from the Synod of North-Holland) his endeavour is to show an Agreement between his Notions in each of the controverted Articles, and the Belgick Confession and Catechism. I will give you what he saith touching the Grace of God in Conversion, and the Justification of a Sinner in the sight of God.
‘What concerns the Grace of God, I do, first of all, (saith he) believe it to be that gracious and free Affection, whereby God doth take pity on a miserable Sinner, by which he doth, in the first place, give his Son, that whoever believes in him, may have Everlasting Life; then doth he justifie him, and give him the Privilege of a Child by Adoption, even [Page 53]a Right to Salvation. 2. This Grace is an infusion of all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are for the Regenerating, and renewing of the Ʋnderstanding, as well as Will, and Affections, such as Faith, Hope, Charity, &c. without which Gifts of Grace no Man is able to Think, Will, or Do any good thing. 3. It is the continued Assistance, and help of the Holy Spirit, according unto which the Holy Ghost does excite and stir up the Regenerate unto Good, by infusing into them Spiritual and Heavenly Thoughts, inspiring them with good Desires, and enabling them actually to Will that which is good; yea more, according to this Grace, the Spirit doth Will, and work with the Man, that what he Wills, he may be enabled to Perfect. After this manner I ascribe unto Grace, the Beginning, Continuation, and Consummation of all Good, even so far, that a Regenerate Man without this Preventing, Exciting, Continued, and Co-operating Grace, can never think, will, or do any good, nor resist the feeblest Temptation to Evil. How then can I be said to be injurious to the Grace of God, or attribute too much to free Will? The Controversie is not about the Actions, or Operations ascribed to Grace; I am for as much as any Man whatsoever; but it is only about the Mode, or Manner of its Oprations, whether it be by an Irresistible Force, or not? Here, indeed, I do with the Holy Scriptures, hold, that [Page 54]many resist the Holy Ghost, and reject the offer'd Grace.’
And in his Letter to Hypolitus à Collibus, ‘Concerning Grace, and free Will, according to the Scriptures, and consent of the Orthodox, I do declare, That Free Will without Grace, can neither begin, nor perfect any true Spiritual good Work, and least any think I do (as Pelagius did) play with the Word, [Grace] I mean that Grace, which is the Grace of Christ, and belongs to Regeneration; which I hold to be simply, and absolutely necessary for the inlightning the Understanding, regulating the Affections, and inclining the Will to what is good, that infuses saving Light into the Mind, inspires the Affections with Holy Desires, and boweth down the Will to act according to that saving Light, and these good Desires. This Grace, Prevents, Begins, Accompanies, and Follows; It stirreth up, helps, and works, that we may Will; and that we may not Will in vain, Co-operates with us. It secures us from Temptations, Assists, and helps us against them, upholding us against the Flesh, the World, and the Devil. In the Conflict it gives us the Victory, and if at any time, we are overcome, and fall in the Temptation, this Grace recovers us, establishes and gives new Strength, making us more watchful. It begins the Work of Salvation, promoves, perfects, and consummates it. The mind of a [Page 55]Carnal Man, is, I confess, dark'ned, his Assections vile and inordinate, his Will disorderly; yea, he is dead in Sin, and that Preacher is most highly esteemed by me, who attributes most to Grace, if so be, that, whilst he is extolling Grace, he doth neither Impeach God's Justice, nor take from Man Free Will to what is Evil.’ What any Man can desire more, I know not.
About the Justification of a Man in the sight of God. Jacoh. Armin. Decla, sentent. p. 127. ‘I am not sensible (saith he) that I either teach, or hold any thing but what is Ʋnanimously received by the Reformed Protestant Churches, and most exactly agrees with their Sense. There hath been, I know, a Controversie in this particular, between Piscator, and the French Churches, as whether the Obedience, or Righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to Believers, and in which the'r Righteousness before God doth consist, be only Christ's Passive Obedience, as Piscator affirmed? Or whether it be also his Active, which all his Life he rendred to the Law of God, and that Holiness, in which he was conceiv'd, as the Gallick Churches hold. But I never interested my self in it.’
And how oddly soever, he expressed himself in this place, he would still be thought a good Calvinist. Armin. Decla. ubi sup. ‘ For (saith he) whatever I have in this Point delivered, I differ not so much from Calvin, but that I am ready with my own Hand to subscribe [Page 56]what he hath on this Subject, in the third Book of his Institutes.’
In his Disputations, Armin. Disput. Thes. 48. Sect. 5. he is more particular, speaking distinctly of the several Causes of Justification: Of the Meritorious, and Material, thus:
‘That Christ, by his Obedience, and Righteousness, is the Meritorious Cause of Justification, who may therefore be deservedly called the Procatartick Cause. The same, Christ in his Obedience and Righteousness is also the Material Cause of our Justification, that is, as God gives to us Christ for Righteousness, and imputes his Obedience and Rignteousness unto us; in respect to this double Cause, namely, the Meritorious, and Material, we are said to be constituted Just, or Righteous, by Christ's Obedience.’
In this place Arminius (you see) doth distinguish between the Meritorious, and Material Cause of Justification, the One being Extrinsick, belonging to the Efficient; the other Intrinsick, or made the Matter of our Justification. The first is Christ, by his Obedience; the other is Christ for Righteousness; Christ Given, and his Righteousness Imputed. He was too Learned to confound the Material, and Intrinsick with the Meritorious, which is an External, and Efficient Cause, asserting, that as Christ is the Meritorious Cause, so he, as an Efficient, justifieth us by his Righteousness: As he is the Material, he is given by God for Righteousness, and his Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification.
His Thoughts touching the Instrumental, Formal Cause, he expresses in these Words. ‘Faith is the Instrumental Cause, Armin. ubi sup. Sect. 7, 8. or Action, by which we apprehend Christ, and his Righteousness offered unto us by God, according to the Order and Promise of the Gospel; where it is said, That whoever Believes shall be Justified and Saved. The Form of Justification is the gracious Estimation of God, whereby he imputes the Righteousness of Christ unto us, and imputes Faith for Righteousness; that is, God doth forgive unto us who believe our Sins, for the sake of Christ apprehended by Faith, and esteems us as Righteous in him, which Estimation hath annexed unto it the Adoption of Sons, and a Collation of Right to the Inheritance of Eternal Life.’
And among the Corollaries deduced from what he had asserted in his Disputation, he is positive, ‘That it is impossible for Faith, and Works to Concurr to Justification; that Christ did not Merit, that we be justified by the Dignity and Merit of Faith, much less that we be justified by the Merit of Works. But the Merit of Christ is opposed to Justification by Works, and Faith opposed to Merit.’
These Appeals to the Catechism, and Confession, and the consent of the Reformed Protestants, his recommending Calvin's Commentaries, and Institutes to his Pupils; and these, and such other Passages, make it clear, That Arminius would fain be thought [Page 58]an Orthodox Calvinist; which was also the desire and endeavour of his endeared Companions, and Followers, even of Vytenbogart, Borrius, Poppius, Grievenchovius, Arnoldus, Corvinus, and Episcopius, at their Conference, A. D. 1611. with Ruardus, Plancius, Becius, Fraxinus, Bogardus, and Festus Homnius at the Hague, where 'twas their care in each of the Five Articles, to show an Agreement between themselves and the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgick and other Reformed Confessions.
There is so much to this purpose in Bertius his Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis, that the mention of a very small part thereof would fill up more Room than I can spare for this purpose; besides, this very Method hath been taken by some later Arminians. Curcel. Dissert. 4. de Justisica. Sect. 7. Curcellaeus, to clear himself from the Charge of Heresie, doth in the Doctrine of Justification, protest, ‘That he doth not think any Man is justified in the sight of God, for the Merit or Dignity of his Works: But only through the mere Grace, which is in Christ's Blood, do we obtain the Remission of Sin, we amending our Ways, not walking according to the Flesh, but according to the Spirit, Rom. 8.13.’
When its objected, that his making Repentance necessary to Justification, which includes good Works, destroys its being freely of Grace, he Answers, ‘Not that Repentance, Curcel. ubi sup. Sect. 14 or our Works do Merit any thing from God; or are so perfect, as [Page 59]that, if God should strictly search into them, they could stand before him in Judgment. God forbid, that I should assert any such thing; but this I say, they are necessary, because God will not make us partakers of the Salvation, purchased by Christs Blood, by any other Rule or Condition.’ And that he may the more plausibly insinuate into the Minds of his Readers, his Orthodoxy in this Matter, he tells us, ‘That they who hold Repentance, and Conversion to be required in order to Pardon, as the greatest part of Protestants, he thinks at this time do, cannot contradict this Doctrine: For (saith he) Remission of Sins and Justification are with them equipollent, which may be safely enough asserted; For, though they may be as things divers separated from each other; yet God according to the Tenor of the Gospel-Covenant, forgives no Man's Sins, but at the same time esteems him Righteous, and promises to give him the Reward of Righteousness, which is Eternal Life, which is also carried in the full Pardon of all our Sins: For, seeing our Sins must be reduced to these two Heads, namely, Sins of Commission, and of Omission, He, Curcel. ubi sup. Sect. 9 [...] whose Sins of both sorts are pardon'd, must be consider'd as perfectly Righteous, and therefore worthy of the Reward.’
SECT. VI.
The Difference between the Arminians, and the Orthodox.
BUT what Care soever Arminius, and his Partakers, heretofore, and the more wary and fearful have since taken to cover the dangerous Notions they are for, and appear as like the Orthodox, as may be; yet, unless they would abandon all Essays to propagate their Dogmata, 'twas impossible for them, when most cautious, perfectly to conceal either their Notions, or Designs.
'Twas therefore a vexatious Affliction to Arminius, Epist. Vytenbog. p. 55. (as he oft told Vytenbogardus) that he could not meet with Men of Learning, to whom he might freely impart his Sentiments. ‘This one thing I greatly bewail, and lament, Epist. Vytenbog. p. 121. (saith he) that there is no one I can venture to converse with.’ The Reason he assigns for this his Complaint, was the prevailing Humour, then amongst the Orthodox, to call every thing Heresie, which they approv'd not, even when they themselves either neglected close Study, or were destitute of that Learning, See his Epi [...]l [...] to Vytenbogard. p. 57. which was necessary to search into those deep Mysteries, whereby Arminius, whose Learning and Abilities were too great to be confin'd within the old narrow Circle of solid Divinity, where Men of as much Learning, and deeper Judgment delighted to abide, breaks [Page 61]out, and makes Inquiries into the profound and unscrutable things of God, where he was bewildred, and scon lost himself.
Had he been as gently treated by all, as he was by that profound Scholar, Arminius's Intimacy with Juni▪ was A. D. 1597. Junius dyed A.D. 1602. Franciscus Junius, he might have escaped the Snare, but this great Man soon dying after Arminius had freely opened himself unto him, and others, being severe in their Condemning his Inquiries, he had none to Confer with, but Vytenbogard, and Adrian Borrius; Men whose Inclinations too much suited his own to be a Balance to him in his Indagations. By these Men Arminius is confirmed in the Errors his own Mind disposed him unto, and were then thrown in his way by the Socinians, who had furbish'd up several Pelagian Heresies about Predestination, These Writings were burnt. A.D. 1598. Orig'nal Sin, and Free Will, which about this time, on the burning the Writings of Ostorodius, and Voidovius, were as an Introduction to Socinianism, Vid. Frid. Spanhem. F. Elench. co [...] tro [...]. p. 219▪ crastily insinuated by Theodore Kemp, Koornhert and others.
Arminius, being thus provok'd by the angry Passions of some, entic'd by the Flatteries of others, and undoubtedly instigated too much by his own Spirit, is fixedly set against the Calvinian Doctrines, which he labours to Undermine, even when he professed the most Zeal for them. For, altho' in pursuance of Vytenbogardus's earnest Request, Armin. Epist. Vytenbog. p. 213. Arminius was very careful (as he assur'd him he would be) to mention nothing Dissonant from the Heidelberg Catechism, [Page 62]and Belgick Confession, Armin. Epist. Vytenbog. p. 213 and boldly undertook to defend all he wrote by them, yet 'twas only, that thereby he might the more effectually ensnare his Scholars to a Closure with his unsound Principles; for 'twas his labour to get a review of the Catechism and Confession, in order to a substantial Change or total Remove. Ep. Armin. Vytenb. p. 202.
In a Declaration of his Judgment, made unto the States of Holland, and West-Friezland, he ventures to offer his Reasons for the Review of both; which being promised by a late Synod of South Holland, he was emboldened to do Some of his Reasons are, ‘that it might appear to all, they leaned chiefly on the word of God, in matters Religious, that the Cathechism and Confession being written by Men who are Fallible, might contain in them some one Error or other; and it was not at all unmeet for a National Synod to enquire whether they did agree in every part with the word of God; even for the words, and manner of speaking, as well as touching their real Sence? Whether there be not somewhat in them made necessary to Salvation, which is not in Truth so? whether there be not some Words and Forms of speech used, which may be diversly understood, and so give too much occasion to strifes and contentions! Whether there be not some things in them repugnant to each other?’ many other enquires he made, which sufficiently show, that Arminius could not heartily close with all he had [Page 63]subscribed unto, and therefore as he rejoyc'd at the news of a n="(a)" Epist. Vytenbog. p. 212. 213. Ubi sup. p. 123. review, so nothing was more grievous to him than to here of a frequent repeating their Subscriptions, which he compares to the Spanish and Trent Inquisition.
In his Apology, and Answer to the one and thirty Articles, said to contain the Opinions of himself and Adrian Borrius; he gives a particular account, how he was by his Friend betraied in too free a discovery of his dissatisfaction with the Catechism and Confession: ‘For (saith he) about two Months agoe, a certain Minister would fain know, why I was for a submitting the Catechism and Confession to the Examination of a National Synod? to whom I freely replyed; that my sense of the thing was included in this Syllogism, viz. Every Humane Writing, not [...], not of Divine Inspiration, and consequently, what might contain in it Error, may, yea must be examin'd, when it may lawfully, and orderly be done in a Synod, to which such Examinations belong:’ But such are the Cathechism and Confession; therefore, to prove his Assumption, he gave a particular instance out of the Catechism, which instance, as he too justly complains, was soon in every bodies mouth. But tho' Arminius his Friend did ill to betray him, yet it's hereby manifest, that notwithstanding his pretentions to an agreement with the Catechism and Confession, he did really Dissent from them.
The next step made, to show a Dissatisfaction, was by them, who were to prepare matters for the Synod, at which time they proposed, that untill the Examination was over, and all things setled, there might be no more Subscriptions imposed; and that the Obligation might be taken off from them, who had already subscribed.
This Proposal, was no sooner made by Arminius and Vytenbogard, but the Calvinists are alarm'd, and think on nothing less than that the design is to make a Change in the Doctrines of Faith: Several Letters are therefore written unto the Learned in divers Countries, particularly by Lubhertus unto Dr. Meivin at St. Andrews in Scotland, a Copy of which is within a year transmitted out of England unto Arminius and Vytenbogard, who sent a defence of themselves to Melvin, showing how they were abused by Lubbertus, however, Vid. Prae [...]nt & Illusir. vir [...]r. E [...]t [...]. 23 [...].243. confess they were for a freeing the Subscribers from their Subscriptions, untill all was finished about it in a National Synod: which, they say, was with a Caution, that during this time there should be no disputing, nor Preaching on the Controverted points.
A Recognition, or Review was press'd again by the Remonstrants at the Hague Conference, with a desire, that they might be freed frm their Subscriptions, till the Review was over. In the National Synod of Dort, they also urge it, boldly declaring, that, by the Fundamentals of the Reformation, [Page 65]and the constitution of our Churches, Script. Hist Remonstrant p. 20. no one ought to be censured meerly because he taught any Doctrine, contrary to the Confession, so long as it was not contrary to the word of God; for a Confession was not the infallible rule of every Doctrine. Ubi sup. 41. And one of the conditions, proposed by them to be observ'd by the Synod, was this, That in examining the matters in Controversie, the enquiry be not only whether they agree or not agree with the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, as may be supposed to be in their Confessions; but that in the first place, and above all things they consider, whether they agree with the word of God, and that with respect to the necessity, as well as Truth of every Article: For which reason, let every one, be, by solemn Oath, bound to promise, that he will not in judging respect Confessions, Catechisms, or any other Humane Writings, but only the word of God, &c. And that, touching the Review of the Confession, and Catechism, every one have liberty to offer his Considerations on them, without any danger of incurring a Censure.
Who ever will consider, how vehemently they press for a Review; how earnest they were for the Examining every point in Controversie, without a respect to the Confession, or Catechism, tho' they were never made the Rule of Faith; and how eagerly they sought a Freedom from their Subscriptions, and from a Censure in case they objected against anything in them, and will also [Page 66]carefully peruse their considerations, against both; where, amongst Seven and Thirty Articles in the Confession, he will meet with at least Thirty, and in the Catechism where are about a hundred and Thirty Questions and Answers, he will find above Threescore to fall under their sharp reflections: And that in opposition to the Canons of the Dort Synod, they did publish a Confession of their own. Whoever will, I say, put all these things together, and compare the Catechism, and Belgick Confession with the Remonstrants Declaration, cannot but be abundantly satisfied, that, nor Arminius, nor the Remonstrants his Followers, were sincere in their Protestations and Subscriptions, but very corrupt and deceitful, and whilst they pretended to approve of the Confession and Catechism, they esteemed many things in both Dissonant from the word of God.
Thus much is not only the Language of these endeavours, but ingeniously granted by Ʋtenhogard, Respon U [...]eaboe. ad specim. Hem. p. 6. who, in h [...]s answer to Festus Homnius his Specimen, professes himself to be one of them who thought it necessary, who desired and pray'd, that there might be a Review of their Publick Confession, and an examining of it by the Word of God, for this very end, that what he, or others thought was not so agreable with the word of God, might be proposed to the common consideration of the several Churches. And Episcopius, in his reply to Festus Homnius his Specimen, tho he falls very severely upon Homnius, for bringing him in as an Asserter [Page 67]of what he positively denied, yet yields, that in the five Articles, they differ'd from the Belgick Confession. His words are, ‘That, Opt. Fid. Fest. Homn. p. 2. excepting the five Articles, all that Episcopius is charged with, are either about Matters frivolous, next to nothing, or such as differ not from the Confession.’
Arnoldus Poelenburg, in his Letter to Hartsooker, opens himself in this matter more freely. ‘He is not asham'd, Vid. Poeledb. Hartsook. p. 222. Cornelius Wigger. A. D. 1597. or near that time, opposed the Confession and Catechism, as a Lesbian Rule, that might be turn'd to either side. He was suspended, sets up Conventicles and stiffly adberes to his peculiar notions. Vid. Epist. Cor. Wig. p. 35. &c. nor afraid to revive the memory of Coornhertius (for whom Arminius would not be thought to have any respect) and Cornelius Wiggerus, as opposers of the Catechism,’ and Confession, lamenting a want of success in the many attempts made against them by divers other Persons, not only Arminians, but by some, who were their most violent opposers, such as Piscator, and the like.
Besides, it cannot be denied, but that the Arminian Doctrines are too manifestly a Contradiction to the Heydelberg Catechism, and Belgick Confession, to admit of a Conciliation with them: How zealous soever Arminius was to be taken for a Calvinist, none more eagerly endeavoured to subvert the very foundations of the Doctrines embraced, explained and defended by Calvin. There is so much craft, and yet open contradiction to be found in his, as well as in his Followers Writings, that I see no reason to doubt of the Truth of those things related of him and them in the Preface to the Acts [Page 68]of the Synod of Dort, Pras. ad Ecles. p. 3. where it is affirm'd, that Corvinus ingenuously confessed in a certain Writing in Dutch, that Arminius defended many things against his own Judgment; that Gomarus humbled him by producing a Paper of his own Writing, Pag. 10. in which he had asserted, That the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed for Righteousness in the Justification of Man in the sight of God, but Faith it self, or the [...] credere: The very Act is by God's gracious Acceptation that Righteousness of ours, whereby we are justified before God. What Gomarus here asserts to the silencing of Arminius, is no more than what he himself Pleaded for in his answer to the one and thirty Articles, and may at any time be seen in some of his other Writings.
SECT. VII.
They separate from the Calvinists.
BUt their separating from the Apprevers of the Heydelberg Catechism, Belgick Confession, and Acts of the Synod of Dort, even when they communicated with the Menonists, and Socinians, is an uncontroulable Evidence of their renouncing the Calvinian Doctrines, and of the favourable Opinion, they have of the Mennonistical and Socinian Heresies.
In their Letter to Madame de la Hague, they give several reasons for their Separation, Epist pag. 628. which I take to be the effect of much [Page 69]deliberation and advice for Conradus Vorstius, Epist. p 540. in his Letter to Stephen De Ryeger, to whom (having blam'd him for want of Courage to appear on behalf of the Remonstrants Cause, which the Lutherans universally, and more moderate Papists approved,) he imparts their purpose of entring a Protestation against the Synod, and of separating openly from the Contra-Remonstrants: A matter not yet ripe enough to be divulged, which yet he had communicated to Huberus
In a Letter of an Anonymus to Episcopius, it is reported from an old Acquaintance of Episcopius, that the Remonstrants did ill to abandon Communion with the Reformed and at the same time list Socinians amongst their Brethren, to whom Anonymus, as himself assures us, Vid. Epist. N. N. ad Episcop. p. 690. made no other answer than this; ‘He knew not that there was any such intimacy between the Remonstrants, and Socinians, but the reason of the separation was because the Reformed express'd no greater dislike of Manichaeism, and were so much for Persecution.’
Poelenburg, tho he brings in many odious Charges against the Contra-Remonstrants, yet one Principal Argument for their Secession is grounded on their Dissent from the Doctrines contain'd in the Heydelberg Catechism, and Belgick Confession, which he thinks they must be thought to approve, if they joyn with them in the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Lords Supper. ‘What shall I think of them (saith Poelenburg) [Page 70]who hold Communion with the Contra-Remonstrants, Catech. Heydeth. Quaest. 65. & 66. who offer either themselves, or Infants to be Baptized by them, and joyn with the Prayers at Baptism; for seeing, as the Heydelberg Catechism will have it, the Sacraments are Seals of their Faith, how can ours, (ours I take them to be, who in judgment and heart are with us, tho' bodily present with the Adversary) How, I say, can ours desire the Sealing, and Confirmation of that Doctrine they can by no means approve? And seeing in the Celebration of the Communion, we declare an Unity in Faith, and mutual Charity, how can we profess to hold Communion in that Doctrine, we are perswaded is altogether false? Doth not the Apostle command us to abstain from all appearances of Evil? Is it not a vile thing to profess to believe that to be true, which we do really judge is false? Is it not a thing most abominable to turn the Blessed Sacrament which the Lord hath made the Bond of Love, and mutual Fellowship, into a Banner of Schism, and Division?’
So far Poelenburg, who hath many other Arguments against Communicating with the Contra-Remonstrants, in his Epistolary Disquisition, whether the Remonstrants may lawfully joyn themselves to the Assemblies of the Contra Remonstrants? But this little I have out of him, being sufficient to show that their separation is an impregnable evidence of their rejecting [Page 71]the Doctrines contain'd in the Heydelberg Catechism and Confession; I will go on to give an impartial account of the Charitable Opinion they have of the Heresies of Socinus, and the Mennonists; which will farther evince, how far they were from a Closure with the Calvinian Doctrines, even when they would be thought sincere in their Subscriptions to them.
SECT. VIII.
Their good Opinion of the Socinians and Conjunction with the Mennonists.
FEstus Homnius, just before the Synod of Dort met, sends forth a Specimen of the Belgick Controversies, and in it shewing, how far in some Momentous Points of Christian Faith, the Remonstrants differ'd from the Belgick Confession, doth in several instances make it manifest, that they agree with the Socinians, particularly in denying the Simplicity, Ʋnchangableness, Infinity and Praescience of God, that no knowledge is to be had of God but by Divine Revelation, thereby destroying all natural Religion; that the Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, is not only contrary to common sense, but plainly [Page 72]opposite to Divine Testimonies: In these and several other particulars the Agreement between the Arminians and Socinians may be gather'd from what Festus hath taken out of their own Writers; such as Vorstius, Welsingius, Episcopius, and Arminius himself.
The Synod of Dort, soon meeting after this Specimen was published, a complaint is brought against it to the Synod; however, the Synod confirming the opposed Catechism, and Confession, and strictly enjoyning subscription to them, and their own Acts; the Remonstrants compose and emit a Confession of their own, which the Learned [...]odecherus. A. D. 1624. very diligently examines, and comparing it with the Racovian Catechism, the Writings of Faustus Socinus, Smalcius, Ostorodius, and many others of that Party, doth in many instances, with much clearness show a Parallel between the Socinians and Remonstrants to be so exact as to move the Reader to conclude, that the Confession of the one was taken out of the Writings of the other.
Polyander, Rivet, Walaeus, and Thysius, Professors at Leyden, do not only prefix their Approbation to Bodecherus, but within two Years after, they censure the Remonstrants Confession, wherein they are very positive, that under the pretence of Peace, Censur. Praef [...]ope finem. they would introduce Socinianism. Thus much is in the close of their Censure of the Preface, and in several places of the Book it self, which they do so closely [Page 73]urge, that the Remonstrants in their Examen are forc'd to be more free in their Acknowledgements than their open [...]igns would otherwise have admitted
'Tis true, Episcopius, in his answer to Homnius, and in his Bodecheru [...] Inep [...]ens, would fain clear himself, and his Partners from this Charge, and to do them right, (for I would not willingly misrepresent them) I must confess, that in an instance, or two the Report made of Episcopius was not so well grounded, as might be wished. For Homnius in his Specimen Quotes Episcopius for denying, that we can attain unto the knowledge of God by the Light of Nature, which is a Notion advanced by Socinus; Episcop. disput. privat de Cognit. Dei. Corol. 2. Vid. Fest. Homn. Spec. Controver. Art. 3. that Festus might fasten this imputation on Episcopius, he refers his Reader to his private Disputations about the knowledge of God, where the question is, whether the knowledge of God be Natural? To which Episcopius is said to answer by a distinction thus. ‘We distinguish whether the knowledge of God, which is attained unto by Nature, be Natural? and holds it in the Negative.’ This very passage, is several years after the Synod of Dort, repeated by Peltius.
To this Episcopius doth Satyrically enough reply, charging Homnius for being a Falsarius, who not only perverted his sense, but changed his very words, putting into his corollary, [Naturalis] instead of [Salutaris.] This charge, (if true) being so very high, I could not satisfie my [Page 74]self till I had examin'd the Place, to which Homnius doth refer, and whatever was in the Manuscript, in the Print I found it thus, viz. in the close of Episcopius his Disputation about the knowledge of God, there are three Corollaries, the second and third, being in these words.
- 2. An Cognitio Dei sit Naturalis?
- 3. An Cognitio Dei, quae ex Natura habetur, Salutaris sit? N.
This third Corollary, supposing the knowledge of God to be Natural, cannot without a too severe Reflection on Episcopius his understanding, be taken as Homnius hath Represented it; for, as it's thus, the question must be, whether the knowledge of God had from Nature, be Natural? whereby as the question is it self an absurdity, so the denyal carries in it a contradiction, as gross as that Light is not Light; that what is from Nature is not Natural, can signifie no less than that what is Natural is not Natural. But to hold that the knowledge of God, which is from Nature is not saving, is a truth aptly enough express'd, and what the Remonstrants profess to be for, as I hope on another occasion more fully to observe.
However, the Matter of Fact, concerning the Remonstrants disposition towards the Socinians, is too manifest to admit of doubt, and there is much more said by Homnius, Bodecherus, Peltius, Vedelius, and many others, about their Agreement in Principles, than hath been fully answer'd [Page 75]either by Grotius, Episcopius, or any other that I have met with.
Besides, the Applauses given the Remonstrants by the Socinians: and the numbring them amongst the supporters of their Dogmata; with the Remonstrants declining to condemn them; the Reasons why they do so; their setting them in a higher Class than the Calvinists; and maintaining Communion with them amongst the Mennonists, sets it above all Dispute.
Vorstius, tho a celebrated Remonstrant, yet in good earnest a Socinian, as may be inferr'd from what Smalcins, a great defender of Socinus in an Epistle, represents him to be, namely, a most useful Man, for whom many Prayers were sent to Heaven by their Churches in Poland. It's true, Sandius was a while in doubt, whether he should place this Vorstius among the Antitrinitarian Writers; but, when he considered how much he valued the Writings of the Sarmatian Ʋnitarians, that he was the Author of the Compendium Socinianismi answer'd by Cloppenburg, and supposed to have been written by Ostorodius and Voidovius, that the Lublinse Synod, did in the Year 1600, call him to the Government of one of their Schools, and had seen a Confession of his Faith composed by him on his Dying Bed, where he spake more freely of God and Jesus Christ. When Sandius, Sand. Biblioth. Anti-trin. pag. 98, 99. had weighed these things, he doth with utmost assurance give him a place in the Antitrinitarian Bibliothec, as he also doth his Son [Page 76] William Henry Vorstius, Pastor of a Church among the Remonstrants; and Curcellaeus who succeeded Episcopius in the Professors Chair at Amsterdam.
Furthermore, I add out of Bogermanus his Notes, on the defence of Vorstius, and the Remonstrants, Praef. Lib. de Authorit. S▪ Script. made by Grotius, that Vorstius his zeal for Socinianism, remarkably appear'd in his publishing Socinus his Discourse concerning the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, which he recommended to the Reader as solid, nervous, profitable, and almost necessary for those times, tho 'twas really full of Socinianism, and esteem'd by that Party as an introduction to their Religion.
What therefore hath been urg'd by Grotius, Episcopius or others, in defence of Vorstius, or by Vorstius, himself to throw off the charge of Socinianism, doth serve only to convince us of the Hypocrisie of the Man, and that according to the fears of some of his Socinian Friends, Epist Smalc. Vorstio. he had got so much of the Serpentine Craft, as to have lost the Innocency of the Dove.
What less than this can be the Import of Vorstius's recommending a Book, in which Socinus had laid the Foundation of his Heretical Superstructure as nervous, profitable, and necessary; and yet in a Letter to David Paraeus, Vorst. Epist. [...]araeo. declares that he condemned the Errors of Socinus about the Person and Office of Christ, of Faith, Justification, and the like, and whatever smelt of Socinianism?
But this deceitful method they learned of [Page 77] Ochinus, who sometime before Faustus Socinus wrote any thing, vended the very Errors, that are now called Socinianism, who, as I have already observed, whilst he brought many Arguments against the Truth, would be thought an embracer of it.
And as Vorstius, Father and Son, with Curcellaeus, Vid. Dedi cat. Pes [...]i [...] ad Harmon. Remonst. & Socin. are set in the Anti-trinitarian Bibliothec, so Arminius himself, as Peltius out of Paraeus averrs, is received by the Socinians as theirs. His words are " Paraeus in an Epistle dated the first of March 161 [...]. writes thus; ‘the Socinians in Poland have expressly named your Arminius, as their own, together with Bonfinius, and Acontius, their secret Followers, by whose Authority they demanded Admittance to the Communion of the Orthodox, but 'twas Resolutely denyed them.’
And as the Socinians Reckoned the Remonstrants amongst their Worthies, even such as Arminius himself Applauding them for supporting their Dogmata; in like manner, tho the Socinians deny the Deity of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, as also the satisfaction of our Redeemer, the Remonstrants, in return to their Socinian Brethren, will by no means allow them to be Hereticks.
Episcopius, tho in his Bodecherus Ineptiens, his answers to Homnius, and his Apology, oft strenuously endeavour'd to clear himself, and Remonstrants, from the charge of Socinianism; yet, in his answer to the Specimen of Calumnies, and elsewhere, is [Page 78]bold enough to own that he cann't condemn them as guilty of Heresie. Episcop. Resp. ad specim. Calum. ad Ca [...]al.
- 1. Because it's certain, that in the Holy Scriptures, neither expresly, nor by manifest Consequence, was any Anathema denounced against such as err'd only as the Socinians do.
- 2. That they seem to have some weighty Reasons for their Error, securing them from a Pertinacious adherence thereunto, and consequently from the Fault of Heresie.
- 1. Many places in Holy-Writ at first view appear to be for them.
- 2. That what is urged against them from the Holy Scriptures, Councils or Writings of the Orthodox, are either so confounded by the variety of Interpretations, given by the Orthodox themselves, or feebly prest; or, so as to be accommodated to Socinian Errors.
- 3. They who write against them, freely yield, that the Socinian Notions are more conform to Humane Reason than their own.
- 4. That in every age from the first rise of Christian Churches, they mention Christians not a few, even Doctors, and Bishops, Eminent for Learning, and Holiness of Life, that have thought and spoke differently of this matter — And many wholly ignorant of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God from the Father, even most of the Fathers before the Nicene Council, [Page 79]such as Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, Oreign, and many others.
- 6. Because there have arisen incredible Dissentions, Inexplicable Questions, Innumerable Controversies, not only about the Doctrine it self, but the terms and words used to explain it, which after utmost endeavours they could never understand.
- 7. Because, out of Justin, the most ancient Writer, who lived next the Apostles times, a Martyr for the Truths of Christ, they have reason to believe, that the most Primitive Church held Communion with them, who profess'd to believe that Christ was but [...] a meer Man, begotten only of Man, and made Christ by Election.
These are some of the Reasons adduced by Episcopius (but learnedly answered by Dr. Bull) for Vindicating their refusal to condemn the Socinians, as Hereticks; in which, abating the words, [Error,] given the Socinian, [ [...]nd Orthodox] given to their Adversaries, he insinuates as if the Socinians had the better of it in the Controversie. What the Orthodox offer to explain their Sense, is said to be with so much obscurity and Confusion, that it's not easie to be understood; they are divided amongst themselves, and give different Interpretations of Texts; are loose in their Arguing, and do oft in their opposition fall in with their Adversaries; whilst on the other hand, the Socinians have the Holy Scriptures in their first appearances, and the most reason, [Page 80]the Orthodox themselves being Judges and all the Fathers till the Council of Nice, for them, all which is about the very Doctrines, wherein the Socinians differ from the Orthodox.
But touching the Points, wherein the Socinians fall in with the Orthodox, the Calvinists are not to be compared with them. ‘We cannot (saith Episcopius) forbear giving in our Testimony on behalf of Soci [...]s, Episcop. B [...] decher. Inepti. p 65. and let the whole World, if they please, consider it, He disputes most closely, giving the Adversary scope enough, granting whatever may be without prejudice to Truth and his Cause. Where he is to press hard upon him, there he fastens his Foot, and with much Pungency brings home his Arguments to the Conscience; he will rather urge plain Scripture▪ than insist on other Hypotheses, and brings Reasons without prejudice, and not argue after the manner in the Calvinian Schools, nor hide himself in Clouds of Sophistry, nor seek Evasions, but hasten to the Merits of the Cause.’ So far Episcopius, whose farther endeavour is contemptuously to expose the Calvinist [...]s, having just before boldly asserted, that the Socinians do really agree with the Orthodox touching the substance of these following Doctrines viz. ‘The Authority, Perfection, Episcopius ubi sup. Perspicuity, the Reading, and Interpretation, of the Holy Scriptures; the Nature, Properties, and Actions of God; the Creation of Men and Angels; Providence [Page 81]and Predestination, the Precepts, Promises, Lords Prayer, Discipline, Church, &c. In all these things (saith Episcopius) as to what belongs to their substance, Socinus agreeth with the Orthodox. And about these very points lyeth the Vitals of Socinianism,’ even their denying the necessity of the Old Testament, their confirming the whole of Christian Religion to the New, as if Christ had never been foretold, Praefigur'd, or Promised in the Old. The Scripture's so perspicuous, that we may attain to the saving knowledge of them without the help of the Holy Spirit. That there is but one Person in the Nature of God. That God is not Immense, Omnipotent, Omniscient, as in the Holy Scriptures 'tis declared and asserted. That Man was not created in Knowledge, and Righteousness, that the Image of God on Man lyeth only in having Rational Faculties and Dominion over the Creatures. That in his first make he was Mortal, and should have dyed tho' he had never sinned. That future Contingents cannot be known by God himself. That on the admitting the Infallible Praescience of all things Future, there could be no withstanding the Calvinian Doctrine of Praedestination. That the Precepts given Adam were adjusted to the Infant state of Mankind, and were imperfect; that Jesus Christ gave new, and more perfect Laws. That he enlarged the Obligation of some of the Moral Laws, abolished others, and added three new Moral Precepts to the [Page 82]Old given by Moses. That the Promises of the Old Testament were only of Temporal Blessings; and that Men under it, were not sav'd as we are under the New, by Faith in the Messiah.
Whatever Episcopius means by the Socinians Agreement with the Orthodox, these are the Doctrines of Socinus, and his Followers, most opposite unto, and inconsistent with what is held by the Orthodox, and cannot be sound, and true, in the Judgment of Episcopius himself, unless he himself be a Socinian. And sure I am, that whatever they suggest to the contrary, about their being in suspence, and doubt in this Partit [...]cular, they look on the Socinians to be good Christians, as appears further, by their holding Communion in Acts of Religious Worship, with them amongst the Mennist [...]s.
What I have taken out of these Arminian Writers doth, as any one may easily perceive, make it clear, that it hath been their, as well as the Socinian Method, by the use of Orthodox Phrases, and Subscriptions to sound Catechisms, and Confessions of Faith, to hide, for a while, their erroneous Opinions; and when they have gain [...]d a Reputation with the People then to open themselves, and appear above board, slily insinuating a New, and 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 [Page 83]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] [Page 84]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 [...]co] that when it's said, Christ dyed in our stead, the meaning is, Christ dyed to bes [...]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 Christ [...]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. [...]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.
'Tis 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 Ʋniversal Church, Some Thought sup [...] Dr. Stel. Vindic. p. [...]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 [Page 87]to Generals, leave us in the Dark [...] 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 Ʋnitarians, 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 Ʋnitarians, 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 [Page 88] 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 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 [Page 89]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 Believe [...] ‘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. Edward [...]. 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 [Page 90]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? 'Tis 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 Ʋnutterable? 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, [Page 91]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 'tis 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 Blandra [...], and Faustus Socinus, who were followed by the Forreign Ʋnitarians, as they call [Page 92]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, [...]xcommuni [...]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 a [...]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 a Person, or not. About the Invocation of Jesus Christ, whether a Duty or not? So that from any thing hath been Published by [...]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 Ʋnanimous 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. [...]. 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 Ʋnitarians, and Anti-Trinitarians, whereby they Reserve to themselves the Liberty of setting up, either for Arians, Photinians, Jews, Mahometans, or Deists, who Call themselves Ʋnitarians; 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 Ʋnity, but a meer Moral, and Relative Ʋnity, 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 Ʋnadvisedly; or Hyper bolically, 'tis [Page 95]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, 'twill 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 [Page 96]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, tis 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; [Page 98]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. 5 [...]. 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 to be Hereticks, who Affirm him to be so. If we take the word [Heretick] in the most common Acceptation, for one who is without the Pale of the Church (in which Sense, it's manifest that Volanus himself uses the Word in this Place) that they do greatly Err, I firmly Believe. But, I do not therefore Exclude them from the Fellowship of the Saints, so long as in other Respects, they Persevere in the Right Way to Salvation, approving themselves Obedient unto Christ.’
Nor were they so Fond of the Mahometan Religion, as not to think it a Reproach to be numbred amongst its Favourers. This is sufficiently Cleared by Ruarus; For, whereas Beza, Epist. 16. [...] 122, 123. in an Epistle to Peter Statorius, mentions Valentilis Gentilis his [Page 99]Accusing Paulus Alciatus for turning Turk, Abraham Calovius no sooner mentions this Story, in a Letter to Ruarus, but Ruarus, as one who Abhorr'd the Mahometan Religion, Epist. 47. p. 225, 226. doth what he can to Vindicate Alciatus from so Vile a Calumny: ‘Most Worthy Sir, (saith he to Calovius) Forgive me that I attempt to Free you from a Mistake in a Point of History. It is about what is Reported of Paulus Alciatus, and Nuserus, closing with the Turkish Religion, as if they had abandon'd Christianity, and had taken up with the Alcoran. I am apt to think, Beza, in one of his Epistles, lead you into this Mistake, when he mentions what Gentilis accused him of before the Magistrates of Bern. But this might be done by Gentilis, only to Ingratiate himself with the Magistrates, especially seeing he knew, Alciatus did acknowledge only the Father of Jesus Christ to be the most High God; And he himself, after a sort making a Profession of Three Gods, might be the more easily Induced to load him with the reproachful Charge of Turcism — But whatever Gentilis imagined, you know very well that Alciatus did for many Years in this City lead a Pious Life according to the Christian Rules, and when he dyed, he commended his Soul to Christ, the Saviour. Thus much hath been Attested by many and some now Living, &c.’
But tho' Socinus and Ruarus, were so kind as to clear us from the Guilt of Idolatry and Heresie, Reckoning us to be Members of that Church, in which Salvation may be had; yet so much Candor must not be look'd for from the English Socinians. For,
They esteem us so Byassed against their Religion by Prejudices and the like, Exhort. to [...]ice Enqu. p. 3. that we use not a reasonable Diligence to obtain the Knowledge of what they call Truth, and therefore we are told, ‘That as to the Jen [...]s and Turks, N [...]tes on Athanas. p. 3 [...]. who Believe, and Worship the One True God, and him only, perhaps they are in a Nearer Proximity to Salvation, than such as against sufficient Opportunities of a right Information, and for Worldly Interests, have Apostatized from the Christian Faith to the Athanasiam.’
Thus they make us Apostates from Christianity, further off from Salvation than Jews or Turks. And that we may see what Charity they have for the Mahometans, and their Religion, they add, ‘Divers Historians will have it, Re [...]l [...] co [...] [...]ng the T [...]i [...] and Incarnat. p. 18, 19. that Mahomet meant not, his Religion should be esteemed a New Religion, but only the Restitution of the true Intent of the Christian Religion. They affirm moreover, that the Mahometan Learned Men, call themselves the True Disciples of the Messias or Christ, intimating thereby that Christians are Apostates from the most Essentians Parts of the Doctrine of the Messiah.’
This Plea, our English Socinians make for Mahomet and his Religion (Representing the Turkish Topperies to be a more Refined Christianity than that Embraced by the Orthodox) brings to my Remembrance an Old Prophecy of Simler, which on the Reviving of the Errors of Servetus, by [...]oelius, Socinus, Blandrata, and others, he wrote Anno 1568. A part of it is to this Purpose. ‘When Matters Religious are in Agitation, I would not willingly Immix with them what are of a Civil Nature; nor would I rashly Fore bode Evil to any Man. However, if we may make a Judgment of things Future, by what hath heretofore f [...]ln out I am afraid this Doctrine [ viz. of the Socinians will prepare the way for Mahometanism, and Portend Ruin to those Flourishing Countries, in which it is sown, &c.’ The whole Prophecy is in the Close of that Historical Preface, which Cloppenhurch hath set before his Con [...]rtation of the Compendi [...]lum [...]ocinianismi, supposed by him, to have been Written by Ostorodius, and [...]oidovius; but, as Sandias hath it; by Conradus Vortius To return.
The Malignity of these English Socinians runs higher, they can't consent themselves to throw us into a worse state than the Turks are in. Placing us in the next Rank to them. But to vent their Spight, they make our very Religion, as bad as the Impostures, and Dotages of the Egyptian, and Roman Pagans.
Touching the Mystery of the Trinity, they say, ‘There is no Parallel for it in all, Trinitarian Scheme. p. 7. either History, or Nature, but the Mysteries of the Egyptians. For, as the Egyptians were at prodigious Cost, in making, and setting up a great number of Images, in and about their Temples — by which Lieroglyphicks they pretended to Teach men the Secrets of Natural Philosophy—But when ask'd to Explain their meaning, they gave a very mean and triffling sense; or a sense very absurd and false. So, after Trinitarians have long Amused their Disciples with Terms, as mystical as the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks, such as Trinity — We would easily forgive them the foll; of their Mysteries, if their Hieroglyphick Language were not as False and Contradictory, as it is Vain, and Trifling’ — A little after this, speaking of the Blessed Trinity; ‘This is Egyptian all over: 'Tis the very Genius and Spirit of the old Mystical Hieroglyphicks: That is to say, Partly Foolish and Partly False. Once more, "For my Part, I never think of these, whether Dotages or Impostures, without such an Inclimation as I hardly Resist, of applying to our Athanasian Doctors, what Cato said of the Roman Augures and Aruspices— He knew their pretended Learning and Discipline, was the Religion, Establish'd by Law, warranted by Custom and Prescription, and Auth [...]rized by the Consent [Page 103]of Laws. For all that, 'twas a Cheat so Gross and Palpable, that he could not but Admire the Augures were such stark Fools, or such perfect Knaves, that (meeting) they could carry a grave look upon one another.’
This is the Kindness the English Socinians have for the Orthodox, and more especially for the Religion by Law Establisht. They make us worse than Turks, and as bad as Pagans; as if all we teach were a Gross and Palpable Cheat. And by their Complaints of the Evils arising from Church Preferments, Consid [...]. [...]. p. 44. and the Care and Favour of a Wealthy Mother, they show they have an aking Tooth at the Church Revenues. Let the Bishops, Deans, and Chapters look to themselves.
SECT. IV.
The Difference there is between the English and Foreign Socinians. The Foreign Socinians Represent the Principles Embraced by the Generality of the English, to be Heretical, tending to Mahometanism, and Judaism.
THE English Socinians do not make us so bad, but Socinus, and his Partizans abroad, are even with them, making their [Page 104]Case the same with the worst of Hereticks, Mahometans, and Jews.
To clear thus much, I must show what the Foreign Socinians hold, touching Christ's Divinity, and the Worship due unto him; together with the Representation given of such as do herein differ from them.
When Vujekus charged the Socinians with Mahometanism, Socinus in his Answer declares, Resp. ad Praef. Vujek. p. 8. Ed. A. D. 1624. ‘That they held Jesus Christ to be that Man, who was by the Holy Ghost Conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, and Born of her, that this Man is the only begotten Son of God, whom the Holy Scriptures Recommend unto us, nor is there any other besides, or before him. To this Man is given, by God the Father, such a Divine Power and Authority, that the Name of God and Divine Worship is Deservedly and Necessarily, perse, given unto him.’
This is their Doctrine, the Foundation of their Religion, the Great and Glorious Mystery of their Gospel, without the Belief of which no Salvation can be had ‘Although, (say they) Christ never Expresly said He was the true God, S [...]in. ubi s [...]p. p. 19. yet from what he has oft declared, it may Easily, yea Necessarily be inferred that He is; that is to say, as he is really and truly Invested with Divine Power and Authority— And there are several Texts in the Holy Scriptures which make it most clear, that not only the One God, p. 26. but that Jesus Christ also, as he is distinguished from [Page 105] that One God, is to be Adored with Divine Worship. Time would fail me to enumerate the many Texts, that are not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old, for the Worshipping Jesus Christ, as distinguished from that One God, with Divine Adoration They then, ubi sup. p. 27. who deny it to be Lawful to give Divine Worship to Two Gods, whereof One is Subordinate unto the Other, and wholly depends on him, may as well deny the Sun shines in the clearest Day, and do moreover discover their Ignorance of the Greatest Mystery of Christian Religion, and if Treated with Rigor, must be Deprived of the very Name of Christians—That they who are against rendring unto Christ Divine Worship or oppose the Invocating him, are to be Condemned for Hereticks, yea for worse than Hereticks, in that truly they deny unto him the Care of the Church, which is the same, with their Denying him to be Christ.’
This is the Notion they have Espoused of Jesus Christ, They Affirm him to be a True God, a True Subordinate God, entirely depending on that One, Most High God. A True God, because this One God hath given to him Divine Power and Authority; or as they sometimes Express it, because God hath by his Inhabiting Word, or Power, given to the Lord Christ a Faculty of Knowing all things, and an Ability to Relieve all Wants. This Divinity in Christ they make to be the Ground and Reason of [Page 106]their Adoration, and Invocation. They do also make God's dwelling in Christ by his Spirit, a Ground of Worship. Socinus, in the Defence of his Animadversions, on the Theological Assertions of the Posnan College, Cap. 8. p. 250, 251. Ed. A. D. 1618. against Gabriel Eutropius, tells us, ‘To justify our Adoring Christ, it's sufficient, that God doth in an Eminent manner, by his Spirit, dwell in him, speak in him, give Answers, whence he is called the Image of the Invisible God, and they who have seen Christ are said to have seen the Father, and they who Adore him, do in him Adore the Father: If then the Israelites, who Worshiped before the Ark of the Covenant, because God shewed himself in it present to them, and as from his proper and peculiar Place, There gave Answers, and after a sort There dwelt, were free from the Guilt of Idolatry, much more may we be so, tho' we Worship Christ, of whom the Ark was but a Type, or Shadow, and infinitly below him.’
This way of Arguing, tho' used by a Man of Note amongst our selves, was so turn'd by Vujekus, and Bellarmine, two Jesuits, against Socinus, as to Confound him— ‘That Christ is worthy of Divine Worship (say they) because God dwells in him, Res. ad Vujek. p. 418. is by no means to be Allowed; For then 'twould follow, that the whole World may be Worshiped, especially the Angels, and [...]oly Men, in whom God doth in a more peculiar manner dwell.’
And as the Socinians do make this sort of Divinity, the Reason of their giving Divine Worship unto Christ, even so, their Ascribing this Divinity, and giving Divine Worship unto him, makes the Discriminating Character, Animadv. in Assert. p. 49. by which alone they hope to clear themselves, from being of the Religion Invented by Mahomet, which doth not Invocate, nor Worship him ‘No One saith Socinus) who is in his Wits will affirm that False Notion Mahomet had of Jesus of Nazareth, Vid. Defens. Animadv. p. 373. is what Paulus Samosatenus held: For Samosatenus acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the True, and only Begotten Son of God and our Lord; affirming, that he ought to be Worshiped, &c. which things Mahomet denyed’
They insist so very much on the Adoration of Christ, that they esteem those, who are against it, to be such Hereticks, as subvert the very Foundations of Christianity, and deserve not the Name of Christians. ‘I do not (saith Socinus) see any thing throughout the whole Christian Religion of more Importance to be Published, De Invocat. Christ. ex Epist. ad Quend. Tom. I. p. 353. than a Demonstration, that Invocation, Adoration or Divine Worship belongs to Christ, altho' he is a Creature— If this be but once fully proved, all the strong holds of the Trinitarians will fail them. For, they lean on this one Foundation, viz. That that Adoration, and Invocation, which is due only to the Most High God, must be given unto Christ. And on the other hand, the True Power, and Majesty [Page 108]of Christ, will hereby be cleared and firmly fixt in the minds of all; whereas without the Knowledge of it, neither God himself, nor any thing Divine can be Rightly Understood, nor the way of our Salvation clearly Known; but what is said in the Holy Scriptures of the Expiation of our Sins by Christ, will be strangely mistaken; the whole of Christian Religion brought into Doubt, or at least be expos'd to a sudden Change, if not to utter Ruin: and the Chiefest, and most Principal Foundations of our Hope, and Trust in God destroyed.’ And elsewhere he saith, Socin. Christ. Rel. Instit. Tom. I. p. 656. ‘That they, who are against the Worship of Christ, cannot be Christians, because in good earnest they own not Christ, though they dare not Openly, yet Really do they deny Jesus to be the Christ.’
Besides Vujekus, upbraiding the Socinians, with the Opinion and fatal end of Jacobus Palaeologus, who with Johannes Sommerus, Matthias Glirius, and many others, opposed the Adoration of Christ, and was at last Burnt for his Heresies at Rome; Socinus in his Reply tells them his Sense thus: ‘But as to Palaeologus, Resp. ad Vujek p. 42. whom they take for granted to be One of Us, I answer, that his being Reconciled to the Church of Rome, was so far from being a Token of God's Favour unto him, that it was a due Reward of his Impiety. For, besides his not sticking to Traduce our Party, how Innocent soever, as the most Arrant Knaves, [Page 109]whom in the mean time he Blushes not to call Brethren: He also was one, and if I mistake not, a leading Man among them, who now a days affirm, that Christ is neither to be Adored, nor Invocated. And yet they Impudently Profess themselves Christians, a Device, to deprave our Religion, in my Opinion, so Wicked, that there could hardly be a Worser invented.’
And as they could not Oppose the Adoration of Christ and Remain Christians, so this their Principle, leads 'em to Judaism; ‘For (saith Socinus) ever since I saw what Franciscus Davidis had Written against the Invocation of Christ, I openly declared my Sentiments, touching the Tendency of his Notion to Judaism; and how it exalted Moses above Christ: For this Reason more especially; because if they hold, that Christ may not be of Right Invocated, he is not Really, but only in Name, Christ. Socin. Praef. ad Resp. F. David. And I Remember very well, that in the Presence of Franciscus Davidis, I pressed Glirius freely to tell me whether he believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ. But he would give me no Answer, &c.’
What Socinus hath on this occasion delivered, doth sufficiently evince, that he Condemns not only Franciscus Davidis, but all whosoever they be, that are against the Rendring Divine Worship unto Christ, even our English Socinians themselves, if they do so, for being far worse than Hereticks, who in Reality deny Jesus to be the [Page 110] Christ, and therefore can't be Christians, nor clear themselves from the Charge of Mahometanism, nor their Principles from a Tendency to Judaism.
Now that the Generality of the English Socinians do Reject the Adoration of Christ, and are for giving him no other sort of Honour, than they do to Men in Civil Power, to Prophets or Saints in Glory, is manifest from what they avouch.
‘There are, Answ. to Milbern, p. 50. say they, no Acts of Worship ever required to be paid to the Lord Jesus Christ, but such as may be paid to a Civil Power, to a Person in High Dignity and Office; to Prophets and Holy Men, or to such as are actually possest of the Heavenly Beatitudes.’
Though some may be otherwise minded, yet the Generality of them fall in with Palaeologus, Sommerus, Glirius, Davidis, and Others, in their Rejecting the Adoration of our Blessed Redeemer as appears further from what is Reported of them, by their own Historians, who Represents their Opinion to the utmost Advantage he could; page 33. intimating, that the most Learned of the Ancients Reject this Invocation; that Christ Himself, when consulted about the Object, and matter of Praver, directed his Disciples to God; that he forbad them to pray to Himself; and that to make Christ himself the Object of Prayer, is to destroy his Mediatory Office. Thus much, and abundantly more, is urged by the English Socinians, against our Adoring and Invocating the Lord Jesus Christ; [Page 111]whereby they make themselves in the Esteem of the Foreign, who are the more learned Socinians, to be worse than Hereticks, even Destroyers of the Chiefest, and most Principal Foundations of the Christians Hope and Faith in God; who in Reality deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ, and cannot clear themselves from Mahometanism, nor their Principles from Judaism.
Thus we see what manner of Men our Socinians are, what Enemies to Christian Religion, and whither their Principles do lead, the Chief among themselves being Judges.
And when I consider what manner of Notions the most Ingenious, of their way, are Advancing, I cannot but think on what Mersennus did intimate to Ruarus, Epist. Ruar. 50. page 239. about the Attempts of some, to bring all that part of Religion, which is necessary to Salvation, unto one Article. ‘There are (saith he) some Men, and I doubt not but there are such amongst you, who contend, that this one Article of Faith only, namely, That Jesus is the Messiah, is necessary unto Salvation; that they who believe it, may be called the Children of God; that this is the One Article the Apostles urged. To which others add, that a Believing this Article with the Heart, is not required as necessary, a Confession of it with the Mouth being Sufficient. That is to say, if there be a rendring Obedience to the Magistrates Commands. Thus we see whither Men, when left to themselves, will run. They'll suspect all Religion to [Page 112]be false, and a Politick Contrivance; then turn Atheists, not only denying a Providence, but the very Being of God Himself.’
Mersennus writing thus much to a Grave and Learned Socinian, who in his Answer taking no notice of it, though very careful to rectifie the most inconsiderable Mistakes in other Instances, moves me to conclude, the Charge was true, and the Atheistical Consequences too manifest to admit of a Penial, which I the rather suggest, to the end I may stir up the more sincere amongst our English Scocinians, to consider the Tendency of their Notions.
SECT. V.
They fall in with the Papists in some momentous Points. They imitate the QUAKERS, in their crying down LEARNING, a LEARNED MINISTRY, and in REVILING THEIR ADVERSARIES.
§. 1. THE Papists we confess, that they may support their Temporal Grandeur and Dominating Will, when pressed by the invincible Arguments of Protestants, lower the Mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation; and level them with their Ʋnscriptural, Ʋnreasonable, and Nonsensical Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [Page 113]rather than Hazard their Temporalties, which they do by placing Transubstantiation and these Mysteries in the same Rank.
Now, altho' the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, are most firmly believed by Protestants, as supported by the clearest Revelations in Holy Writ, yet the English Socinians, as if their Design had been to prepare the Minds of the People, Acts of Great Athanasius pag. 3. to close with the most pernicious part of Popery, are bold to declare, that the whole of Popery hath as much Evidence for it, as these Foundations of Christianity. Biddles Catechism Pres. They do not only press us with the Assertion of the Popish Doctors, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is Founded, not in the Scriptures, but on the Tradition of the Church? and with the Charge, that we Blasphemously make the Holy Scriptures a Nose of Wax. But are (I cannot forbear saying) so Impudent, as to tell us, Letter of Resolu. concerning the Trinity and Incarnation p. 1 [...]. ‘That the Supremacy of the Pope, was the First-born of the Trinity; that from the Doctrine of the Incarnation, arose the Worshiping of the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and other Saints, Transubstantiation, and the Worship of Images.’
But, what Connection can there be betwixt the Trinity and the Pope's Supremacy? Or why must the Apostles be Religiously Worshiped, because the Humane Nature of Christ, who is God, was born of the Virgin? Is there any Sense, or any Learning in such Sophistry? No certainly, and therefore,
§. 2. They do with the Quakers, in the next place, Acts of Athanasius pag. 4. cry down Learning. They Charge us, for doing what is next to the Denial of the Holy Scriptures, in that we elude (say they) the Plainest Text by Scholastick, and Metaphysical Subtilties. ‘I know very well (saith One, Some Thoughts pag. 12. speaking of Us) why they fancy Socinians to be Subtile Men; It is because they oppose that Vain Learning, which hath been introduced into the most Popular Catechisms, and unto which, most Men are Inured— The Dirty Spring, which hath Afforded their False Learning, is the Gnosticism, which boasted of Great Mysteries; but of no Holy Practices. They were the first Hereticks, who made Perfection to consist in High Knowledge.’
They also talk of the Mischievous Feats of Learning, confirmed by Disputes, between Protestants and Papists. ‘Both of 'em (say they) will make use of Metaphysicks, and by the Help of such Theological Instruments, each one will free himself from Difficulties, and it shall not be known, which of them gets the better. In Effect, each one will avoid the most pressing Arguments, by contriving a Distinction more absurd than the very Opinion which he maintains, one absurdity helping on another; or by finding out a New Sense of the Authority brought against them.’
They being sensible, that, when we Discourse of the Blessed Trinity, and Incarnation, [Page 115]by the help of such Learning as their Sophistical Arguments are Detected, and Exposed, do find themselves necessitated to cry it down, or give up their Cause. The Latter they are not willing to do, and therefore oppose the Former, whereby the Herd of that Party are led Blindfold to a closure with such Notions of God, as are Destructive of his very Being. For, whilst they are arguing against Scholastick Terms, such as Trinity, Coessentiality, Modality, Personality, Eternal Generation, Procession, Incarnation, Hypostatical Ʋnion and the like; They meet with another Army of School Terms; which are necessary to give us the clearer Ideas, of what may be known of God, such as Infinity, Eternity, Immensity, Absolute Simplicity, Pure Act, Incorporeity, Incomprehensibility, And that they may the more roundly reject the Trinity, and Incarnation, they set themselves against the Infinity, Immensity, Simplicity, Incomprehensibility, &c. of the Deity; Some Thoughts p. 14. and thereby turn the Glory of the Incorruptible God into the Image of Corruptible Man.
‘To know (saith One of 'em) whether there is an Immensity of Essence or of Operation, these are Metaphysicks, out of my Reach—Revelation doth not speak precisely about this.’ A page or two before— ‘The Confessions of Faith which are puffed with Metaphysical Terms are nothing else but a Debaucht Faith.’
What Notion then have they formed of God? Their Admired Biddle will tell you, ‘God hath a Shape, Pr [...]sace to his Catechism. hath his place in the Heavens, and knoweth not our free Actions, till they come to pass’ — Thus they make God to be another such as themselves, which is the Effect of that Contempt they cast upon Learning. For when once they have with the Papists made Ignorance the Mother of Devotion they soon impose what they list on their Illiterate Admirers.
But seeing so long as Learned Men are amongst us in Reputation, 'twill be impossible for them to conceal from every body the real worth of such Studies; or, for themselves to escape the strength of their Arguments. To make sure work therefore of it, their next Endeavour is to load such Persons with the v [...]lest Reproaches.
§. 3. They vilify the Learned now, as the Quakers formerly have done. ‘The Learned say they (if you speak of such as are Priests, [...], to Fre [...] Enquity. p. 3. and Ministers, or Beneficed Men) have such a Brass given to their Minds by the Awe of their Superiours, to whom they are Accountable by Fears of Deprivation, in Case of Professed Heterodoxy, by their Subscriptions (before they were able to Judge) to the Articles of their several Churches; that it may be said their Learning gives no Authority to their Opinion. 'Tis plain enough their Opinions are such as the Conditions and Terms of Preferment, (appointed by the Laws of the Country) do Require of them, [Page 117]except when a Party is grown Powerful enough to despise or to evade the Laws.— While they are shackled by early Subscriptions, Hopes of Preferment, Fears of Punishment, and the like Restraints, they are fitter to support the Kingdom of Darkness, than to revive the true Light, and Genuine Gospel of our Lord Christ.’
None can escape their Revilings, neither my Lord of Worcester, nor my Lord of Glocester: No, not his Grace the late Arch-Bishop. Answer to the Arch-bishop. p. 44. These are made the great Pensioners of the World.
‘'Tis certain (say they) we have a mighty Propensity to believe, as is for our Interest and Turn. Men will perswade themselves to a great deal, only to be Quiet. But if you bribe 'em too, with great Rewards, what w [...]ll they not say? what will they not do? But the Church hath taken a further care to keep her Sons in the Right way; for the Fears, and Awes, she proposes are even Greater than her Bribes. For as they who bestow their Children upon the Church, reckon they are Amply provided for, in the Care and Favour of so Wealthy a Mother; and therefore seldom give those Children any further Inheritance: So this is the Occasion that these Adopted Sons, should they do, or affirm any thing contrary to the Commands, or the Declarations of the Church, they are sure to starve, because they are sure to be cast out. I think therefore it's no Immodesty to say, that our Opposers [Page 118]being under the Power of such Fatal Biasses; their Doctrine is the more to be suspected, and the more to be examined, because 'tis theirs. They are Great Men indeed, every way great, that Defend against us the Doctrine of the Trinity; but then, 'tis that they must maintain it. Set 'em at Liberty, Discharge 'em of their Awes and Fears: Let the Church Preferments be proposed only as the Rewards of Learning and Piety, as they were first intended, not of holding these, or those Opinions and Doctrines; and it shall be soon seen how many Eyes this Liberty would open.’
These Passages do shew with what Tenderness, Respect and Modesty, English Socinians do Calumniate their Learned Adversaries: Representing them as Guilty of some great Hypocrisy and vile Sensuality.
To pass such Fury towards single Persons (as when they call one Trifling Ʋndertaker, and speak of the Farce of his Life; Answer to Mi [...]h. and another must be not Furious Jehu, but Mad Driver) I cannot forbear intimating how they deal with the Orthodox by whole sale. And first for the French: ‘Such as know the French Ministers (say they) know very well that they are so far from being Socinians, Answer to L [...]m. p. 20. that they never rightly understood what Socinianism is. They are so perfectly ignorant of the Merits of the Socinian Cause, and Questions: And 'tis notoriously known, they are not Conversant enough in good Books to Distinguish [Page 119] Socinianism from Remonstrantism.’ Ubi sup. p. 21. If he, and his Fraternity would not be further exposed, not only here, but in France— they will for the time to come take some Ho [...] ster Course. Answer to Lam. p. 21. Nor is their Rage only against their Doctrines, but so great, that as French Refugees, they Represent them for Peepers, Lurchers, Trepans, Vile Informers, Perjured Persons, and the like; as if the Deprivation of their Liberty, Property, and Native Air in their own Land, did not satisfy their Malice, unless they exposed them as much as they could in another. The Learned Calvinists then next, in Holland, are made to be as sottishly Ignorant as the French. But I will forbear such Quotations; and returning to our own Country Men, I cannot but take particular Notice of one Passage, in Reference to the Reverend and Learned Doctor Bull. Answer to Dr. Bull. p. 77. Take their own words. ‘Doctor Bull hath (say they) expressed such Male-volence, and hath so Notoriously and Infamously broke the Chartal of Honour and Civility; —that no Respect nor Tenderness can be shown to him, by any Ʋnitarian. His Barbarities, and Immanities, towards a Person so little deserving that usage, and so much above Mr. Bull in all regards, as Sandius was, and his Arrogance towards, and hair-brain'd Contempt of all Ʋnitarians, whether Ancient or Modern. I say his Temerity, and Extravagancy in this kind, is so excessive, or rather so Outragious, that he hath left to himself no manner of Right or Claim, to the very least Degree of Humanity, or good manners towards him.’
But what has this Learned Doctor done to deserve all this. ‘He never calls the Arians by any other Name but Ariomanitae, the Mad Arians; and Socinianism is always with him, the Atheistical Heresie. Of Sandius he saith, He hath shipwrackt his Conscience, as well as his Faith. He complements the Author of Irenicum Irenicorum (who was Dr. Zwicker, M. D. a Socinian) with such Flowers as these— Bipedum ineptissimus, The Greatest [...]op in Nature: Omnium od [...]o, qui veritatem & Candorem amant, dignus.’
This is a Summary of the Provocations given to the English Socinian by Doctor Full; Whether they deserve that Wrath, and Rage, with which they have Treated him, I will distinctly Examine.
1. As to the Doctor's esteeming Socinianism an Atheistical Heresie, as there is too much Reason for such an estimate, so in due time, it may be fully Cleared.
2. That the Dr. calls the Arians, Arinmanitae, Ju [...]ce. Eccles. [...]ath. de ne [...]s. [...]re [...]end [...]. is no more than what some Fathers and many others have done before him, as the Doctor himself hath Observ [...]d against Episcopius, where he shews, that as Fusebius, in Representing the Madness of the Manich [...]es alludes into the Name of Manes, as signif [...]ing so much; De A [...] Orat. 20. Ari [...]i vocantur [...] ab Epiphanio Haeresi LXIX. p. 311. ab Athanasio Tra [...]ian. de Synod. Tom. 1. p. 929. Su [...]er. Thesau [...] verb [...] [...] Brief Hist. p. 12. Even so Gregory Nazianzen makes the same Observation on the Name of Arius, [...] — A furore nomen habens Arius. On which, the Note of Nicaetas, is, Arius [...]— [Page 121] à Marte dictus furioso. & bellacissimo Daemone. And what harm in Rehearsing what the Ancients have done. But,
3. The Doctor saith that Sandius hath ship-wrackt his Conscience. Whether this be true, or not, let an English Socinian Determine, who saith, ‘That Sandius, in all his Books, Refuses in Words to be called either Arian or Socinian, but hath written an Ecclesiastical History on purpose to prove, that all Antiquity was Arian, or Socinian—He hath also under the Borrowed Name of Cingallus, written a small Treatise, with this Title; Scriptura Trinitatis Revelatrix: Here, under Pretence of Asserting the Trinity, he hath as much as he could defeated all the Strengths of the Catholick Cause.’
Thus this Learned Sandius openly declares against the Arian, and Socinian Heresies, and Pretends to write in Defence of the Trinity, and therein doth his utmost to enervate all the Arguments brought to support this Bessed Doctrine, and Defeat the Cause of the Orthodox, which is such an Evincement of a deliberated double-dealing, lived and delighted in, that none but an English Socinian, can look on it to be less, than a Shipwracking of his Conscience.
4. Zuicker is called Socinian by our Author, and for ought I know, might be in his Heart so, altho he positively Declares, He is neither Lutheran, Calvinist, Irenicomast. perpet. convict. p. 8.11. Remonstrant or Socinian. However according to the New Rule of these Gentlemen, he may be a very Sincere one.
But what is it that moved Doctor Bull to write so contemptibly of this Zuicker: What it is in Particular, being a perfect Stranger unto the Learned Doctor, I'll not pretend to Determine: And yet am apt to think, that amongst other Reasons, this may be one, viz, Daniel Zuicker, being a Physician, Publisheth a Discourse, Entituled Irenicum Irenicorum, in which he pretends to do Wonders, boasting of his Infallible and Universal Remedy for the most obstinate Mental Distempers, which he doth with as much Vanity, and as little Reason, as ever Quack hath done of his Elixir Salutis, or Orvietan. That the Reader may see I have not by this suggestion broke the Chartal of Honour and Civility, I will Transcribe some of Zuicker's Boasts, and then add his Infallible Cure.
In the Title Page, of his Book, we have enough of his boasts. For there he hath it thus— Irenicum Irenicorum, seu Norma Triplex Fxemplo peculiari Theologico, eoque Illustrissimo— it à ob oculos Posit a; ut fi secundum ejus Fundamentales Infallibilesque Decisiones procedatur, Controversiae quaevis, etiamsi Gravissimae, feliciter, breviter, & sine tumultu, conciliorumque Convocatione ullâ decidi; amissa, ignorata hactenus Veritas recuperari; Adversarii autem Quilibet vel pertinacissimi, juxtim cum Conciliis Haereticis, judicari, convinci, & confundi queant.
And lest any should be frightned with this Rhodomontado-Title, he doth what he can [Page 123]in his Preface to Cajole his Reader to think well of it: ‘ Noli (says he) mirari Lector Titulum hujus libri, Talia tibi Promittere, quae à multis retro seculis, imo ab ipso paene Apostolorum aevo inaudita fuêre.’
Once more I must Observe that this Renowned Zuicker, was so puffed up with the Conceit he had of his Catholicon, that he cannot forbear making a Break in the Beginning of his Book, to the end he might insert another Pompous Title, before the third Branch of his Argument, by which he endeavours to Prove the Soundness of his Conciliatory Rule. The Title begins thus, ORBIS CATHOLICUS in potissi [...]is suis Traditionibus de Fide primorum Christianorum EXTREME ERRANS— seu VERA primae Antiquitatis fideique primorum Christianorum MONUMENTA: Ad dudum anissam Veritatem, pacemque Ecclesiae post liminio restituendam, ORBI CHRISTIANO clarius quam unt quam antehac ob oculos posita.
This is it our Socinian Doctor tells the World: He hath a rare Secret, scarce heard of since the Apostles Days, till he Discovered it, but now so admirably well done, that if there be an Observing his Fundamental, and Infallible Decisions, 'twill without any other help, safely and suddenly decide the most Important Controversies, Recover lost Truth, Judge, Convince, Confound any Adversary with their Heretical Counsels, be they never so Pertinacious and Obstinate. [Page 124]And whereas the Catholick World, hath been ext [...]eamly Ignorant of the Traditions of the Primitive Christians, unknown to every body, [...] he took 'em out of Petavius, and Published them.
But what is this rare Secret? this Wonderful Catholicon, I mean his Conciliatory Rule? It lyeth only in the Denial of Christs Divinity. All, if they will have Peace with them, must hold that Jesus Christ is not the most high God. This is his healing Truth; which he undertakes to prove from the Holy Scriptures, Sound Reason and Ancient Tradition, being induced to pitch on this, as the most likely Expedient, [...]nicamast. pag. 14. by the Observations he made, of Men's casting off, their malevolent Humour on their turning Socinians; Of the certainty and clearness with which 'twas Demonstrated, and the Hopes he hereupon conceived of the Conversion of Infidels.
But can any Man, in his Wits, think; that we, who are fully Perswaded in our Consciences, of the Truth of Christ's Divinity, and that the Belief of it is absolutely Necessary to Salvation, can renounce this Principle for the sake of Peace with them? This is as if one, amongst us, should start up and cry earnestly for a Peace with France, proposing no other Terms, than an ent [...]re Resignation of our Laws. Liberty and Property, to the Pleasure of their Grand Monarch. What could the English think of such a Fellow? would they think him Compos Mentis? or would they not be for [Page 125]sending him to Bedlam? And yet of this Nature is Zuicker's Project for a Catholick Union: And that made Doctor Bull speak so Rightfully of it. Whether the Doctor, hath herein broke the Chartel of Honour, and Civility; or deserved such Ʋsage from this English Socinian, I leave to the Palate of the whole English Church, unto whom a Belief of Christ's Deity, which he would have us Reject, is as Necessary to our Future Bliss, as our Laws, Liberties, and Properties are to the Present Peace, and Tranquillity of the Nation.
These few Intimations are sufficient to convince us, that the English Socinians have undertaken the Defence of a bad Cause, and therefore are driven to so many miserable shifts; one while striking in with the Papists, yet otherwile with the Quakers. crying down Learning, Railing at Learned Men, and become more shameful Revilers of their Adversaries than others.
SECT. VI.
Their Boasts of Learned Men on their Sid. Their Claim to the Fathers, in the Opinion of some Foreign Socinians Groundless. Calvin not Displeased with the Term [TRINITY.] Grotius not Socinian allover.
A Suspicion that these Methods may fail of the desired Success, puts 'em on [Page 126]Attempts of a contrary kind: And therefore, in case Learning, and Learned Men keep up their Esteem, they tell us, ‘That the [...]nitarians have a particular Reputation, Exhort. to a Free Enq. p. 3. as most skillful in that, which is the Proper Learning of Divines, The Sacred Criticism, and are talk't of by their Adversaries, as a sort of Subtile, Rational and Discerning Men.’
They lay a Claim to the Anti-Nicene Fathers: and to several Learned Men amongst Modern Writers, who indeed are none of theirs. Whence it is, that the most Lear [...] [...]ians abroad, such as Socinus, Crellius a [...]ittichius averrs, confin'd themselves in their Arguments, to the Holy Scriptures, and Sound Reason.
This Gittichius saw the Fathers to be so much against them, that instead of Appealing unto them, He represents them, as a Company of Ignorant Foolish Scriblers, Epist. Resp. ad Ruar. not more sit to determine Controversies of this Nature than Blind Men are to Judge of Colours. And whereas a very Eminent Person, had offered some Scruples against the Doctrines of Socinus, amongst which one was their being Embraced only by the Thionites, Cerinthians, and Arians, in the first Ages of Christianity: Socinus in his Answer, tells us, that their Doctrines were clearly Revealed in Scripture: That if some men perceiv'd it not, it was their own Fault: That how great soever their Ignorance was, 'twas not in those Points without the Knowledge of which there could be no Salvation. [Page 127]And what was said of Ebion, Cerinthus, and Arius, concern'd not them, Quae hic de Ebione, Cerintho, & Ario dicuntur ad rem non faciunt cum nemo illorum ipsam sententiam nostram Defenderit— Socin. Solut. Scrupul.— for not one of them Defended what they held.
And in his Answer to Vujekus, he is more full; Declaring, that as the Authority of the Fathers could be of no weight when put in the Scales against the Holy Scriptures, so they, lay no claim unto them, no not to those, who were before the Nicene Council. ‘The many Authorities and Testimonies, (saith he) taken out of the Fathers and Councils, are of no Force at all, especially amongst us, who Own that we dissent from them, which are extant: Nor can it be shown, Socin. Resp. ad Vujek. p. 444. that any of our way affirmed the Anti-Nicene Fathers, which are now extant, to be of our Opinion: Altho we are all perswaded, they are no less, if not more against our Adversaries.’
Howbeit, there have been some feeble Efforts put forth towards the Proving that the Fathers are Theirs, but such as have been to their shame, fully Confuted.
They have therefore endeavoured to shelter themselves under the Wings of Calvin, and Luther, as if They had been such Nominal Trinitarians as the Sabellians, and much displeased with the Use of the Term [Trinity.] ‘M. Luther complains the word Trinity sounds odly, Nom. Real Trin. p. 40. it were better to call Almighty God GOD, than Trinity, Postil. major. Dominic. Mr. Calvin is less pleased with these kind of Terms: He says, I like not this Prayer, O Holy, Blessed and Glorious Trinity.] it savours of Barbarity— [Page 128]The Word Trinity is Barbarous, Insipid, Profane, an Human Invention grounded on no Testimony of God's Word. The Popish God, unknown to the Prophets and Aposiles. Admonit. 1. ad Polon.’
What [...]uther is brought in for, is not much to the Purpose, but if our Socinians have truly Represented Calvin, 'tis, I confess, a Quotation driven to the Head. But when upon this account I could not but very carefully examine his Admonition to the Polonians, unto which he Refers us, I can find there no such Thing.
That the English Socinian's Truth and Candour therefore may be the more set in the Light, I will bring to the Reader's View, what it is, Calvin doth say on this Occasion.
In C [...]lvin's Theological Tractates, there is an Answer to the Polenian Brethren, Refuting the Error of Stancarus, who held that Christ was a Mediator, only with Respict to his Human Nature, whereby Christ's Satisfaction, Epist. 1. p. [...]2. and Man's Redemption, are subverted, and as Beza affirms a Door is opened unto the Tritheists, who lead the Way to Arianism, as Arianism brings in the Blasphemies of Samosatenus, [the Grand Idol of Socinus] After this Answer there is a Irief Admonition sent to these Polonians, cautioning them against a closure with I landrata, [...]xct. Theol. Ed. 3. Genec. A. D. 2611. p. 683. &c. in making to themselves Three Gods, by Imagining the Three Persons to be Three Essences. But neither in the Answer, nor [Page 129] Admonition is there a Word in Favour of the English Socinians. There is also an Epistle sent to the Polonian Nobility, and Gentry, and to the Worthy Citizens of Cracow, occasion'd by what Christophorus Trecius, Stanislaus Sarnictus, and Jacobus Sylvius, wrote to Calvin about the Various Arts, and Fraudulent Methods used by Hereticks, to ensnare the People into a Denial of Christ's Divinity, and a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Essence. But nothing in this Epistle to Justify the Charge of our Gentlemen; it being notoriously Manifest, that Calvin was for the use of the Terms [ Trinity, and Persons.]
In his Answer to Blandrata's Question, about the Name [Person] he is Positive, ‘That the use of it is Necessary to Detect the Frauds of them, who craftily endeavour to subvert the Foundations of our Faith. And in his Epistles, Calv. Epist. Edit. 2. A. D. 1576. p. 290. 'tis more fully declared, that the Terms [ Trinity, and Persons] are very Profitable to the Church of Christ, as by which the true Destinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is more clearly discovered, and Vexatious Controversies more Essectually Prevented, for which Reason they were by no means to be laid aside.’
'Tis true Calvin in his Letter to the Polonian Nobility expresses his Dislike of this Prayer, [Sancta Trinitas, Ʋnus Deus miserere nostri] Precatio mihi non placet (says he) & omnino Barbariem sapit. The Prayer, not the word [Trinity] disgusted [Page 130]him. And whereas Stancarus had wrested the Scriptures; affirming, that when 'tis said — There is One God, and One Mediator. [GOD] there signifies the Trinity. That they may know thee the only true [GOD,] that is the Trinity. Whatever ye ask of the Father, that is, of the Trinity: Calvin, in Opposition to these wretched Interpretations of Stancarus, saith, ‘We reject them not only as Insipid but as Prophane.’ But what is this to his saying the Word [Trinity is Barbarous, Insipid, Prophane, the Popish God, &c.? Or what Credit is there to be given to the Reports of an English Socinian?
Amongst many others, Grotius is said by them to be Socinian all over. ‘This Great Man (say they) in his Younger Years attacked the Socinians in a Principal Article of their Doctrine, Hist. S [...]he. Let. 1 p 11. But being Answered by J. Crellius, he not only never Replyed▪ but thanked Crellius, for his Answer, and afterwards writing Annotations on the whole Scriptures, he Interpreted every where according to the Sentiments of the Socinians. There is nothing in all his Annotations, which the more strict followers of Socinus his Doctrine do not approve, and applaud. His Annotations are a Compleat System of Socinianism, not excepting his Notes on the first Chapter of St. John's Gospel, which are written so Artificially and Interwoven with so many different Quotations, that he hath covered himself, and [Page 131]his Sense of that Portion of Scripture from such as do not read him carefully.’
But to clear it, that this Great Man, the Learned Grotius is not theirs: I will offer the following Considerations.
First then, 'tis Manifest from what, Grotius himself hath oft avowed, that altho' he did not Answer Crellius, yet he had not changed his Opinion touching what he had written of Christ's Satisfaction—In a Letter to Reigersbergius, he saith thus: ‘In that I did not make Reply to Crellius, I acted, as I think, very Prudently, and according to the Advice and Desire of the Reformed Pastors in France, who not having that Controversy started amongst them, Praved that I would not by writing a Confutation of Crellius bring it in amongst their People. And in his Letter to Vossius he adds, What need is there of my Repeating what hath been already so fully done? I am not afraid (as he told Reigersberg) of any ones comparing the Texts I produced, together with those Explications and Arguments I urged to defend 'em, with what hath been writ against them: Nor do I in the least doubt, but that an Equal Judge will determine for me. And to Vossius: If Crellius cannot Prove, that it is Ʋnjust, for One, by his own Consent to bear the Punishment due to another, which he will never be able to do, the contrary being Agreeable to the Sentiments of the Wise in every Nation; which, in that very Book Crellius answered, [Page 132]and since the Publishing his Answer, in my Book de Jure Belli & Pacis: [...]it. de Poenarum Commun §. xi. I have fully shown, and design to do it yet more largely in my Annotations Matt. 20.28. from Testimonies out of Hebrew Writers, a Copy of which I have given to Mr. [...]sse, an English Divine, who came over chiefly to make me a Visit; 'twill most certainly follow, that neither Socinus nor Crellius had any Reason to leave the proper sign s [...]ation of the Word [...], the Price of our Redemption, contrary to the most plain and manifest Sense of all Antiquity.’
2. This Great Man doth moreover provoke them to his Verity of Christian Religion, for their Conviction, that he had not [...]har [...]d his Opinion about Christ's Satisf [...]ction. ‘If any, saith he desire to know what my Judgment is about the Points Controverted between Crellius, and my self, since the coming out of his Book, he may see it from what I have written on the fifty third of Isay, [...] in my Disputation with the Jews, and from what I have said in the close of my Book, de Veritate.’
The fifty third of I say he proves to be a Prophecy concerning the Messiah, and gives such a Sense of Heb. 1.3. as is most opposite unto the Doctrine of 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 [Page 133]give you Grotius's own Reply, which is,
3. ‘An Eminent English Divine spake to me of some Letters, Epist. ad Gul. G [...]te. p. 8 [...]. 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. 53 [...]. ‘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, F [...]ct. [...]. Grot. [...] [...]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 [...]ance [...] 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 cover [...]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 [Page 135]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 Ru [...]rus, where he charges Grotius for Writing in such a way, that without putting his Words on the Rack, 'tis 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 [...]o the Orthodox, with no other Design, [Page 137]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.
'Tis 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 Blandrat [...] 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. 25 [...]. [Page 138]subscribe their Confession; and, (say they) we earnestly pray you, diligently and prudently to consider his Case, and impart to us a faithful Account thereof.’ The Ministers and Elders of the Church at Vilna were much mov [...]d at Calvin's writing against him; and therefore, after they had reprov [...]d him, do advise him to reconcile himself unto Blandrata, who was, to their Knowledge, Ubi sup. 258. a most sincere Man, free from the least Suspicion of Errors. For they believed not a word of what Calvin had said to the contrary.
However, Calvin persists in the Opinion he had of Blandrata, and can by no means be taken off from exposing his Heresies and evil Practices; expressing his Trouble to observe him, by his crafty method, to get such an Interest in the favour of so eminent a Person as his Anonymous Friend was. In his Letter to Stanislaus saith he, ‘I cannot but observe, how all men, in a manner, as if they had been under a Fascination, admire Blandrata; 'tis you alone who begin to suspect the Truth of what is said of him: but, that you may obtain a more certain Knowledge of him, I must tell you, that Valentinus Gentilis, whose wild Notions I have confuted, is of the same Faction, and another Blandrata, altho the one will not give place unto the other. If his Frauds, his Ensnaring, and crafty Courses, had not been taken notice of in Poland, it might have been more tolerable; but I am amaz'd to think, [Page 139]that a Man who hath nothing else but Pride and Ostentation to recommend him, should get such a Reputation amongst you, as to be esteemed the Atlas, that bears the Church on his Shoulders.’
In his Answer to Felix Cruciger, and his Collegues, and other faithful Pastors and Ministers in Lesser Poland; ‘There is o [...]e thing I cannot but suggest unto you, (saith he) that they who did with so much Humanity and Respect entertain Blandrata, were not so cauti [...]ns and wary, nor did they consult your Reputation as they should have done; and am more surprized, that some of the Chiefest Rank are greatly offended, because I did, as it became me, discover the Man. I beseech you not to believe that I have hastily taken up any Reports; I have written a Narrative, which will clear the Truth of Matter of Fact.’ And to the Ministers and Elders of the Church at Vilna, ‘Tho you (saith he) have no Suspicion touching Blandrata (his Errors and Practices) yet with me he is clearly convicted, and so he is before this Church. Ye believe not what I say, why then should I believe what you say? You have much time to spare to call Synods about such Tristes. You admire him as if he had been an Angel dropt down from Heaven; but he is, in other Nations, a Man of no Account. A brief History of him I will give you; and lest you should have no regard to what I say, it is attested by the Elders of the [Page 140] Italian Church with us, and by the Renowned Peter Martyr.’
The History they give of him is to this purpose [...] ‘ [...]orge Blandrata, a Physician, demean [...]d himself amongst us for some time very peaceably, and with much Temper, desirous of Instruction; so that we innocently receiv [...]d him into our Number: At length he began to talk as if he designed to call in question the Article of Christ's Divinity, and privately spread this Notion amongst the more ignorant. Then would he weary Calvin with his Enquiries, and seem abundantly satisfy'd with his Answers; but carry'd it so, that at last Calvin discover'd his persidious and deceitful Courses, and his Carriage to be such, as made it necessary for the Senate to deal with h [...]m; where, altho he was convicted of notorious Falshoods against Calvin, yet never blush'd. His intimate Friend and Companion was Johannes Paulus Alciatus, who said, that we worship three Devils, much worse than all the Popish Idols, because we hold Three Persons. There arose a fresh Complaint of the Italian Church against him, for using Clandestine Arts to ensnare the Vulgar to a Closure with his Dotages.’
Thus this Man, a real Enemy to the Fundamental Doctrines of Christian Religion, the great Patron of Socinus and his Partizans, to the end he might the more effectually propagate his Errors, pretends a Zeal for the Truth, joyns himself to the [Page 141]Orthodox, subscribes sound Confessions, gains a Reputation amongst the ch [...]efest of the Orthodox for being sound and sincere.
This deceitful Method of [...]landrata hath been exactly observ'd, as by many of the same Principles abroad, so by the Socinians in our Country; who, notwithstanding the Contradiction there is in the Doctrines by Law established to their Tenents, and the strict Subscriptions required of all that enter into the Ministry, get into the Church, and fix their Communion there.
That they may pave the way for the Consciences of others, their Attempts are, to make the Subscription to the Th [...]rty-nine Articles, to signify nothing. The Belief of the Athanasian Creed not requi [...]ed by the Ch [...]ef Eng. p. 2. ‘Those Thirty-nine Articles (say they) are not Articles of Faith, but Peace: As several of her most learned Bishops have declared; and, in a word, the Title of the Articles says as much, and the Preface before them.’ And yet in the Title, 'tis declared, that these Articles were agreed upon, for the avoiding Diversities of Opinion, and for the Establishing of Consent, touching true Religion. And in the Preface 'tis declared, That the Articles do Contain the True Doctrine of the Church of England, agreeable to Gods word: And the Charge his Majesty gives is, ‘That no Man shall either Print or Preach to draw the Article aside, any way; but shall submit to it, in the Plain, and full meaning thereof; And shall not put his own sense or Comment, to be the Meaning of the [Page 142]Article, but shall take it in the Literal or Grammatical Sense.’ So that whatever any Bishops have declared, The Import of the Title and Preface is, That the Subscribers Agree in Believing the Doctrines contained in the Articles to be True; that the Articles taken in the Literal and Grammatical Sense, are agreeable to God's word.
How can a Socinian then subscribe the first Article, where 'tis said; ‘There is but One Living and True God, and in Unity of this Godhead, there be Three Persons, of one Substance, Power and Eternity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost:’ Doth this Article contain in it the Truth? If it doth, the Socinian Principle is False? If it doth not, they subscribe to a Lye. And tho' the Church did not Require the Belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as del [...]vered in the Athanasian Creed, as Necessary to Salvation; Yet, seeing it Requires the Belief of this Doctrine as True, they who deny this Doctrine, can't, without being gu [...]lty of grossest Hypocrisy, subscribe it. But what can't a designing English Socinian do?
Thus, you see, that tho' the Thirty-nine Articles are as expressly against the Dogmata of our [...]nglish Socinians, as words can make them yet can they not keep an English Socinian out of the Church. And having broken their Subscriptions, they go on to tell us, Trinitar. Scheme Consid. p. 28 ‘That they Place not Religion in Worshipping God by themselves or after a Particular Form or Manner, but in a [Page 143]Right Faith, and a just and charitable Conversation: We Approve of known Forms, say they, of Praising and Praying to God, as also in Administring Baptism, the Lords Supper Marriage, and the other Religious Offices: We like well of the Discipline of the Church by Bishops, and Parochial Ministers. We have an Esteem for the Eminent Learning and Exemplary Piety of the Conforming Clergy. For these Reasons, we Communicate with that Church as far as we can, and Contribute our Intrest to Favour her against all Others, who would take the Chair. We would not therefore, be Understood to be Enemies to the Church, nor as seeking to undermine her.’
And that they may hold Communion with the Church in her Sacraments, they have framed such an Idea of 'em, as makes it easy, for Men of their Opinions, to joyn in the Sacraments, not only with the Church of England, but with Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptist, Lutheran, or Papist. They do not look on the Sacraments as Ordinances of the Gospel, to which they must go, that they may Partake of Spiritual Blessings: In their Opinion, the Person that Receives Baptism, is only to Resolve and Purpose Renovation and Newness of Life. Trinitar. Scheme Consid p. 26 ‘He doth (say they) thereby Profess he will purge his Mind and Conscience, and his whole Conversation from Impurity and Wickedness.’ And concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, [Page 144] ‘They commemorate, and represent the shedding the Lord's Blood, and breaking h [...]s Body for Mankind. But for the miraculous Effects and Consequences ascribed to the right partaking of this Sacrament, Ʋnitarians can find them no where but in the Books and Sermons of the Superstitious Admirers (I might have said Idolaters,) of External Things.’
If they had been perswaded that the Sacraments were Ordinances design'd of God for the conveying of spiritual Blessings to such as do aright partake of them, then they could nor be Protestants and yet communicate in the Sacrament with Papists, because their way of Administration is not right. But, now, to serve a Turn, they can take the Sacrament according to the Church of England; or, to promote their Cause, go to Mass.
They are so well pleased with this Piece of Jesuitism; they do, it's like, find it so advantageous for the propagating their Notions, that they can [...]t forbear an exposing the opposite Truth held by Protestants as most vile and rid [...]culous. Trinitar. Scheme Consid. p. 24 ‘The Sacraments, accord [...]ng to the Sense of the Orthodox, are a sort of Means which works on our Minds, as Spells, Charms, and Incantations. (and such l [...]ke) obtain their pretended Effects by a preternatural Power, extraordinarily given to them by God or by those Spirits who preside over such Af [...]s. [...]et a Man in Black sprinkle you w [...]th some of the Churches Water, or [Page 145]give you a bit of Bread, or sup of Wine, over which he hath pronounced the wonder-working Words prescribed in Mother Churches Ritual, tho by Nature you are as bad as the Devil, you shall presently be inclin'd to as much Good as will save you from Hell, and qualify you for Heaven: And this no less certainly if you are one of the Elect; for else the Churches Incantation produces only a momentary Effect, and a false Appearance of Good: no less certainly I say, than by tying the Norman Knot you may gain the Love of the Person you desire; or by other Devices recorded in the learned Books (so Fools esteem them) of Magick, you may cause Hatred, raise Winds, and do a thousand other Feats, which have no more natural or real Agreement with those Causes that are said to produce 'em, than Faith and Obedience have with a bit of Bread, or with a sprinkling of Water. Therefore when St. Augustine defin'd a Sacrament to be the outward visible Sign of an inward invisible Grace or Energy, the good Father should have considered that this is the Definition of a Charm, not of a Gospel Sacrament: for a Charm is a bare outward visible Sign, that has no natural or real Agreement with the Effect; and if the Effect prove for the Good of the Person concerned, it may be called the inward invisible Grace of such Sign or Charm: As when the Effect is to beget Love, or such like. But if the Effect of [Page 146]the Charm be hurtful, as to kill, or such like, then it must be called the Energy, not the Grace of the Charm: as that damning Power or Quality which our Opposers impute to the Sacrament of the Supper when not receiv [...]d aright, cannot be called the Grace of that Sacrament, but only the Energy. So that let them turn themselves which way soever they can, they have turn [...]d the Gospel-Sacraments, as I have said before, into Charms and Spells.’
Th [...]se are the Evincements of English Socinian Modesty, whose D [...]sign of bringing the blessed Sacraments into the greatest Contempt, is manifest▪ But what I chiefly urge it for▪ is, that hereby they prepare the M [...]nds of their Followers to prostitute their Consciences to a Compliance with any Religion to the end they may promote their own (if it may be called a) Religion. For when on [...]e they have debauch [...]d their Consciences so throughly, that they can take the Sacrament any way without Remorse, as their Notion of it leads Men to do, then may the more learned of their Party profess themselves to be either Papisis or Lutherans, Calvinists or Remonstrants, and carry on the Socinian Design either by a clandestine Ins [...]t [...]asion of their Errors, as Blandrata and sundry others of them have done; or, in the [...]r Opposition to Socinus, pitch on such Topicks as weaken the Truth; which is done by them who assert the Persons in the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Essences; [Page 147]or, represent the Socinian Error to be less dangerous than really it is, and the Socinians themselves to be Men of greater Learning and Probity than most of them are. Such Methods as these have been taken by Przipcovius, Daniel Zuickerus, Forstius, Episcopius, Curcellaeus, and many others; and not altogether without Success. However, I must and do acknowledge, Johannes Niemojevius, a Polonian Knight, and once a Judge, tho a Socinian, yet generously opposed Georgius Schomannus, who pleaded for this very Principle, about the Ʋse and End of the Lord's Supper. He freely declared, That in this Point, he differed as much from Socinus as the Heavens are distant from the Earth. Vid. Secin. Oper. tom. 1. p. 756. And in Defence of what he wrote against the Theses of Emanuel Vega, he expressed the religious sense of his Soul, by that Grief he conceived on the spreading of this pernicious Error amongst them. ‘Do we not read (saith he) that Faith comes by Hearing, which is confirm'd and increas'd in pious Minds by the same means? And shall we ascribe less to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper than to Hearing of the Word? Socinus may perhaps do so; but I suppose no 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 [Page 148]much did it grief me, to see such Hurtful Op [...]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. 15 [...]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 [Page 150] 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, mention [...]d by Sandius, Narrat. Comp [...]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 t [...]e Papists is no way improbable; especially, if we consider how at Lyons the Papists d [...]sch [...]rged Valentinus Gentilis so soon as they und [...]rstood his Design was to oppose Calvin, and how safely Servetus, Lubie [...]. Hist [...]r. P [...]s [...], Po [...]o [...]. l. 2. c. 5. p. 1 [...]. &c. notwithstanding his Blasphemies, lived amongst them
The Principle wh [...]ch at first they advanced, as what was most l [...]kely to bring the Doctrine of the Trinity into [...]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, Lubi [...]n [...]bi sup. p. [...]. highly applauded for his Diligence in Consulting the [...]lcoran of Mahomet, out of which he extracted the Opinions he held about the Trini [...]y, having by his Sufferings gotten a Reputation, it became the Province of Valentinus Gentitis, and Alciatus, a [...]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, 'twas 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. Ca [...]e T [...]. Th [...]. p [...]. 6 [...]0, 6 [...]. ‘The Father is that one [Page 152]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 Essent [...]tor, that is, the [...]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 p [...]st Christum man [...]e [...]atum, in ties Essentias Divisus, maneat tamen Un [...] Deus: [...]ia haec Dispens [...] [...]io nihil [...]o mutat. Trac [...]. Theo [...]. 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 giv [...] Servetus his Sense, Hist [...] for. Poton. l. 2. c. 5. p. 9 [...] &c. out of a Discourse he delivered some time before his Execution [...] published by Lubieni [...]scius, from the Auto [...]raph; In which he having opposed the Opinion of them who affirm Three substantial Persons to be j [...] God, by Nature equal to one another, which he looks upon to be Blasphemy, and an execrable Impiety, [Page 153]he freely gives us his own Sentiments, to this effect.
- 1. That the Name [God] is Appellative, signifying one to whom all Power, Dominion, and Superiority doth properly belong, who is above all, the chief of all, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, from whom all things are, and on whom they depend. The Name [God] taken less properly, may be applied to such Creatures as have Power and Superierity given them of God, as Moses and Cyrus had, &c. who were Gods not by Nature but Grace. —
- 2. That the Lord Jesus Christ is called the True Son of God; and God, because he received his Deity from God the Father, is True God of True God: God of all Creatures; not God of the Father, who subjects all things to him. — Moreover, the Father himself, who alone is by Nature God, from himself, is Lord and God of the Son, as the Son himself expresseth it, John 14.28
The 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 [...]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 [Page 155]would substitute instead of a Trinity of Persons in the God head: only, they generally pleaded for the Preheminence and Superiority of the Father [...]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. Antitri [...]. p. 41. as Sandius observes, was the first that oppugned the Doctrine of the Trinity in Poland, and as Wisso [...]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 Sim [...]er, Hist. Ref. Pol. l. 2. c. 6. p. 111. 116 Lubieniescius tells us, That as in Transi [...] vania, Franciscus Davidis was Servetus Illustratus, so Gonesius was in Po [...]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, [Page 156]affirming, ‘That the Word [God] in Scripture signified Trinity; that when 'twas said, There is one God, the Meaning is, there is Ʋnus 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 occasion [...]d Great Distractions amongst the reformed in Poland, as appears from what some of [...]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 Pas [...]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) Bl [...]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 sa [...]ed on the Doctrine embraced by the Orthodo [...], as what did naturally flow from Christs being Mediator, as God-Man; and a Table was soon published, Ta [...] [...]am nus [...] Po [...] Edi [...]am, quae Christum & Spiritum Sanctum alios a Patre Deo facit, no [...] sine moerore inspexi. Calv. Tract. Theol. p. 683. in which they [Page 157]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 with Socinianism.
Plures Deos, si non ve. bo, Re ta [...]en ipsa prof [...]tentes, Epist. 19. p. 129. Vid. Epist. 81. p. 361, &c.That their first Effort against the Trinity was a setting up of Tritheism; not avowedly, but Clandestinely, is Affirmed by Beza. ‘In the beginning, (saith he) they were, for the most part, Tritheists, transforming the Three Persons into so many Essences;’ Then did they Appropriate the Appellation of the One True God unto the Father, to whom they also ascribed an Hyperoche, a Preheminence, or Superiority above the Son. This was the Principle, which at first they advanced, as most likely to bring the Blessed Trinity of Persons in one undivided Essence, into contempt. Against which, Calvin, Zanchy, and the Reformed, did set themselves, as against a most Pernicious, and Hurtful Heresie, as undoubtedly it is; For, it being affirm'd, that every Person hath a Peculiar Substance of his Own, there must be as many Substances or Essences, as there are Persons, which being of the same Nature, must be as many Gods as they are Persons; which is Tritheism. Three Distinct Infinite substances, or Three Eternal Spirits, cannot be less than Three Gods.
But▪ tho' its affirmed
- (1) ‘That it is gross Sabellianism to say, That there are not Three Personal Mands or Spirits, or Substances.’
- (2) ‘That a distinct Substantial Person, must have a distinct substance of his own; Proper and Peculiar to his own Person; yet if it be owned, that there are not Three Gods, but One God, or One Divinity which is intirely and Inseparably [Page 159]in Three distinct Persons, or Minds; it cannot be Heresie:’ As a very Learned Person avers, because in this case (saith he) the Fundamental Article is Believed, and the Error is only a Mistake in the Explication.
However, the Doctrine of Three. Distinct Substances hath been, not only Learnedly as well as sharply charged with Tritheism; but Condemned for being Impious and Heretical. I will therefore, it lying so much in my way, venture, humbly to Offer what inclines me to Conclude, that this turning the Three Persons into Three Essences is Heretical. For tho I am far from Hereticating every one that differs from me in Matters of Moment; or from making every Erroneous Explication of a Fundamental Article to be Heresie; yet I am perswaded, that the Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one undivided Essence is of such a Nature; that many, in their explicating it, have fall'n into divers Heresies; and that thus it is in the Present Case.
The Doctrine condemned for Heretical is a makeing the Persons in the Blessed Trinity to be Three Dictinct Substances, or Individual Natures; which is as Direct a Contradicton to the One Intire, and Indivisible Nature of God, as can be. Three Individual Essences are as much Opposed to one Individual Essence, as Three Persons are to one Person; and Three Persons may be as well One Person, as three Individual Essences be one Individual Essence.
The Author therefore of this Notion cannot, in Reason, be supposed to Believe these Contradictory Propositions to be both true: and being so vehement in his Asserting Three Individual Natures as to make the Denial thereof to be Heresie and Nonsence, we must be so Civil to him, as to suppose, that he doth not Believe the Essence of God to be one Intire Indivisible Essence; which I do the more readily suppose, because it's so Common for Tritheists to do so.
It is owned, ‘That Photius grants that Conon, and his Followers, held a Consubstantial Trinity, and the Unity of the God-head; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 24. and so far were Orthodox; but then adds, they were far from it, when they Asserted Proper and Peculiar Substances to Each Person.’
I have not that Bibliotheke by me, but Suicerus, in his Account of the Tritheists, saith, they held Three Substances and Natures in all things alike, and yet would by no means own Three Divinities or Three Gods; and refers to the Bibliotheca Photij, where it's thus; ‘These men [vid. Severus and Theodosius▪] spake many things excellently well; Cod. 24. p 16. as, that there was a Consubstantial Trinity, of the same Nature; and but one God, one Divinity; [...], &c. But they Blasphemed, when they said, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, had their Proper Natures and Divinities, or Particular Substances, and so contradicted themselves as well as the Truth, &c.’ So that [Page 161]their asserting the Consubstantiality of the Trinity, and it's being of the same Nature, could not secure their making the Three Persons three Distinct Substances, from being Blasphemy.
But what I mostly Press, is this Consideration; that if the contradictory Affirmation of three Individual Essences being but one Individual Essence, will clear the Notion from being Heresie, then Valentinus Gentilis, Lismaninus, Blandrata, and the many other Propagators of the Socinian Abominations, must be also for the same reason cleared from Heresie.
I will begin with Gentilis, who held, Lubien. Histor. Ref. l. 2. c. 5. p. 107. that there were three distinct Eternal Spirits or Minds in the Trinity; that the Son was Begotten from Eternity [Ante Saecula in Latitudine Aeternitatis,] Thus much Lubieniescius: And Gentilis himself, in his Epistle to the Ministers at Geneva, was Positive, ‘that the Father only is true God, and the Son also true God; Tract. Theol. p. 660, 661. and yet not Two but One and the same God, because Christ hath one and the same Essence with the Father, and therefore (saith he) I am neither Arian nor Servetian, Lismaninus, and Blandrata held the same for Substance with Gentilis.’ To clear thus much, I must Observe what Lubieniescius reports of Laelius Socinus, who was one of the forty Italian Combinators; It is to this Effect. ‘ Laelius Socinus (saith he) travelled first into Helvetia, then into Italy, Britain, and Germany; and about the year 1551. [Page 162]he got into Poland; from whence, after he had instill'd his Errors into the Hearts of Lismaninus, and many others, he went into Moravia, and then returned to Helvetia.’ That in Moravia, Paruta, Gentilis, Darius, and Alciatus, of the same Combination with Laelius, did their Part to spread their Notions, sending into Poland their Theses about the Trinity, and doubtful Phrases in the Holy Scriptures.
There were near twenty Theses about the Trinity, Ubi sup. l. 3. c. 1. which they did put into the hands of their Friend Prosper Provana, who committed them to the Care of Budzinius. He no sooner Read 'em, but gave them unto Johannes Pustelnecius from whom Stanislaus Lutomirskius got a Copy, which being communicated to sundry others, the Controversie about the Trinity had there its Rise; some firmly adhering to the Faith, received from the Lord Christ and his Apostles; others, ensnared by the Objections raised against it by the Italian Combinators, vehemently opposed the Truth: not that they did it openly, but (as our Vindicated Author) displeased with the Old, offered their New Explications, in the very same manner He hath done. Amongst others, 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 [Page 163]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 [Page 164]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, [Page 165]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 Ʋnoriginated, Ʋncaused, 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 Ʋnitarians.
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 [Page 166]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 a [...]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 [Page 167]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 look [...]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 Ghost [...]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 Ʋnoriginated, and from it self; yet so was 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 [Page 168]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 'tis 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 Inequal [...]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, [...]p [...]st. 81. p. 364, [...]. to perswade Gregorius Pauli, a Tritheist, to close with the Opinions of Samosatenus, and from what Petrus Statorius, a Companion [Page 169]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, [...]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, [Page 170]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, 'twas acceptable to all, but Question'd by him, whether the Relief, that the Father was one Ʋnbegotten, 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 Regenvols [...]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, Lul [...]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 [Page 171]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 [Page 172]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 Ʋnitarianism, 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 of Three Infinite Minds, or Spirits, are justly suspected: Especially since it is in a case where Solemn Protestations, Sacred Subscriptions, and Oaths, have been used only as a Blind to delude the Orthodox. Respond. ad Comp. Mat. Sladi. Seg. 104.
Conradus Vorstius made many a Protestation of his Orthodoxy in this very Point, expressly declaring, that he was neither Arian nor Socinian. ‘I can (saith he) with a good Conscience solemnly Testify, and Declare, as in Presence of God and Men, that I have not design'd the promoting either Socinianism or Arianism, &c.’ And in his Preface to this answer he sets down a Confession of his Faith; and in the close of what he had said of the Trinity he Declares, ‘That the Faith of the Holy [Page 173]Trinity, of the Person and Office of our Lord Jesus Christ, he will by the Grace of God Constantly and Religiously adhere unto, for which reason (he adds) I cannot, without manifest Injury, be condemned for holding either the Arian, Samosatenian, or any other such Heresie.’
Howbeit he is Positive, ‘That the Three Persons are Three distinct Real Entia, or Beings, and that it is a Contradiction, that any thing should truly Exist that had not its Proper Essence. It is therefore manifest, (saith he) that in the Trinity there are distinct Things; That no one can deny thus much, unless he doth with Praxea and Sabellius hold only Three Names, or Respects and Offices, &c. (as we observed.) Every Being hath a certain peculiar Essence; and it undoubtedly follows that each Person hath a Certain Proper Essence of his own:’ Vorst. Apol. Exeg. c. 9. p. 37, 38. Vorst. de Deo vid. Not. ad disput. 3. p. 208, 220, 221. So Vorstius, who nevertheless expressly asserts, that the Substance of God, is but one Numerical or Individual Substance; That he is so one, as to be an Individual, that cannot be Divided either into Species or Parts.
This was Vorstius his Notion; which, notwithstanding his Solemn Protestations of adhering unto the Orthodox Faith, he did his uttermost to propagate; he himself, as I have already proved, in the 70th. Page of this Discourse, Living, and Dying an Antitrinitarian. And as it was thus with him so it may be now with others: They may Profess to Believe one Divinity, which is [Page 174]Intirely and Inseparably in Three distinct Persons or Minds, and hold these Three Persons to be Three distinst Essences with a design to introduce Socinianism. For, from what I have said it's clear, that the Italian Consult. Professed to Believe there was but One God, and Pitched on the Doctrine of Three distinct Essences, that from thence they might introduce an Inequality of Essences, assign a Preheminence and Superiority to the Essence of the Father, and make the Son but a Subordinate God; which is the Point the Socinians would be at.
These are some of the Methods which the Foreign Socinians have taken to expose the Trinity and Propagate their Heresies; and whoever will consult the Writings of our English Gentlemen, who are their Offspring, will see, that there are a Set of Men amongst us, who have, in Imitation of the Italian Hereticks, entered into a Combination to bring into contempt the same Blessed Truths, after the same manner their Predecessors have done.
SECT. IX.
The Socinian Trinity proposed: Their Explications of it mysterious. They affirm the Holy Ghost to be Eternal, and yet not God, nor a Creature. That Jesus Christ is but a Creature, and yet God. That the Father is the most High God, but not Infinite, Immense, or Omniscient.
BY what hath been hitherto asserted of the English Socinians, it is apparent, that whatever their Religion is, they are not prepar'd, as yet, for that Concord, as to be able to Compose, and Publish an Exact Scheme of it; but do they bend their Strength rather to tear up old Foundations, covering themselves in such a manner under Generals, that it's Impossible to sind out what they would in Particular be at. And, that they may strew the way for the most easy making Proselytes, they apply themselves to such Methods, as I have in the foregoing Sections observed: And whereas the different Explications given of the Trinity by some Orthodox Divines, are made by them the Matter of so much Triumph, I will, as an agr [...] able Return, shew how Mysterious the [...] selves are in Explaining their Trinity.
It must be acknowledged, that about the Year 1562. these Hereticks did their uttermost to engage the Ministers to abstain from Philosophical Terms, or Humane Forms of Speech. Epit. Hist. And, as Stoinius observes, it was this Year concluded in a Synod at Pinczow, ‘that the Ministers do not use any Philosophical Modes of Speech about the Trinity, Essence, Generation, or Mode of Proceeding; but that every one should Confine himself to the Terms used in the Writings of the Prophets, and Apostles; and in the Apostles Creed. But notwithstanding this Decree Sarnicius contended earnesty against Gregorius Pauli, for their use;’ on which occasion, Stanislaus Szafranicius did, in a Synod met the same Year at Rogow, labour to compose the Differences between them, but in vain; only 'twas then Decreed, that they should tolerate one another, and abstain from such Forms as are unscriptural.
But, Hist. Ref. Pol. l. 3. c. 1. p. 167. saith Lubieniescius, in June the Year following viz, 1563. another Synod met, which wrote unto Prince Radzivil, ‘That altho they could not because of some weak Brethren, wholly suppress the use of the Word Trinity; yet they had in a great measure purged it from the present Abuse.’ And in the Year 1567 it was Decreed, That the Trinity is to be Piously, and Religiously Retain'd on this Condition, that Brotherly love, according to the Rule given, by the Son of God be observ'd, each one bearing with the Infirmities of one another, &c.
The Orthodox adhered so firmly to the use of those Terms (as what did most clearly express the Truth and Distinguish it from Error,) that the Socinian Party judg'd it convenient to continue the use of these Terms, and therefore had their Trinity too: tho they opposed a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead; yet they still professed to believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Andreas Dudicius, in an Epistle to Beza, sets before him a Confession of the Socinian Faith, and the Athanasian Creed, with his reasonings on the one, and the other: Their Confession is very short in these Words. ‘We believe in one only True God; The Creator of Heaven and Earth, Socini Oper. Tom. 1. p. 529. and of all things in them, or elsewhere, Gen. 1.24. Ex. 20. Deut. 4.6.27.32. — see the Refutation of Johannes Sommerus, Lib. 1. cap. 4. We believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things — Cor. 8. &c. vid. ibid. We believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God the Father and Son, Mat. 3.10. Luc. 4. Rom. 8. — That he proceeds from the Father, Joh. 15. That he is given to them, who believe, by the Son, 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, [Page 178]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 Ʋnited; 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 Ʋnitarian 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 [Page 180]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. ‘Tis 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 'twill 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 [Page 181]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 solv [...]d o [...] 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 [Page 182]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 Deity: A God without a Deity is a false God because he wants Infinite Perfection; a true God then hath Infinite Perfections, and therefore must be the most High God, except there are Perfections more High than what are Infinite.
But thus much they Deny, tho' Christ be a true God, yet he is not the Most High God. He is but a Subordinate God in his Essence. This then is their Notion, Christ is a True Subordinate God, i. e. A True God whose Perfections are Infinite; a Subordinate God in his Essence whose Perfections can be but Finite, and therefore can be no God at all▪ Again,
2. Christ is, they say, God, on the Father's giving him Absolute Dominion over all things, with a Power, and Knowledge, whereby he knoweth the Distresses of all, and is able to Relieve the Distressed; But, seeing Nothing, short of Omniscience, and Omnipotence, can know, and Relieve, and these together with absolute Dominion, are Essential Properties of the Most High God, How comes it to pass, that Christ is not the most High God? Here are the Essential Properties of such a God, and yet no such God.
These are some of their Mysteries. The Holy Ghost is an Eternal Omnipotent. Increate Being, but not God. He is neither a Creator, nor a Creature, but an Omnipotent Somewhat, different from Both: Increate or Unoriginated Omnipotence is not sufficient to evince the Eternal Spirit to be God; but a Derived Omnipotence is enough to make a Creature to be a True God. Unoriginated Omnipotence is not Reason enough for the adoring the Eternal Spirit; but Derived Omnipotence is a good Ground for Rendring Divine Worship to a Creature. These Gentlemen, you see, are the Grand Transubstantiators; for they can Transubstantiate a Creature into a True God, and still remain a Creature, they can Transfer the Essential Properties from one being to another; and each Being remain the same it was before the Translation; They can Order and Dispose of the Divine Properties in such a Way, that they shall be insufficient to Denominate [Page 184]him a True God, in whom they were from all Eternity, and yet be Powerful enough to make him, in whom they were not two Thousand Years ago, to be a True God. Whether these are Real Mysteries, or Real Contradictions, let the Prudent judge.
I will not treat these Over-Wise Men with that Scurrilous Language they do the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity; But without Exaggeration I will proceed to Examine what they say of God the Father.
III. That God the Father is only the most High God, is their Assertion; of whom they have nevertheless form'd such an Idea as fails of Infinite Perfections. So that if we pursue their Notion of a Deity to its utmost Length, we must at last sit down amongst the Atheists.
For the clearing this, I do in Concurrence with the Common sentiments of Mankind, averr, that what Being soever is destitute of an Infinite Perfection is not, cannot be God. The Essential Properties belong to the Divine Nature, including Infinite Perfection; that being which is destitute thereof, wants what is Essential to God, and cannot be the True God.
If then the Socinians deny any one Infinite Perfection to belong to their God, it must be acknowledged, that he wants what is essential unto God, and is not God. And that they Deny thus much, is Evident, from the Notion they frame of his Eternity, and their Rejecting his Immensity and Omniscience.
I might begin with what they say of God's Eternity, but I will only observe what the English Socinian saith of my Lord of Worcester's arguing from God [...]s Eternity, to prove Somewhat in the Attributes of God incomprehensible, who instancing in Eternity, saith, ‘ If God was from Eternity he must be from himself.’ In their Answer they tell us, ‘To say a Person, Ans. to the Bp. Worces. Serm. p. 5. or Thing was from it self, is a Contradiction. It implies this Contradiction, It was before it was,’ Thus our English Socinian; who adds, ‘I am sorry an Eternal God must be a Contradiction, had he no way to Defend the New Mysteries, but by Espousing the Cause of Atheists?’
In Return to this Gentleman, passing by what his Lordship hath said in his Consu [...]ation of him, I will only observe, how he doth at once expose himself, and his Leaders, such as Socinus, Crellius, &c. who speaking of what is the Essence of God, say it is from it self.
Socinus, in his Institution of the Christian Religion, answering the Question, Tom. 1. p. 651. ‘ What ought we to know of the Nature, and Essence of God? saith, These two Things chiefly, That he is, and that [...]e is only One.’ Quest. What is it to know, ‘ That He is?’ Ans. ‘ It is to know, that he hath from himself a Divine Fu [...]pi [...] o [...]r us.’ Besides, He tells us, that Eternity [...] necessarily included in God's having Divine Dominion over us from Himself, and so is his Justice, Wisdom, and Power. A little [Page 186]after this, he further saith, That when it's said God is One; The meaning is, There is but one who hath Dominion over us from himself. t [...]i. Sup. p. 681. In like manner the Tenth Argument Crellius presseth to prove, that the Father of Jesus Christ is the only Supreme God, is this, That his Nature and whatever else is proper to the Supreme God, he receiv'd from Himself.
On this Notion of God it is, that they build the whole of their Religion, and on which they insist, to the End they may the more effectually enervate our Arguments for Christ's being God tho' from the Father. But as Socinus, Crellius, &c. fail of their Design, in that when t [...]s said▪ God is from Himself, it must be meant of God, taken Essentially, not Personally; so, this Gentleman makes the whole of the Socinian Religion to be founded on a Chimera or Contradiction. For, if the Nature of God, his Dominion, Eternity, Justice, Wisdom, and Power, be from Himself, he must be before he had Dominion, Justice, &c. What then was He? He was, before he was; or as the English Socinian phrases it, He must be a Contradiction. But as I said, waving the Consideration of this Contradiction, and their Notion of Eternity, which they make to be a sort of Time, where are the successive Parts of Past, Present, and to Come, which cannot be without a First, Second, and a Third, and yet must be without 'em, or Eternity must have it's Beginning. I will urge against them their denying Immensity and Omniscience to belong to God.
First then, they deny God's Immensity, and Circumscribe his Essence within the Heavens, acknowledging him to be no otherwise every where Present, than as he is by his Power, Providence, and Works.
Socinus assureth us, Soci. Frag. Catec. Tom. 1. p. 685. he could see no Reason to conclude God's Essence to be Immense, because his Power was so; expresly declaring, That the Divine Essence is not Infinite. Crellius, and Smalcius hold the same. Resp. ad. [...]ranc. Dav. Tom. 2. p. 735. But if Gods Essence be not Infinite, tis only Finite; if but Finite, how can his Power be Infinite? can, a Finite Essence be the subject of an Infinite Perfection? Or can a Finite Being be from it self? or be self-Originated? Or can any one Finite Essence be so Great, that another cannot be as Great? After this manner we may have Twenty or Thirty Thousand Gods as well as One. But a Million of these put together, cannot make One Infinite God. Thus by denying the Divine Essence to be Infinite, they Oppose God's Immensity, and do their Part to give up the Cause to the Atheist.
Secondly, They deny also God's Omniscience, which necessarily follows from the other; it being impossible for the Knowledge of a Finite Being to be Infinite.
After Socinus had discoursed very largely of Divine Prescience, he Ushers in his Conclusion thus, ‘Seeing therefore there is no Reason, Praeb [...]c. Theol. c. 11. P. 549. nor One Text of Scripture from which it can be clearly inferr [...]d, that God knoweth all things, which [...]re done before they come to pass. We must [Page 188] Conclude, that we may in no wise Assert his Divine Prescience: especially, considering there are Reasons not a few, as well as sundry Testimonies in Holy Writ, from whence it plainly appears that we ought to deny it.’ Smalcius and Crellius say the same. And Episcopius himself would have fall'n in with 'em, had it not been, that all Prophecies must then have been destroyed From this Notion of theirs, in the first place, Revealed Religion receives a Wound; for if God doth not know Future Contingents, how can he Foretell them? And if he can't Foretell them, of what Use is the Prophetiacal Part of the Holy Scriptures? And if they must be rejected, as useless, will not the Deists be Abundantly Gratified? Or, if it be yielded that God doth not foreknow Future Contingents, 'twill necessarily follow, that his Knowledge is not Infinite, and he can't be God.
These few, amongst many Instances, may suffice, to Convince us, that the Socinians, whatever their Boasts are, have no Reason for the exposing the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as they have done; nor for their Railing at Gospel-Mysteries, as if they had been full of Monstrous Contradictions. For you see, that they have their Trinity too, a Trinity throughout Mysterious; for, as they make the Holy Ghost an Increate Omnipotent Spirit, but not God, and Jesus Christ to be but a Creature, and yet a God, a True, tho' but a Subordinate God; so God the Father, the most High God, is left [Page 189]by them destitute of Infinite Perfections. His Essence is but Finite, and therefore without a Contradiction cannot be infinitely Perfect.
Their Trinity you see is a most Mysterious one, and their Ʋnitarianism lyeth in the Belief of Two distinct Gods, a Greater and a Lesser, to wit the Father and his Son Jesus Christ; which issues in the Denyal of an Infinite God. For which Reason, amongst others, Mr. Edwards hath very justly charged their Principles, for being Atheistical, as Bisterfield accuses them for their Tendency unto Paganism, Adversari is merito exprobramus, quod unum verum Deum agnoscere nolunt, Duos Deos in Ecclesiam introducant, ficque si id omne crede [...]dum esset, quod ex ipsorum Opinione necessario sequitur, Paganismum revocent, ac stabiliant, ipsomet Paganismi non accusamus: speramus enim, quod non videant absurdissima hac dogmata ex ipsorum Doctrina necessaria sequi, &c. Bisterfield contra Crel. de Uno Deo, Lib. 1. sect. 2. cap. 18. whilst He is so Charitable as to hope they see it not.
Much more might be said of our Socinians, but being Apprehensive that what I have Remark'd is sufficient to move such as are ensnared by their Crafty and Deceitful Guides, to consider how much they are Concern'd to take heed to themselves. I will at this time forbear.
SECT. X.
The Agreement between the English Socinians, and the Mahometans Detected. They both Believe Jesus the Son of Mary to be the Messiah. Sundry other Instances, wherein they are Agreed. They both Deny Christ's Divinity, and the giving to him Divine Adoration. The Impostor Mahomet a Lascivious Wretch, who Propagated his Religion by Force of Arms.
THe Good Opinion our English Socinians have of the Turkish Religion; whose Embracers, they place in a nearer Proximity to Salvation than Orthodox Christians, moved me to Enquire, whether they had, according to their own Principles, any Reason for the [...]r Charity towards a People, whose Religion is as full of Blasphemy, as their Souls are of Rancour against us Christians: And after the most Free and Impartial Disquisition, it appeared unto me, that the Principles which themselves Affirm to be most Important, are so very much the same, That our Socinians may be justly styled English Turks, and the Turks English So [...]inianized Christians.
I do not say, That every English Socinian doth understand the Principal Articles of [Page 191]his own, or of the Mahometan, Religion; much less, that they Design to Introduce Mahometanism. There are, I am Confident, many amongst us, who Love the Socinians, but know very little of their Socinianism. They are startled at the Noise raised against the Orthodox, their Systematical Niceties, and Obscurities, their Mysteries, and Contradictions, and the like; but hereby they are more set against the Truth. than disposed to close with their Errors; and are so far from taking in the whole of their new Scheme; that, did they but see what it is, and what are its Tendencies, they would Abhor it.
For the sake of these, I will shew what Arts are used by their Leaders, in the Representations they make of the Mahometans, which they must be esteemed to do either with a Design to give such an Advantage to the Papists against Protestants now, as the Socinians gave heretofore unto Reynolds and Gifford, to write their Calvino-Turcismus; or, to bring in the Turkish Religion amongst us; or, rather, knowing how False the Popish, and how Ridiculous as well as Blasphemous the Mahometan Religion is, to take the People off from all Religion, that they may the more easily take up with Deism, or Atheism.
Thus one, speaks (as I have already noted,) so Honourably of Mahomet, and so much of the Future Happiness of the Mahometans; and another, whom I cannot but Respect for his learning, hath, in his Reasonableness [Page 192]of Christianity, reduced the Vital Principles of our Holy Religion to what is receiv'd into the Alcoran. ‘This was, saith the Author of this Discourse, the Great Proposition that was controverted concerning Jesus of Nazareth, Reason ab. of Christi. p. 26. &c. whether He was the Messiah or no? And the Assent to that was that which distinguished Believers from Unbelievers. — That this is the sole Doctrine, Pressed, and Required to be Believ'd in the whole Terour of our Saviours, and his Apostles Preaching we have shewed through the whole History of the Evangelists, and the Acts. And, I Challenge them (saith he) to shew, that there was any other Doctrine upon their Assent to which, or 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 Receiv [...]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 [Page 193]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 [Page 194]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. [...]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 [Page 195] 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, [...]. [...]i. su [...]. 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 [Page 196]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, [...]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. [Page 197]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 Jesus Himself, that the Belief of his being God, Equal with the Father, is so necessary, that without it, we can't be pronounced Believers
The Holy Evangelist, in the Account he gives of the Discourse that was between Christ, and the Jews, expresly declares, that the Jews sought to kill Jesus; because he said, that God was his Father, making Himself equal with God. Notwithstanding which, the Lord Jesus went on to the Proofs, assuring them, that His doing the same Works which the Father doth, doth evince him to be God, equal with the Father; adding, that the Father hath so committed all Judgment unto the Son, that all Men should Honour the Son, even as they Honour the Father: That is, with the same Honour, Worship, and Adoration: For, he that Honoureth not the Son, Honoureth not the Father, which has sent him; which Words do plainly shew, that 'tis the Will of the Father, That we believe his Son Jesus to be God, equal with himself. For a rendring the same Honour to the Son which is due unto the Father, carrieth in it, an Ascription of those Essential Perfections of God to him, which make him to be God, equal with the Father; which cannot be lawfully done by any, but such as believe [Page 198]him to be so; as appears not only from the Nature of the thing, but from Rom. 10.14. where it's said, that we can't call, or give Divine Honour to him, in whom we have not believed. If then Honouring the Son as we Honour the Father be so necessary a Duty, that they who neglect it do not Honour the Father, a believing the Son to be God, in the same Sense the Father is God, is so necessary, as a believing the Father to be God; which is so very necessary, that on the Disbelief of it, Men were pronounced Unbelievers
This is, I confess, a Parting Point, between Orthodox Christians on the one Hand, and the Mahometans, and English Socinians on the other. For, if Assent to this Doctrine, viz. That Jesus Christ is God, equal with the Father, be so necessary, that without it, we can't be pronounced Believers, they who disbelieve it, cannot be Christians; whence it is, that the Mahometans, and English Socinians, denying the Divinity of Christ, and the lawfulness of rendring to him Divine Worship▪ are for the same Reason, link [...]d together, as Enemies to the Christian Religion.
The most learned, and sober amongst Foreign Socinians, being aware of this; tho', they denied Christ's Deity, yet urged the giving Divine Worship unto Christ, as necessary to the distinguishing themselves from the Mahometans, and proving themselves to be good Christians. But the English Socinians falling in with Franciscus Davidis, [Page 199]and that Party in Poland, are of opinion, that they must be guilty of Idolatry, if they give Divine Worship to him that is but a Creature; and to escape Idolatry, refuse to give to the Son, Divine Worship, and so put it out of their Power to prove themselves to be better Christians than the Turks are, or to plead their own Cause without defending the Mahometans; which as I take it, is the true Reason; why the more Learned amongst them do write so Respectfully, and Charitably of these Ishmaelites and do, not only speak Honourably of the Impostor Mahomet's Design, as if it had been only to reform the Christian Religion; but assign the Reason of the Propagation of that Religion, not to the Sword, but to their Denial of the Blessed Trinity. And yet it is most manifest, that Mahomet, a very vicious Man, being under the Conduct of Sergius, a Nestorian, did, by his Assistance, invent a Religion, with a Design, if possible, to please the Pagan, Jew, and Christian; and, considering the Ignorance and Debauchery of the People amongst whom he was; He prepar'd such a Heav'n for them who observed his Alcoran, as mostly suited their sensual and voluptuous Dispositions: And, being himself a most lascivious Wretch, whilst he would by his Alcoran restrain others, pretends to have an Indulgence from Heaven, for the Gratification of his own Lusts.
Thus the Amorous Prophet being taken with the Beauty of his Slave, Zeid's Wife, obliged Zeid to Repudiate her, bringing in [Page 200]the one God, Chap. 33. saying; ‘When Zeid did Repudiate his Wife, we married thee to her, to the End there might remain no Errour among the True Believers — The Prophet sins not in doing what God has permitted — O Prophet, we permit thee to know the Women to whom thou hast given Dowry, the Women slaves, which God hath given thee, the Daughters of thine Uncles, and of thine Aunts, that have abandon'd with thee the Company of the Wicked; — Thou shalt retain whom of thy Wives thou shalt desire to retain; and shalt repudiate such as thou shalt desire to repudiate, and shalt lie with them that shall please thee.’
Thus much out of the Alcoran, where tis also said, that amongst his Slaves (which were many) he might, if their Beauty pleased him, make exchanges; and least his lascivious Practices should encourage his Wives to do the like with True Believers; He charges his Believers not to come into his Houses without Permission; and when permitted, not to tarry long, for that molesteth the Prophet; and, modest Man, he is ashamed to bid them be gone. — The Wives of the Prophet shall have their Faces covered when they speak unto 'em; they ought not to importune the Prophet of God, neither to know his Wives, this would be a most Enormous Sin.
Besides, Mahomet did constantly Preach, that God had sent him to confirm his Law [Page 201] by Force of Arms, and not by Miracles. This is so notoriously true, that it cannot but amaze the least acquainted with the Turkish Stories, to hear any Pretender to Learning affirm, that Mahomet was against forcing any to a Closure with his Blasphemies.
Though they proclaimed Liberty to all that would submit to their Alcoran; yet, so far resolv'd on the propagating their Religion by Force, that no Truce could prevent their using violent Methods, when they had a Tendency to promote their Design; whence it is, that in the Alcoran, the ninth Chapter, entituled by the Mahometan Doctors [the chapter of Punishment] but by Mahomet [the Chapter of Conversion] beginneth not as the rest, with these Words [in the Name of God, Gracious and Merciful] because these are Words of Peace and Salvation; and Mahomet, in this Chapter, commands to break Truce with his Enemies. ‘To kill them where-ever they shall meet them, take them Slaves, detain them Prisoners, and observe where they pass, to lay Ambush for them; But if they be converted, if they pray at t [...]me Appointed, and pay Tithes, leave them in Quiet, God is merciful to them that repent.’
Whether the lascivious, and bloody Mindedness of this Mahomet, and his Partizans be some of the Trifles of whom Sandius speaks, who, after he had given the fairest Representation of the Faith and Morals of the Turks, adds, Caetera, quae in Alcorano [Page 202] invenimus, sunt merae nugae, I submit to the Reader, it being to me very clear, that they who would be Advocates for Mahomet, or his Religion, have very little Reason for their Pretences to Sobriety, or Liberty of Conscience, which is no otherwise granted by them than as it's subservient to their secular Interests. And touching that ingenious Gentleman, who under the plausible Covert of the Reasonableness of Christianity, hath lopt off so many of the most Essential Parts of Christ's Religion, as to defend no more of it, than that Grand Impostor Mahomet would have done; he has, I think, done no service at all to Christianity; and it must be acknowledged, that those English Socinians, who write so Honourably of Mahomet, his Design, and Religion, may be more justly look'd on as Pensioners of the Great Turk, than the learned Opposers of Socinian Heresies can be represented as the Grand Pensioner of the World▪
The CONCLƲSION.
THESE are some of those Methods, which the Arminians, the Foreign and English Socinians have taken to Instill, and Propagate their Errours, which, for the Help of the less studied, I will reduce to the Following Heads.
Sect. I. These Gentlemen, not being able to comprehend some of the most Important Points of Christian Religion, because of their Mysteriousness, do reject them as Contradictious, and Unreasonable On this Ground the Socinians Explode the Doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, and Incarnation, Christ's Satisfaction, and that Mystical Ʋnion which is betwixt Him and Believers; And the Arminians Oppugn the Absolute and Eternal Decrees, together with the Irresistible Operations of Grace in the Conversion of Sinners.
But that they may the more consistently Prosecute their Design they find themselves necessitated to Frame such an Idea of God, as comes short of a Being Infinitely Perfect, and thus lead their Followers into Atheism. Chap. 1.
Sect. II. The Erroneous finding in their corrupt Hearts an Innate Antipathy against Justification by the Righteousness of another; do, endeavour to establish a Righteousness of their own. To compass thus much, the more Learned, knowing that there is an Eternal Law of Right, of which no one Precept or Rule is, or can be Abrogated, or Repealed, whilst God is an Holy, Just and Righteous God, and Man a rational Creature, do hold, that this is the Law, by which all Men shall be judged at the last day. Only those, who have believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and have taken Him to be their King, with a sincere Endeavour [Page 204]after Righteousness, in obeying his Law, shall have their past Sins not imputed to them: And shall have that Faith taken instead of Obedience, that is, their Faith shall be taken for a Compleat Performance of this Law, where by Imperfection is stretched to the utmost length of Perfection: But the more unlearned, to escape this Rock, have vacated the Penal Sanction of the old Law, and erected a New, which threatens no Sins but final Unbelief, and Impenitence, with Eternal Death, who must hold, that no other Sins but Unbelief and Impenitence are in their own Nature mortal and deadly, deserving everlasting Misery; or, at least by setting up this New Law, to the End imperfect Obedience may answer their New Rule, they must make all their Deficiencies, which by the Eternal Law were Sins, to be no Sins at all; and thus framing their Rule to our Imperfections, instead of Christ's Righteousness they constitute one of their own for Justification. And to make out these things they give us a New Scheme of Divinity, more suited to the Socinian, than Gospel Rule▪ though it must be acknowledged, that these Gentlemen, and some others nearly all [...]ed unto 'em by Principles, observing, [...]ow unsuccessful the Candour, and Sincerity of Foreign Socinians hath been, in owning the Genuine Import of some Phrases, which, because expressive of what they approved not, they rejected; these Gentlemen have imposed a wrong sense on em, and in the Controversies about Christ's Satisfaction [Page 205]retained their Use, and pervert the Truth in this important Article of our Holy Religion, Cap. 2. & Cap. 3. Sect. 8. Pag. 82, &c.
Sect. IV. That the Foreign Socinians, and Arminians, might the more easily propagate their Errors, they did at first appear under the Character of Men found in the Faith, using Orthodox Terms and Phrases, and subscribing the commonly received Catechisms and Confessions of Faith, whereby they gain'd great Reputation amongst the Orthodox. Thus was Blandrata, who (as Calvin saith) had nothing but Pride and Ostentation to recommend him, esteemed by Men of Eminence and Soundness in the Faith, as the Atlas, that bears the Church on his Shoulders.
And thus other Men also of little Learning, great Industry, instigated by greater Pride, have by their Flatteries and deceitful Subscriptions to Orthodox Confessions insinuated themselves into the Hearts of well-meaning People, and lead 'em into Errors of a most pernicious [...]endency, as hath been cleared in sundry Instances throughout Chap. 3. & Chap. 4. Sect. 7.
Sect. V. The English Socinian wanting both the Learning and Candour of their Brethren beyond the Seas▪ are not willing to abide by their Confessions, or Catechisms, nor are they prepared to emit any of their own Composure, and therefore they do studiously [Page 206]labour to conceal what it is they are for, and bend their strength against the Truth, and turn themselves into any shape, may they thereby advance their Designs. If it be their Interest to profess, they are of the Church of England, or to plead the Cause of Mahomet, and reduce the Christian Religion to one Article, found in the Turkish Alcoran, they do it. And it must be confessed, that by their refusing to give Divine Worship to Jesus Christ, they have put it out of their Power to prove themselves to be better Christians than the Mahometans are; no wonder then, that they are sometimes for acting the Part of a Quaker, and again for pleading the Cause of the Papists, but any thing, every thing, rather than an Orthodox Christian. For as they cannot be held by Subscriptions, neither are the Blessed Sacraments sacred enough to bring 'em under Obligation. These are with them, but Incantations, Charms, Spells, Norman Knots, &c. and seeing no spiritual Blessing is in their Opinion, annexed to the Right partaking of a Sacrament, it cannot in any Christian Kingdom whatever, be a Test to keep them out of the Government, so wisely have they ordered their Affairs in matters Religious; that however it goeth with them in the next World, it may be well with them in This. See how these things are cleared, Chap. 4. Sect. 1, 2.4.10.
Sect. VI. And that they may the more easily impose their Dotages upon the Ʋnlearned, [Page 207]They represent the Principles believed by the Orthodox to worse than Judaism, or Mahometanism; and as bad as Egyptian and Roman Paganism, Crying down Learning, and a learned Ministry, and most bitterly reviling their Judicious Adversaries. How virulently have they treated the Reformed Divines in France, and Holland? And with what Contempt and Scorn have they fall'n upon the Learned Clergy; not only Dr. Bull, but, amongst many others, on my Lord of Worcester, who may be justly styled, Malleus Socinianorum; And when this Art fails 'em, they tack about, and on a sudden pretend a Zeal for Learning, claiming a Right in the Anti-Nicene Fathers, and the first Reformers, such as Luther, and Calvin, and will have it that the Great Hugo Grotius is theirs. But their pretence are without the least shadow of Reason, Vid. Ch. 4. Sect. 3.5, 6, and such as are neglected by the more Learned of their own Way.
Sect. VII. To the End they may prepare a Place for their Dagon, their Care is to cast what Reproach they can on the Blessed Trinity, which they can't more effectually do, than by pleading for a Trinity of Essences; or a Plurality of Gods; which was the Master-piece of the Italian Combination. What Pranks these prevaticating Hereticks played, I have briefly intimated; a Conspiracy, which, in its Tendency, was not very different from that entred into by Vaninus, and twelve more, who went into divers Parts of [Page 208]the World, on purpose to propagate Atheism, as Gualterius the Jesuit (as I have some-where Read) doth, in his Cronological Tables, report. That there is a Combination of the same Nature with the Old Italians entred into by the English Socinians, who-ever will consult their Writings will see but little Reason to doubt of it. And when I come to shew what Methods have been taken to corrupt and subvert the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, I hope, [...], to show, that some have as industriously acted their Part, as if they had been in a Combination to bring that blessed Doctrine into doubt, which was a Branch of the Contrivance of Laelius Socinus, Paruta, Ochinus, and their Partizans. Chap. 4. Sect. 8. There is one thing more to be observed, it is this.
Sect. VIII. That notwithstanding their grievous out-cries against the Gospel of our Lord Christ, because of the Mysteries, which are in it, they have their Trinity and Mysteries too. Only they are not so sublime, nor so clearly revealed in Scripture as what we believe, and tho' full of Contradictions, yet without Scruple received by 'em. 'Tis true, they strugled hard to bury in an Eternal Oblivion, the Terms, Trinity, Incarnation, &c. because, as they said, not found in the Letter of the Sacred Text, which if they could have done, we should have heard nothing of their Trinity: But failing of Success here, as they retained the Term Trinity, so they substituted in the Place of a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, a Trinity of Somewhats of their own Invention. Ch. 4. Sect. 9.
I shall trespass no further on my Reader, in the Repetition of what is done; and as for what else I have more to do, if God permit, and Prudence directs, I shall take my Time.