The Growth of Error

SECT. I.

THERE being some Foundation-Truths so fully, clearly and distinctly revealed in Holy Writ; as to command the Assent of the Church Universally in all Ages, (excepting that in which the Christ an World became Arian, ) they, who have been their chief Opposers, have retained the Words and Phrases, by which those Truths have been transmitted down unto us; and introduced their particular Opinions, by an Heterodox sense they have fixed on them. And when suspected, that they might the more effectually conceal their Errors, have subscribed sound Catechisms and Confessions, whereby they have had the fairer opportunity to instill 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 erred 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 Heretics of that Age, 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 Heresy, took to be restored to the Emperor's favor; though' 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 convened before a Provincial Synod at i • iospolis, in Pelaestine, at which Fourteen Bishops were present, but not his Accusers, 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 judices timens Pelagius ipse damnavit. And as the same Possius adds, St. Jerome calls this Synod a miserable one; because, though' they erred not in Doctrines, yet not discerning the falsehood of the man, they • rr • d in the Judgment they past on him, who being better known at Rome, could not conceal his Treacherous Endeavors, but was soon detected by the Bishops of that place.

This being the common practice of Heretics, 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 walked in the same Path, as I hope in the following History, with some clearness to detect and make manifest.

SECT. II.

THE Socinians, altho' they deny a Trinity of Persons in the God-head, the Divinity of Christ, and the Personality of the Holy-Ghost; Christ's 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, to be one of the most Learned Socinians, amongst the Reasons annexed to the first Century of his Select Episi • les, persuading the Papists to express more candor towards them, closes with this Protestation.

In an Epistle to Heing Veglerus, this Learned Ruarus thus writes.

In an Epistle to Frederick Schossirus, whose perversion Ruarus doth endeavor, after he had advised him to cast off those prejudices, he had received with h • s Mother, Milk, beseeches him to consider,

He is more full in what he writes unto Nigrinus,

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,

Besides on these Words, [the Remission of Sin] its thus:

This is that part of the Socinian Confession, 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 occasioned by an Edict of the Lord's 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;

• ru • peorius, a • ni • ht, and Counselor of the Flector of • randenlurg, 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.

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 Heretics; and yet, (as we shall hereafter show) 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 Unitarian Churches in Transylvania, 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,

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 show, 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.

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 favor 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 denial of his Divinity, is also expressly 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 favorable 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 it as such. Ruarus therefore having called Christ's Sufferings a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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.

To put the best Colours they can upon this their odd Notion, they having granted that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Price, and full Price, doth signify a proper Price paid for the Redeeming a Slave out of Captivity, they aver that in the Holy Scriptures▪ it must be taken, otherwise, viz. improperly, and Metaphorically.

Wolzogenius in his Commentary on Matthew, interpreting these Words, [The Son of Man gave his Life a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Ransom for many] confesseth,

Crellius, in his Answer to Grotius, de Satisfactione, argues after the same manner Wolzogenius doth; and what both urge, was more fully done before by Socinus himself, in his Theological Prelections.

As Redemption, which properly is the Paying a full Price for the Deliverance of a Slave, carries in it Satisfaction, and therefore by the Enemies of Christ's Satisfaction, the Scriptures, which speak of Redemption without the least shadow of a Reason, are turned into Metaphors; so Christ's • earing our Sorrows though granted by them, meets with the same Treatment, For as Smalcius.

And within a few Pages after this, he insinuates, as if the Doctrine of Satisfaction, as held by the Orthodox, makes God more Cruel than any Tyrant.

And whereas it is expressly 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,

which signifies no more than what was carefully delivered a Page or two before, 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,

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, doth very fully express the Socinian Sence.

Thus far Ruarus, who makes it very manifest, that the Socinian Notion, touching the Power of the Spirit to Convert, lieth in ascribing the great turn from Darkness unto Light, and from the Power of Satan to God, unto the Hearing, or Reading of the Word without any special Help of God's Spirit.

There being then so great a Difference between the Orthodox Expressions, used by the Socinians, and the corrupt Sense 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 Unitarians, whom they call Socinians, or Arians.

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, 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 defense of Error, as to give it the Advantage.

Though Sandius, in his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec, accuses Hoornbeeck, 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, 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 anymore than One from whom Socinus took his Notions, which is freely confessed by Socinus himself, in an Epistle to Vadovita Professor at Cracovia, where he is positive,

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 though' Socinus himself asserts, That Ochinus openly delivered and inculcated the same Notion about Satisfaction he was charged with, yet Ochinus doth it by his Friend Jacobus, the other Dialogist, pretending an Answer to the Arguments he had urged, as if he had been a Zealous Asserter of the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction.

SECT. IV.

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 Hypocrisy 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 Proselytes 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 scurrilously, and with the greatest Impudence, insinuating, as if they had been the only Masters of Reason, and sincerest Professors of true Piety and Holiness.

They are so humble, and modest, that it's become impossible for them to forbear either the Despising others, or Applauding themselves. Socinus therefore could not but write a Treatise on purpose to prove, That it's the Duty of every good Man among the Reformed in Poland, to separate from them as from Persons too Impious to be Communicated with, and join 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, 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; nor did the Pharisee Sin in Publishing his Virtues, but in Exalting himself, and Contemning others, when he should humbly have sought for the Pardon of his own Sins, a thing they endeavored, even when they modestly mention the things done by their Assemblies, that were worthy of Praise.

But though they usurp to themselves this Title, viz. [Great Masters of Reason) they will not allow Reason the Privilege of being Competent enough to discover the plainest and most necessary Truth in the whole of our Religion; namely, That there is a God, and in some of those very Instances, in which they ascribe most unto it, they oppose its clearest Maxims, which is most effectually done in their Essays, to destroy the Divine Nature of our Blessed Redeemer, where, struggling between plain Scripture, and their own Error; to maintain the latter, which lieth in their making him but a Finite Creature, and own what is the burden 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 grossly 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 Hypocrisy) their denying all secret Assistances, and the certainty of God's fore-seeing all future Events, that depend upon the freedom of Man's Will, (as a very learned Person hath lately observed) must cut off the Exercise of many Devotions, and much weaken our Confidence in God, our Patience under all Misfortunes, and our Expectations of a Deliverance in due 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.

When I most impartially weigh these things, I mean, their deceitful Attempts to ensnare the Unwary to favor their Opinions, their Contemptuous Treatment of the Blessed Mysteries of the Gospel, and its Advocates, together with their assuming to themselves the Character of being the most Rational Divines, and Men of Excelling Piety and Holiness, even when none do more contradict the plainest Maxims of Reason, and lay a surer Foundation for the utmost Immoralities: When I lay these things together, I am so far from thinking, as those great Men do, who represent them, to be the fairest Adversaries, that I rather incline at least to fear, that the Account given of them by the despised Lubbertus, which I will lay down in his own Words, is most true

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, 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 Heidelburg Catechism established A. D. 1578. by a Synod of Dort, for the public use of their Churches, the Belgic, and other Reformed Confessions.

Arminius, in his Epistle to Hypolitus à Collibus, protests, that he never, either in the Church, or University, taught anything, but what was according to the Holy Scriptures, the Belgic Confession, and Heidelburg Cat • echism.

In a Letter to Johannes Matthisius.

In another to Sebastian Egbert.

In a Declaration of his Sentiments made to the States of Holland, and West-Fr • ezeland, (wherein are the Reasons, why he declined to give any Answer to the Questions proposed 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 endeavor is to show an Agreement between his Notions in each of the controverted Articles, and the Belgic 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.

And in his Letter to Hypolitus à Collibus,

What any Man can desire more, I know not.

About the Justification of a Man in the sight of God.

And how oddly soever, he expressed himself in this place, he would still be thought a good Calvinist.

In his Disputations, he is more particular, speaking distinctly of the several Causes of Justification: Of the Meritorious, and Material, thus:

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 Intrinsic, 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 Intrinsic 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.

And among the Corollaries deduced from what he had asserted in his Disputation, he is positive,

These Appeals to the Catechism, and Confession, and the consent of the Reformed Protestants, his recommending Calvin 's Commentaries, and Institutes to his Pupils; and these, and such other Passages, make it clear, That Arminius would fain be thought an Orthodox Calvinist; which was also the desire and endeavor 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 Heidelburg Catechism, the Belgic 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. Curcellaeus, to clear himself from the Charge of Heresy, doth in the Doctrine of Justification, protest,

When its objected, that his making Repentance necessary to Justification, which includes good Works, destroys its being freely of Grace, he Answers,

And that he may the more plausibly insinuate into the Minds of his Readers, his Orthodoxy in this Matter, he tells us,

SECT. VI.

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, (as he oft told Vytenbogardus ) that he could not meet with Men of Learning, to whom he might freely impart his Sentiments.

The Reason he assigns for this his Complaint, was the prevailing Humour, then amongst the Orthodox, to call everything Heresy, which they approved not, even when they themselves either neglected close Study, or were destitute of that Learning, which was necessary to search into those deep Mysteries, whereby Arminius, whose Learning and Abilities were too great to be confined within the old narrow Circle of solid Divinity, where Men of as much Learning, and deeper Judgment delighted to abide, breaks out, and makes Inquiries into the profound and unscrutable things of God, where he was bewildered, and scon lost himself.

Had he been as gently treated by all, as he was by that profound Scholar, 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, 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, crastily insinuated by Theodore Kemp, Koornhert and others.

Arminius, being thus provoked 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 labors to Undermine, even when he professed the most Zeal for them. For, altho' in pursuance of Vytenbogardus 's earnest Request, Arminius was very careful (as he assured him he would be) to mention nothing Dissonant from the Heidelburg Catechism, and Belgic Confession, 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 labor to get a review of the Catechism and Confession, in order to a substantial Change or total Remove.

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,

many other enquires he made, which sufficiently show, that Arminius could not heartily close with all he had subscribed unto, and therefore as he rejoiced at the news of a 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 betrayed in too free a discovery of his dissatisfaction with the Catechism and Confession:

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 everybody's mouth. But though' Arminius his Friend did ill to betray him, yet it's hereby manifest, that notwithstanding his pretensions 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 until the Examination was over, and all things settled, 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 alarmed, 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. Andrew's in Scotland, a Copy of which is within a year transmitted out of England unto Arminius and Vytenbogard, who sent a defense of themselves to Melvin, showing how they were abused by Lubbertus, however, confess they were for a freeing the Subscribers from their Subscriptions, until 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 pressed 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, and the constitution of our Churches, no one ought to be censured merely 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. And one of the conditions, proposed by them to be observed by the Synod, was this, That in examining the matters in Controversy, 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 everyone, be, by solemn Oath, bound to promise, that he will not in judging respect Confessions, Catechisms, or any other Human Writings, but only the word of God, &c. And that, touching the Review of the Confession, and Catechism, everyone 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 Controversy, without a respect to the Confession, or Catechism, though' 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 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 Belgic 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 endeavors, but ingeniously granted by Utenhogard, who, in h • s answer to Festus Homnius his Specimen, professes himself to be one of them who thought it necessary, who desired and prayed, that there might be a Review of their Public Confession, and an examining of it by the Word of God, for this very end, that what he, or others thought was not so agreeable 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, though he falls very severely upon Homnius, for bringing him in as an Asserter of what he positively denied, yet yields, that in the five Articles, they differed from the Belgic Confession. His words are,

Arnoldus Poelenburg, in his Letter to Hartsooker, opens himself in this matter more freely.

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 Belgic Confession, to admit of a Conciliation with them: How zealous soever Arminius was to be taken for a Calvinist, none more eagerly endeavored 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 of the Synod of Dort, where it is affirmed, 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, 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 itself, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

BUt their separating from the Apprevers of the Heydelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Acts of the Synod of Dort, even when they communicated with the Menonists, and Socinians, is an uncontrollable Evidence of their renouncing the Calvinian Doctrines, and of the favorable Opinion, they have of the Mennonistical and Socinian Heresies.

In their Letter to Madame de la Hague, they give several reasons for their Separation, which I take to be the effect of much deliberation and advice for Conradus Vorstius, in his Letter to Stephen De Ryeger, to whom (having blamed 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 entering 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 Anonymous 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 Anonymous, as himself assures us, made no other answer than this;

Poelenburg, though 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 contained in the Heydelberg Catechism, and Belgic Confession, which he thinks they must be thought to approve, if they join with them in the Sacrament of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper.

So far Poelenburg, who hath many other Arguments against Communicating with the Contra-Remonstrants, in his Epistolary Disquisition, whether the Remonstrants may lawfully join 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 the Doctrines contained 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.

FEstus Homnius, just before the Synod of Dort met, sends forth a Specimen of the Belgic Controversies, and in it showing, how far in some Momentous Points of Christian Faith, the Remonstrants differed from the Belgic Confession, doth in several instances make it manifest, that they agree with the Socinians, particularly in denying the Simplicity, Unchangableness, 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 opposite to Divine Testimonies: In these and several other particulars the Agreement between the Arminians and Socinians may be gathered 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 enjoining 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, they would introduce Socinianism. Thus much is in the close of their Censure of the Preface, and in several places of the Book itself, which they do so closely urge, that the Remonstrants in their Examen are forced to be more free in their Acknowledgements than their open •• igns would otherwise have admitted

'It is 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; 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.

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 satisfy my self till I had examined 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 itself an absurdity, so the denial carries in it a contradiction, as gross as that Light is not Light; that what is from Nature is not Natural, can signify 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 expressed, 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 answered either by Grotius, Episcopius, or any other that I have met with.

Besides, the Applauses given the Remonstrants by the Socinians: and the numbering 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, though a celebrated Remonstrant, yet in good earnest a Socinian, as may be infer'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 Unitarians, that he was the Author of the Compendium Socinianismi answered 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, had weighed these things, he doth with utmost assurance give him a place in the Antitrinitarian Bibliothec, as he also doth his Son William Henry Vorstius, Pastor of a Church among the Remonstrants; and Curcellaeus who succeeded Episcopius in the Professors Chair at Amsterdam.

Furthermore, I add out of Bogermanus his Notes, on the defense of Vorstius, and the Remonstrants, made by Grotius, that Vorstius his zeal for Socinianism, remarkably appeared 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, though 'twas really full of Socinianism, and esteemed by that Party as an introduction to their Religion.

What therefore hath been urged by Grotius, Episcopius or others, in defense of Vorstius, or by Vorstius, himself to throw off the charge of Socinianism, doth serve only to convince us of the Hypocrisy of the Man, and that according to the fears of some of his Socinian Friends, 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 Pareus, declares that he condemned the Errors of Socinus about the Person and Office of Christ, of Faith, Justification, and the like, and whatever smelt of Socinianism?

But this deceitful method they learned of Ochinus, who sometime before Faustus Socinus wrote anything, 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, are set in the Anti-trinitarian Bibliothec, so Arminius himself, as Peltius out of Pareus averrs, is received by the Socinians as theirs. His words are " Pareus in an Epistle dated the first of March 161 • . writes thus;

And as the Socinians Reckoned the Remonstrants amongst their Worthies, even such as Arminius himself Applauding them for supporting their Dogmata; in like manner, though 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 Heretics.

Episcopius, though in his Bodecherus Ineptiens, his answers to Homnius, and his Apology, oft strenuously endeavor'd to clear himself, and Remonstrants, from the charge of Socinianism; yet, in his answer to the Specimen of Calumnies, and elsewhere, is bold enough to own that he cannot condemn them as guilty of Heresy.

These are some of the Reasons adduced by Episcopius (but learnedly answered by Dr. Bull ) for Vindicating their refusal to condemn the Socinians, as Heretics; 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 Controversy. What the Orthodox offer to explain their Sense, is said to be with so much obscurity and Confusion, that it's not easy to be understood; they are divided amongst themselves, and give different Interpretations of Texts; are loose in their Arguing, and do oft in their opposition fall in with their Adversaries; whilst on the other hand, the Socinians have the Holy Scriptures in their first appearances, and the most reason, the Orthodox themselves being Judges and all the Fathers till the Council of Nice, for them, all which is about the very Doctrines, wherein the Socinians differ from the Orthodox.

But touching the Points, wherein the Socinians fall in with the Orthodox, the Calvinists are not to be compared with them.

So far Episcopius, whose farther endeavor 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. 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 lieth only in having Rational Faculties and Dominion over the Creatures. That in his first make he was Mortal, and should have died though' 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 Predestination. That the Precepts given Adam were adjusted to the Infant state of Mankind, and were imperfect; that Jesus Christ gave new, and more perfect Laws. That he enlarged the Obligation of some of the Moral Laws, abolished others, and added three new Moral Precepts to the Old given by Moses. That the Promises of the Old Testament were only of Temporal Blessings; and that Men under it, were not saved 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 suspense, 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 signify the same with [Condition] whereby there is a great Turn made in Controverse, as the Arminians Improve it; so they impose on the Phrases, [Vice nostra, Loco nostro] a Sense, most contrary to their ancient, and constant Meaning

It's well known, that Socinus, Crellius, and their nearest Followers, did concur with the Orthodox about what was the Genuine Imports of those Phrases; holding, that they signified a Proper Surrogation, where one is put into the Place, State, or Condition of another; sustaining his Person, and one with him, In conspectu fori▪ Sabrogatam sapit naturam ejus in cujus Locum Sabrogatur.

These Phrases, taken in this Sense, the Socinians stoutly opposed, loading the Orthodox, with all the horrid Consequences which slow only from an Assertion, that Christ did take on him the Condition of the Sinner, in every little Circumstance, or Accident: But my Lord Bishop of Worcester hath cleared the Maxim of Surrogation from the least Pretence of such a Charge, by distinguishing Inter Naturam Primordialem; & Accidentalem, and proving that Sarrogatum sapit tantum naturam Primordialem, non Accidentalem.

That in this Sense, the Orthodox Universally understand these Phrases, [Vice nostra, Loco nostro] is so manifest, that, whoever is acquainted with their Writings, cannot but acknowledge it: And it's no less Evident from the Scriptures, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [for] when it's said, Christ Suffered, [for us] signifieth a Proper Surrogation, which is Essential unto Satisfaction, made to Punitive, or Vindictive Justice. However, there are a set of Men, of the Arminian Tang, who will have it, That [ Vice nostra, or Loco nostro ] signify no more than [nostro •• co] that when it's said, Christ died in our stead, the meaning is, Christ died to bes ••• ad us; and only, that the Blessed Effect, of his Death might be made ours.

Another expresseth it thus:

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 denial 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.

SECT. I.

IT being the Expectation of our English Socinians, that, 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 Foreigners, I will confine myself, 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, Heretics have for their own Particular Notions, is such, as will not suffer them to Part with anything of their Own, for the sake of a Scheme, or System of another's Composure.

Though Mr. Biddle did some Years ago Emit a Confession, (Reprinted 1691.) and a Catechism; yet I cannot find that the English Socinians do Adhere thereunto, anymore than the Followers of Socinus beyond the Sea's have done to the Racovian Catechism, 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.

'It is true, they Generally Profess a Zeal for the Apostles Creed, One of 'em tells us,

Thus, they Confining themselves 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 favor 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 History of these Unitarians, as they call themselves, and see, what they say there.

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.

This Episcopius, though', probably enough, touching the Trinity, an Arian; and in other Points a Professed Remonstrant, will yet by no means Allow a PROFESSED Agreement between the Remonstrants and Socinians. How then can we Hope to find in Their writings, a Formula or Summary of Socinian Doctrines? That there is too great an Allyance between the Remonstrants and the Socinians; that the Doctrines of the Former are too near akin to what are held by the Latter, and Praeparatory unto them, I have cleared: But, 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 •

2.

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 God's Omniscience and Immensity. One cannot 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? 'It is also affirmed by the English Socinians.

3. That the Holy Ghost is a Person.

In Opposition hereunto they say,

The Holy Spirit, you see, is and is not a Person with them.

4.

In Opposition hereunto 'tis said,

They are, I confess, 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 Unitarians, as they call themselves, and notwithstanding the specious Pretences to Liberty of Conscience, 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 differed 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 join 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 • though' 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 cannot 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 anything hath been Published by • em, we cannot be sure that any two of them are of the same Religion.

Howbeit, altho' they cannot Agree what Religion to be of; they are most Unanimous 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 cannot find any Satisfaction, or Consistency in any of our Systems. 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, as the same is Delivered in the Holy Scriptures. The Examiner of Mr. Fdward 's Exceptions runs higher, Declaring, that the Obscurity, Numerousness and Difficulty of Understanding Systematical Fundamentals Promotes Deism, and Subverts the Christian Faith. These are some of their ways.

SECT. II.

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 Unitarians, and Anti-Trinitarians, whereby they Reserve to themselves the Liberty of setting up, either for Arians, Photinians, Jews, Mohammedans, or Deists, who Call themselves Unitarians; nor will they, when hard Put to it, Undertake the Defense of any One; no, not of Socinus himself, altho' they hold what is Peculiar to men of his Spirit.

Tho', they say,

When this is Socinianism all over, yet, are they not Socinians, anymore than they are Papists, Lutherans, or Calvirists.

When they Pretend to tell, us what they are, it's so Mysteriously, that no one can tell what to make of 'em.

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 Catholic Church to Shelter themselves in.

To Compleat the Mystery,

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 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 cannot 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 myself, 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 cannot bear the Brightness and Glory of the Light.

SECT. III.

WHen I first made Enquiry after the Reason, why these Gentlemen declined a Defense 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 cannot 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 though' they looked upon the Orthodox to have Erred from the Truth, yet esteemed them not to be either Idolaters, or Heretics, or out of the Way to Salvation.

Ruarus, in an Epistle to Mersennus, doth clear us from the guilt of Idolatry, though we Worship the Divinity of Christ, as Eternal, which he esteems an Error; For, saith he,

Socinus in his second Answer to Volanus, enters his Protestation against the making us Heretics: His words are,

Nor were they so Fond of the Mahometan Religion, as not to think it a Reproach to be numbered amongst its Favourers. This is sufficiently Cleared by Ruarus; For, whereas Beza, in an Epistle to Peter Statorius, mentions Valentilis Gentilis his Accusing Paulus Alciatus for turning Turk, Abraham Calovius no sooner mentions this Story, in a Letter to Ruarus, but Ruarus, as one who Abhor'd the Mahometan Religion, doth what he can to Vindicate Alciatus from so Vile a Calumny:

But though' Socinus and Ruarus, were so kind as to clear us from the Guilt of Idolatry and Heresy, Reckoning us to be Members of that Church, in which Salvation may be had; yet so much Candor must not be looked for from the English Socinians. For,

They esteem us so Byassed against their Religion by Prejudices and the like, that we use not a reasonable Diligence to obtain the Knowledge of what they call Truth, and therefore we are told,

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 Mohammedans, and their Religion, they add,

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.

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 cannot 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,

— A little after this, speaking of the Blessed Trinity;

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, and the Care and Favor 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 English Socinians do not make us so bad, but Socinus, and his Partizans abroad, are even with them, making their Case the same with the worst of Heretics, Mohammedans, 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 Mohammedanism, Socinus in his Answer declares,

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

This is the Notion they have Espoused of Jesus Christ, They Affirm him to be a True God, a True Subordinate God, entirely depending on that One, Most High God. A True God, because this One God hath given to him Divine Power and Authority; or as they sometimes Express it, because God hath by his Inhabiting Word, or Power, given to the Lord Christ a Faculty of Knowing all things, and an Ability to Relieve all Wants. This Divinity in Christ they make to be the Ground and Reason of their Adoration, and Invocation. They do also make God's dwelling in Christ by his Spirit, a Ground of Worship. Socinus, in the Defense of his Animadversions, on the Theological Assertions of the Posnan College, against Gabriel Eutropius, tells us,

This way of Arguing, though' used by a Man of Note amongst ourselves, was so turned by Vujekus, and Bellarmine, two Jesuits, against Socinus, as to Confound him—

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, by which alone they hope to clear themselves, from being of the Religion Invented by Mahomet, which doth not Invocate, nor Worship him

They insist so very much on the Adoration of Christ, that they esteem those, who are against it, to be such Heretics, as subvert the very Foundations of Christianity, and deserve not the Name of Christians.

And elsewhere he saith,

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:

And as they could not Oppose the Adoration of Christ and Remain Christians, so this their Principle, leads 'em to Judaism;

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 Heretics, who in Reality deny Jesus to be the Christ, and therefore cannot be Christians, nor clear themselves from the Charge of Mohammedanism, 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 Honor, than they do to Men in Civil Power, to Prophets or Saints in Glory, is manifest from what they avouch.

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; 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; whereby they make themselves in the Esteem of the Foreign, who are the more learned Socinians, to be worse than Heretics, 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 Mohammedanism, 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, about the Attempts of some, to bring all that part of Religion, which is necessary to Salvation, unto one Article.

Mersennus writing thus much to a Grave and Learned Socinian, who in his Answer taking no notice of it, though very careful to rectify 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.

§. 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 Unscriptural, Unreasonable, and Nonsensical Doctrine of Transubstantiation, 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, 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. 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,

But, what Connection can there be betwixt the Trinity and the Pope 's Supremacy? Or why must the Apostles be Religiously Worshiped, because the Human 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, 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 Scholastic, and Metaphysical Subtilties.

They also talk of the Mischievous Feats of Learning, confirmed by Disputes, between Protestants and Papists.

They being sensible, that, when we Discourse of the Blessed Trinity, and Incarnation, 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 Scholastic Terms, such as Trinity, Coessentiality, Modality, Personality, Eternal Generation, Procession, Incarnation, Hypostatical Union 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; and thereby turn the Glory of the Incorruptible God into the Image of Corruptible Man.

A page or two before —

What Notion then have they formed of God? Their Admired Biddle will tell you,

— 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 everybody 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 Endeavor is to load such Persons with the v • lest Reproaches.

§. 3. They vilify the Learned now, as the Quakers formerly have done.

None can escape their Revilings, neither my Lord of Worcester, nor my Lord of Gloucester: No, not his Grace the late Arch-Bishop. These are made the great Pensioners of the World.

These Passages do show 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 Undertaker, and speak of the Farce of his Life; 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:

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. Take their own words.

But what has this Learned Doctor done to deserve all this.

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 Heresy, 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, 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 shows, that as Fusebius, in Representing the Madness of the Manich • es alludes into the Name of Manes, as signif • ing so much; Even so Gregory Nazianzen makes the same Observation on the Name of Arius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — A furore nomen habens Arius. On which, the Note of Nicaetas, is, Arius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 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-wracked his Conscience. Whether this be true, or not, let an English Socinian Determine, who saith,

Thus this Learned Sandius openly declares against the Arian, and Socinian Heresies, and Pretends to write in Defense 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, 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 will 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 Honor 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 frightened with this Rhodomontado-Title, he doth what he can in his Preface to Cajole his Reader to think well of it:

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 endeavors 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. And whereas the Catholic World, hath been ext • eamly Ignorant of the Traditions of the Primitive Christians, unknown to everybody, 〈◊〉 he took 'em out of Petavius, and Published them.

But what is this rare Secret? this Wonderful Catholicon, I mean his Conciliatory Rule? It lieth only in the Denial of Christ's 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, 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 sending him to Bedlam? And yet of this Nature is Zuicker 's Project for a Catholic Union: And that made Doctor Bull speak so Rightfully of it. Whether the Doctor, hath herein broke the Chartel of Honor, and Civility; or deserved such Usage 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 Defense 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.

A Suspicion that these Methods may fail of the desired Success, puts 'em on Attempts of a contrary kind: And therefore, in case Learning, and Learned Men keep up their Esteem, they tell us,

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, confined 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, 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 perceived 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. And what was said of Ebion, Cerinthus, and Arius, concerned not them, 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.

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 endeavored 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.]

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, 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, in making to themselves Three God's, by Imagining the Three Persons to be Three Essences. But neither in the Answer, nor Admonition is there a Word in Favor of the English Socinians. There is also an Epistle sent to the Polonian Nobility, and Gentry, and to the Worthy Citizens of Cracow, occasioned by what Christophorus Trecius, Stanislaus Sarnictus, and Jacobus Sylvius, wrote to Calvin about the Various Arts, and Fraudulent Methods used by Heretics, 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,

'It is true Calvin in his Letter to the Polonian Nobility expresses his Dislike of this Prayer, [Sancta Trinitas, Unus Deus miserere nostri] Precatio mihi non placet (says he) & omnino Barbariem sapit. The Prayer, not the word [Trinity] disgusted him. And whereas Stancarus had wrested the Scriptures; affirming, that when '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,

But what is this to his saying the Word [Trinity is Barbarous, Insipid, Profane, 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.

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:

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.

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 will give you Grotius 's own Reply, which is,

3.

In another Letter to his Brother William, he saith,

4. That he could not be Socinian all over, is Evident from what he wrote to Graswinkelius, to whom he declared,

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, 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, 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,

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 Falsehood of the Insinuation, which is very Excellently well performed to the Reproach of these bold Assertors, and pretendedly Wise Interpreters of Scripture.

These few Intimations I suppose may suffice to show what Pitiful Shifts the English Socinians are driven to, for the support of their Tottering Cause, wherein I confess they fail of the Learning, Candor, and Integrity of some Foreign Socinians. If Grotius must be looked 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.

Gittichius concludes his Epistle with this Prayer,

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 English Socinians, suspecting the Success of those deceitful and unrighteous Methods which they use to propagate their Errors openly; though 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 joining themselves • o the Orthodox, with no other Design, than to subvert the Foundations of that Religion they profess, subscribe, and swear unto.

Valentinus Gentilis, and Blandrata, amongst many others, are famed Instances of the Truth of this Assertion; but I will only observe, what manner of Person Blandrata was, and what were his Practices.

George Blandrata, an Italian by Birth and sometimes chief Physician and Counselor to Stephen King of Poland, was highly esteemed 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.

'It is true, Calvin, after some considerable Converse with him, began to suspect him, and at last detected some of his Heresies, and the fraudulent Practices by which he attempted their Propagation. But soon was he reprimanded, by Men sound in the Faith, and of great Worth: One eminent Person rebukes him for exposing 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,

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, 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 favor of so eminent a Person as his Anonymous Friend was. In his Letter to Stanislaus saith he,

In his Answer to Felix Cruciger, and his Collegues, and other faithful Pastors and Ministers in Lesser Poland;

And to the Ministers and Elders of the Church at Vilna,

The History they give of him is to this purpose 〈◊〉

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, joins himself to the 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 observed, 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 Tenants, 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.

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 God's word: And the Charge his Majesty gives is, 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;

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 though' 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, cannot, without being gu • lty of grossest Hypocrisy, subscribe it. But what cannot a designing English Socinian do?

Thus, you see, that though' 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,

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 join 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.

And concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,

If they had been persuaded that the Sacraments were Ordinances designed 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.

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 thoroughly, 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 Topics as weaken the Truth; which is done by them who assert the Persons in the Blessed Trinity to be Three distinct Essences; 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, though a Socinian, yet generously opposed Georgius Schomannus, who pleaded for this very Principle, about the Use 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. And in Defense of what he wrote against the Theses of Immanuel Vega, he expressed the religious sense of his Soul, by that Grief he conceived on the spreading of this pernicious Error amongst them.

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.

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 entered into by near Forty, who formed themselves into a Society, had their Colleges and Conferences, where they consulted how to bring the Doctrines of the Trinity, and Christ's Satisfaction, into Doubt.

This was, saith Wissowatius, about the Year 1546. The chief of their Number, mention • d by Sandius, 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 instill 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 Lions the Papists d • sch • rged Valentinus Gentilis so soon as they und • rstood his Design was to oppose Calvin, and how safely Servetus, 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 Preeminence to the Father.

Servetus, who is by Stanislaus Lubieniescius, in his History of the Polonian Deformation, 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 Labor 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.

Or, as Aretius, in his Brief Account of Valentinus Gentilis: The Father he stiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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? 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 give •• Servetus his Sense, 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, he freely gives us his own Sentiments, to this effect.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; that the Essence of the Son is not from itself, 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 easy to understand what Principles Servetus would substitute instead of a Trinity of Persons in the God head: only, they generally pleaded for the Preeminence 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, as Sandius observes, was the first that oppugned the Doctrine of the Trinity in Poland, and as Wisso • atius, he asserted the Preeminence of the Deity of the Father above that of the Son, 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, 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, affirming,

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 Christ's being Mediator, as God-Man; and a Table was soon published, in which they declared Jesus Christ, anc the Holy Ghost, to be Two God's, 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 though' Gregorius Pauli, Latomirski, Lismaninus, and many others subscribed a sound Confession of Faith in Opposition to the Error of Stankarus, yet did they fall in with Blandrata, and though' 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 God's: yet it was, saith Beza, to very little purpose: For the Polonian Ministers, being bewitched with Blandrata's Hypocrisies, were generally ensnared to a Closure with his Errors. And Blandrata himself Observing how efficaciously this Engine wrought, called in the Help of Valentinus Gentilis, and Petrus Statorius, who with Matthaeus Gribaldus, and others, were indefatigable in their Labors 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 ensnared into a Closure with Socinianism.

That their first Effort against the Trinity was a setting up of Tritheism; not avowedly, but Clandestinely, is Affirmed by Beza.

Then did they Appropriate the Appellation of the One True God unto the Father, to whom they also ascribed an Hyperoche, a Preeminence, 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, Zanchi, and the Reformed, did set themselves, as against a most Pernicious, and Hurtful Heresy, as undoubtedly it is; For, it being affirmed, 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 God's as they are Persons; which is Tritheism. Three Distinct Infinite substances, or Three Eternal Spirits, cannot be less than Three God's.

But▪ though' 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 God's, but One God, or One Divinity which is entirely and Inseparably in Three distinct Persons, or Minds; it cannot be Heresy:
  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 though I am far from Hereticating everyone that differs from me in Matters of Moment; or from making every Erroneous Explication of a Fundamental Article to be Heresy; yet I am persuaded, that the Doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in one undivided Essence is of such a Nature; that many, in their explicating it, have fallen into divers Heresies; and that thus it is in the Present Case.

The Doctrine condemned for Heretical is a making 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 Heresy 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,

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 God's; and refers to the Bibliotheca Photij, where it's thus;

So that their asserting the Consubstantiality of the Trinity, and it's being of the same Nature, could not secure their making the Three Persons three Distinct Substances, from being Blasphemy.

But what I mostly Press, is this Consideration; that if the contradictory Affirmation of three Individual Essences being but one Individual Essence, will clear the Notion from being Heresy, then Valentinus Gentilis, Lismaninus, Blandrata, and the many other Propagators of the Socinian Abominations, must be also for the same reason cleared from Heresy.

I will begin with Gentilis, who held, 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,

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. 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, 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 Controversy 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 Endeavors of Laelius Socinus, and confirmed in his Heresies by George Blandrata, falling into Suspicion, takes Heart, and in a Letter to Stanislaus Ivanus Karninscius, boldly defends Blandrata. But, that he might do his part to remove all grounds of jealousy 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 itself, he gives a summary of his own Faith, and of the Faith of them who dwelt at Pinczow, in these words.

Blandrata in a Synod at Xiansia, Anno Dom. 1562, declared his Belief,

In these Confessions, there is the Denial of a Plurality of God's 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 Heresy. Peter Martyr, as Lubieniescius reports, doth in a Letter Anno Dom. 1558, 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 God's, doth follow, which thing, as he was told, Gribaldus, did in express words Assert. In like manner Lubieniescius himself tells us,

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 Preeminence of Causality in the Father above the Son and Holy Ghost; that the Essence of the Son and Holy Spirit was not Unoriginated, Uncaused, and from itself 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 called Trideitae, which is not only the Observation of Beza, but the Confession of Lubieniescius, who saith,

though' nothing more manifest than that they being the Worshippers of God the Father by Jesus Christ the only mediator, were therefore in Transylvania, called Unitarians.

The Notion then of Gentilis Lismaninus and Blandrata was, that the Son and Holy Ghost were Consubstantial, Coequal and Coeternal in Essence with the Father; they were of one, and the same Nature, and yet three Infinite, and Eternal distinct Essences, and Spirits; which is the same for substance with what our Vindicated Author so Vehemently Contends for; whence I argue, If our Authors Asserting one Individual Essence, or Deity will secure his Three Infinite Essences, or Minds from Heresy, it must also clear Gentilis, Lismaninus, Blandrata and their disciples; ay Severus, and Theodosius too, from the same Charge: But if it would not clear them from being Heretical, it cannot sufficiently Vindicate Him.

But this Tritheism is not only, as I have already intimated, an Heresy; But the same, that the Italian Heretics 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 God's, to the setting the Minds of many against the Truth itself; 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 Errors 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 God's; they ascribed unto the Father an Hyperoche, a Preeminence and Superiority above the Son, and Holy Ghost. But then the Inequality, which did immediately follow from the Preeminence, 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 expressly 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 though the Essence of the Father was Unoriginated, and from itself; 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 ran the same length with the Arian and Socinian as to the Inequality; For that Essence which is not of itself is not, cannot be, in a strict Proper Sence, God; for the Essence of God is only from itself, 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 received 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 observed their Disciples prepared to embrace this Error, insinuated it.

This appears from Blandrata 's Endeavor in an Epistle which Beza had of his, to persuade Gregorius Pauli, a Tritheist, to close with the Opinions of Samosatenus, and from what Petrus Statorius, a Companion of Blandrata, when he dwelt at Pinczow [from which Place the Tritheists had their Name of Pinczovians, with whom Franciscus Lismaninus, Martin Crovicius, Schomannus, Gregorius Pauli, • relius, 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, 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 tried 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, that no one could tell what it was he himself held. Stoinius, who was Grandson to Statorius, represents matters of Fact thus.

Lubieniescius, passing by what Regenvols • ius in his History of the Sclavonian Churches saith of Statorius, doth out of Budzanius tell us,

On this occasion there arose several Disputes amongst the Learned, at which time Statorius persuaded many to embrace this Opinion: notwithstanding which, and altho Alexius Rodecius told Statorius to his Face, that he Learned this Principle from him; yet did he in the Year 1567, openly deny it, declaring, that the Spirit is God, and to be Worshipped as God; and whoever taught otherwise was of his Father the Devil: for which Reason, Budzinius looked 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 defense 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 Heresy, 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 Preeminence; 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 Heresy of Three distinct Essences in the Trinity, deserves greatly from the Church of God; For, by turning his Strength against the Notion of Three distinct Infinite Essences, Substances, Spirits, or Minds he hath taken an Effectual Course to break those Socinian Measures which were most likely to expose the blessed Trinity, and prepare the Minds of many to take in their Unitarianism, 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 Heretics 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 Endeavors 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.

Conradus Vorstius made many a Protestation of his Orthodoxy in this very Point, expressly declaring, that he was neither Arian nor Socinian.

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,

Howbeit he is Positive,

So Vorstius, who nevertheless expressly asserts, that the Substance of God, is but one Numerical or Individual Substance; That he is so one, as to be an Individual, that cannot be Divided either into Species or Parts.

This was Vorstius his Notion; which, notwithstanding his Solemn Protestations of adhering unto the Orthodox Faith, he did his uttermost to propagate; he himself, as I have already proved, in the 70th. Page of this Discourse, Living, and Dying an Antitrinitarian. And as it was thus with him so it may be now with others: They may Profess to Believe one Divinity, which is Intirely and Inseparably in Three distinct Persons or Minds, and hold these Three Persons to be Three distinst Essences with a design to introduce Socinianism. For, from what I have said it's clear, that the Italian Consult. Professed to Believe there was but One God, and Pitched on the Doctrine of Three distinct Essences, that from thence they might introduce an Inequality of Essences, assign a Preeminence 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 Heretics, entered into a Combination to bring into contempt the same Blessed Truths, after the same manner their Predecessors have done.

SECT. IX.

BY what hath been hitherto asserted of the English Socinians, it is apparent, that whatever their Religion is, they are not prepared, 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 sinned 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, show how Mysterious the • selves are in Explaining their Trinity.

It must be acknowledged, that about the Year 1562. these Heretics did their uttermost to engage the Ministers to abstain from Philosophical Terms, or Human Forms of Speech. And, as Stoinius observes, it was this Year concluded in a Synod at Pinczow,

on which occasion, Stanislaus Szafranicius did, in a Synod met the same Year at Rogow, labor 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, saith Lubieniescius, in June the Year following viz, 1563. another Synod met, which wrote unto Prince Radzivil,

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 observed, 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 judged it convenient to continue the use of these Terms, and therefore had their Trinity too: though 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.

I will add but one Authority more to clear this, which you may see in the Polonian Catechism, where they do not only acknowledge, that Mat. 28.19. 1 Cor. 12.4, 5, 6, 7. and 1 Joh. 5.7. do show, there is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that they are United; but they constantly assert it. So that, say they,

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 Unitarian 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,

But though' 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,

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, the Controversy about the Spirits being the Third Person in the Godhead, is fairly stated; where, among other Things, he accquaints us with a Dispute between Ostorodius, and Tradelius.

To him Ostorodius thus replied. 1.

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; though' the Opposition between God and the Creature is so immediate, that non datur Tertium, Yet contrary to the Plainest Reason, the Socinians Affirm the Holy Spirit to be an Eternal Somewhat, that is neither Creator, nor Creature. A Contradiction so gross, that it cannot be either solv • d o • covered by Ostorodius his Allusion to the Attributes of God; for though' 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 God's 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 cannot 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 though' it be a Sin to Worship the Holy Ghost, yet it's not Idolatry to do so.

Sclichtingius doth, I confess, with much Candour towards us, endeavor to Vindicate our Worshipping the Holy Ghost from being Idolatry; though he be not God. But thus much he doth, by affirming that there is so close an Union between the Holy Ghost, and the most High God; that the giving Divine Worship to him, cannot be either Impious or Idolatrous. And in his Answer to what Meisner urged, from the Attribution of the Divine Properties to the Holy Ghost, in Proving him to be God; he turns it all off, by saying, That doth not Evince the Holy Ghost to be a Person, but it is sufficient to my Purpose, that they Acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be as Divine, as Infinite, and Eternal, as the Attributes of God are, seeing hereby they must either own him to be God; or that somewhat besides God is Infinite.

II. As they say the Holy Ghost is neither a Creature nor God, so on the other hand, they make Christ to be but a Creature; and yet to be God also.

1. They affirm Jesus Christ to be a True God; True, in Opposition to the False God's of the Gentiles, who are indeed False God's, because they are God's 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, though' Christ be a true God, yet he is not the Most High God. He is but a Subordinate God in his Essence. This then is their Notion, Christ is a True Subordinate God, i. e. A True God whose Perfections are Infinite; a Subordinate God in his Essence whose Perfections can be but Finite, and therefore can be no God at all▪ Again,

2. Christ is, they say, God, on the Father's giving him Absolute Dominion over all things, with a Power, and Knowledge, whereby he knoweth the Distresses of all, and is able to Relieve the Distressed; But, seeing Nothing, short of Omniscience, and Omnipotence, can know, and Relieve, and these together with absolute Dominion, are Essential Properties of the Most High God, How comes it to pass, that Christ is not the most High God? Here are the Essential Properties of such a God, and yet no such God.

These are some of their Mysteries. The Holy Ghost is an Eternal Omnipotent. Increate Being, but not God. He is neither a Creator, nor a Creature, but an Omnipotent Somewhat, different from Both: Increate or Unoriginated Omnipotence is not sufficient to evince the Eternal Spirit to be God; but a Derived Omnipotence is enough to make a Creature to be a True God. Unoriginated Omnipotence is not Reason enough for the adoring the Eternal Spirit; but Derived Omnipotence is a good Ground for Rendring Divine Worship to a Creature. These Gentlemen, you see, are the Grand Transubstantiators; for they can Transubstantiate a Creature into a True God, and still remain a Creature, they can Transfer the Essential Properties from one being to another; and each Being remain the same it was before the Translation; They can Order and Dispose of the Divine Properties in such a Way, that they shall be insufficient to Denominate him a True God, in whom they were from all Eternity, and yet be Powerful enough to make him, in whom they were not two Thousand Years ago, to be a True God. Whether these are Real Mysteries, or Real Contradictions, let the Prudent judge.

I will not treat these Over-Wise Men with that Scurrilous Language they do the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity; But without Exaggeration I will proceed to Examine what they say of God the Father.

III. That God the Father is only the most High God, is their Assertion; of whom they have nevertheless formed 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, aver, 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,

In their Answer they tell us, Thus our English Socinian; who adds,

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 itself.

Socinus, in his Institution of the Christian Religion, answering the Question,

Quest. What is it to know, Ans. Besides, He tells us, that Eternity 〈◊〉 necessarily included in God's having Divine Dominion over us from Himself, and so is his Justice, Wisdom, and Power. A little after this, he further saith, That when it's said God is One; The meaning is, There is but one who hath Dominion over us from himself. 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 received 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 though' 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 everywhere Present, than as he is by his Power, Providence, and Works.

Socinus assureth us, he could see no Reason to conclude God's Essence to be Immense, because his Power was so; expressly declaring, That the Divine Essence is not Infinite. Crellius, and Smalcius hold the same. But if God's 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 itself? 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 God's 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,

Smalcius and Crellius say the same. And Episcopius himself would have fallen 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 cannot 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 cannot 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, though' but a Subordinate God; so God the Father, the most High God, is left by them destitute of Infinite Perfections. His Essence is but Finite, and therefore without a Contradiction cannot be infinitely Perfect.

Their Trinity you see is a most Mysterious one, and their Unitarianism lieth in the Belief of Two distinct God's, 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, 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 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 his own, or of the Mahometan, Religion; much less, that they Design to Introduce Mohammedanism. 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 show what Arts are used by their Leaders, in the Representations they make of the Mohammedans, 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 Mohammedans; and another, whom I cannot but Respect for his learning, hath, in his Reasonableness of Christianity, reduced the Vital Principles of our Holy Religion to what is received into the Alcoran.

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

Now I say, that according to this Principle the Mohammedans 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.

And of the Jews, (in the fourth Chapter,) it's said,

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. Elmacinus, in his History of the Saracens, saith, that the Mohammedans 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: 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. Now seeing what our Author Insists on as Necessary to make a man a True Believer, is in the Turkish Alcoran, I would fain know, whether the Mohammedans, who Believe these Points, are not in his Esteem such Christians as ought to be Received into the Church of Christ, as Members of his Body? What is it that He requires as necessary to our being such that the Turks do not profess to hold? Doth not he enjoin 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 esse adorandum, sed non eo summo Cultu, 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 Inferior 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 Mohammedans 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 affirmed in their Alcoran where it's express, that God sent Mahomet to Confirm the Scriptures, namely the Old Testament and the Gospel, that God Inspired into him to Confirm the Ancient Scripture. And Nicholaus Cardinal de Cusa, in the Prologue to his Cribratio Alcorani, saith, that Balthasar de Luparis, sometime a Merchant at Constantinople, oft told him that the Mahometan Doctors did greatly respect and love the Gospel, preferring it to the Book of their own Law: That one of the most Learned of their Doctors being Instructed out of the Gospel of John, touching the Truth, Proposed to Balthasar his Design of going to Rome with Twelve others, might he have safe Conduct, which the Cardinal de Cusa procured; but the Learned Turk was hindered by Death And Sandius, 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 Mohammedans are?

Our Author is pleased to challenge Us, to show, that there is any other Doctrine; upon our Assent to which, or Disbelief of it, Men were pronounced Believers or Unbelievers. But I crave leave to tell him, amongst other Doctrines, that of Christ 's Divinity is one. If he will consult John 5.18, 23, 24, &c. He'll find it to be clearly Revealed, and sufficiently proved by the Lord Jesus Himself, that the Belief of his being God, Equal with the Father, is so necessary, that without it, we cannot be pronounced Believers

The Holy Evangelist, in the Account he gives of the Discourse that was between Christ, and the Jews, expressly 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 Honor the Son, even as they Honor the Father: That is, with the same Honor, Worship, and Adoration: For, he that Honoureth not the Son, Honoureth not the Father, which has sent him; which Words do plainly show, that 'tis the Will of the Father, That we believe his Son Jesus to be God, equal with himself. For a rendering the same Honor to the Son which is due unto the Father, carrieth in it, an Ascription of those Essential Perfections of God to him, which make him to be God, equal with the Father; which cannot be lawfully done by any, but such as believe him to be so; as appears not only from the Nature of the thing, but from Rom. 10.14. where it's said, that we cannot call, or give Divine Honor to him, in whom we have not believed. If then Honouring the Son as we Honor the Father be so necessary a Duty, that they who neglect it do not Honor 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 Mohammedans, 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 cannot be pronounced Believers, they who disbelieve it, cannot be Christians; whence it is, that the Mohammedans, and English Socinians, denying the Divinity of Christ, and the lawfulness of rendering 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; though', they denied Christ's Deity, yet urged the giving Divine Worship unto Christ, as necessary to the distinguishing themselves from the Mohammedans, and proving themselves to be good Christians. But the English Socinians falling in with Franciscus Davidis, and that Party in Poland, are of opinion, that they must be guilty of Idolatry, if they give Divine Worship to him that is but a Creature; and to escape Idolatry, refuse to give to the Son, Divine Worship, and so put it out of their Power to prove themselves to be better Christians than the Turks are, or to plead their own Cause without defending the Mohammedans; 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 prepared such a Heaven for them who observed his Alcoran, as mostly suited their sensual and voluptuous Dispositions: And, being himself a most lascivious Wretch, whilst he would by his Alcoran restrain others, pretends to have an Indulgence from Heaven, for the Gratification of his own Lusts.

Thus the Amorous Prophet being taken with the Beauty of his Slave, Zeid 's Wife, obliged Zeid to Repudiate her, bringing in the one God, saying;

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 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 resolved 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, entitled 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.

Whether the lascivious, and bloody Mindedness of this Mahomet, and his Partizans be some of the Trifles of whom Sandius speaks, who, after he had given the fairest Representation of the Faith and Morals of the Turks, adds, Caetera, quae in Alcorano invenimus, sunt merae nugae, I submit to the Reader, it being to me very clear, that they who 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 lopped 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 looked on as Pensioners of the Great Turk, than the learned Opposers of Socinian Heresies can be represented as the Grand Pensioner of the World▪