The Growth of Error, Chapter 3 – Chapter 4

The Growth of Error · Chapter 3 – Chapter 4

p. 21CHAP. III.

The deceitful Methods uſed by Hereticks a cauſe of Error, more generally propoſed: The approaches of Socinus, and his Followers towards the Orthodox. The real difference, there is between them in Fundamentals. A Reflection on theſe Methods. Arminians take the ſame courſe, &c.

SECT. I.

The deceitful methods uſed by Hereticks more generally propoſed. Their riſe in the Apoſtles days. The deceitful Methods, uſed by ſome Men of great Learning, is another Cauſe of the growth of Error.

THERE being ſome Foundation-Truths ſo fully, clearly and diſtinctly reveal'd in Holy Writ; as to command the Aſſent of the Church Ʋniverſally in all Ages, (excepting that in which the Chriſt an World became Arian,) they, who have been their chief Oppoſers, have retained the Words and Phraſes, by which thoſe Truths have been tranſmitted down unto us; p. 22and introduced their particular Opinions, by an Heterodox ſenſe they have fixed on them. And when ſuſpected, that they might the more effectually conceal their Errors, have ſubſcribed ſound Catechiſms and Confeſſions, whereby they have had the fairer opportunity to inſtil their Dogmata into the minds of Youth, and other leſs ſtudied Perſons, and under the Notion of being firm Adherers to the common Faith, have engaged them to a cloſure with the unſoundeſt Parts of their Heretical Scheme.

In the Apoſtles days, they who err'd from the Faith, attempted by good words, and fair ſpeeches to ſeduce the ſimple, Rom. 16.18. And Irenaeus, who lived near that time Paul wrote his Epiſtle to the Romans, deſcribing the Hereticks of that Age,Digreſ. de … …heol. Helmſtad. R…g. Syn…. …. pag. …88. as Calevius obſerves, tells us that they ſpeak like unto the Orthodox.

This was the way Arius, after he was driven from Alexandria for his Hereſie, took to be reſtored to the Emperour's favour; tho' he retained his Error, yet ſubſcribed a found confeſſion of Faith, as 'tis reported by Socrates in his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory. Lib. l. c. 25, &c.

Pelagius, when conven'd before a Provincial Synod at i…ioſpolis, in Pelaeſtine, at which Fourteen Biſhops were preſent, but not his Accuſers, Auguſt. …e…ract. lib. 2 …. 47. & …. ad ….doth concur with the Orthodox in condemning his own Opinions; but as Voſſius out of St. Auſtin obſerves, he d…d it very deceitfully. Pelagianamſententiam pectore quidem ficto, ſed tamen Catholicos p. 23judices timens Pelagius ipſe damnavit. And as the ſame Poſſius adds,Hierom. Epiſt. 79. St. Hierom calls this Synod a miſerable one; becauſe, tho' they err'd not in Doctrines, yet not diſcerning the falſhood of the man, they …rr…d in the Judgment they paſt on him, who being better known at Rome, could not conceal his Treacherous Endeavours, but was ſoon detected by the Biſhops of that place.V…ſſ Heſt. Pelar. lib. 1. Cap. 41. Hare…ici imitantur Catholicos f…eut ſimiae imitantur homine… Cy…ian. ad Jubajanum.

This being the common practice of Hereticks, St. Cyprian compares them to Apes, ſaying they imitate the Orthodox as Apes do Men.

Now this having been a very ſucceſsful, as well as a moſt pernicious Articice, in conſtant practice amongſt the Ancients; the Socinian and Armintan Leaders, whoſe Reputation hath been, and is ſtill ſo great, that the reſpect multitudes have for them, in regard to their Candor, and Integrity, which is ſuppoſed to be conſpicuous in the Repreſentations they make of their own, and their Adverſaries Principles, have walk'd in the ſame Path, as I hope in the following Hiſtory, with ſome clearneſs to detect and make manifeſt.

SECT. II.

The ſeeming Approaches of Socinus, and his Followers towards the Orthodox.

THE Socinians, altho' they deny a Trinity of Perſons in the God-head, the Divinity p. 24of Chriſt, and the Perſonality of the Holy-Ghoſt; Chriſts Satisfaction and Merit; Juſtification by the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; the work of the Spirit in Converſion, &c. Yet in their Apologies, Confeſſions, and other Writings, they give us their Opinions in ſuch words, as if they held all theſe neceſſary Doctrines.

Ruarus▪ who is juſtly eſteemed by the excellent …l…huſius, Specimen Refut. Crell. de ſatisf. p. 3.5.to be one of the moſt Learned Socinians, amongſt the Reaſons annexed to the firſt Century of his Select Epiſi…les, perſwading the Papiſts to expreſs more candor towards them, cloſes with this Proteſtation. That they do heartily believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that they Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son,Ruar. Epiſt. Select. par. 1. pag. 464. and Holy Ghoſt; and acknowledge an Ʋnity in this Trinity; that they eſteem Jeſus Chriſt to be the Son of God, and the true God, and as ſuch worſhip him; that they believe Chriſt to have abundantly ſatisfied the Will of the Father in all things, which he impoſed on him to do, and ſuffer for our ſins, and ſo by the Victime of his Body hath expiated them.

In an Epiſtle to Heing Veglerus, this Learned Ruarus thus writes.Ruar. Epiſt. 16. P. 107. My moſt intimate Friends have oft heard me Profeſs, that in moſt humble manner I adore the Divine Nature in Chriſt, (and am moſt hearty in acknowledging his true Merit and Satisfaction made for us, altho theſe words are not in Scripture.) I Challenge p. 25'em all to accuſe me if they can for denying the Hypoſtaſis, or Subſiſtence of the Holy-Ghoſt, or for rejecting Infant-Baptiſm, or for placing our Righteouſneſs in the Merit of our Works, or any thing like it.

In an Epiſtle to Frederick Schoſſirus, whoſe perverſion Ruarus doth endeavour, after he had adviſed him to caſt off thoſe prejudices, he had received with h…s Mother, Milk, beſeeches him to conſider, th… they do not deny Chriſt's ſatisfaction but hold that he ſatisfied the Will of his Father, both by doing, and ſuffering all thoſe things impoſed on him by the Father for the ſake of us, and our Sins;Ruar. Epiſt. 23. p. 146, 147. whence it comes to paſs, that our ſins are pardon'd, and Eternal Life given us. He is more full in what he writes unto Nigrinus, for (ſaith he) I do acknowledge that the Obedience, which Chriſt, as the Head of all the Elect, did render unto God in his Life, and much rather in his Death, was a ſufficient, or full price for our Sins, and ſo equivalent to the ſufferings, which by our Sins we had deſerved. But that I may more diſtinctly deliver my thoughts concerning the Fruits of Chriſts Death, I will reduce what I have taken out of the Holy Scriptures to Three Heads, anſwerable to his Three-fold Office. For Chriſt being the Chief Prophet of God, even as was Moſes, publiſhed a New Law unto the People, and whatever he Taught, Commanded, Promiſed, or Did, when p. 26alive, he by his Death, Eminently Confirmed, Sealed, and Sanction'd, whereby we are obliged to believe him, and obey his Laws. And God himſelf engaged to perform all that Chriſt hath promiſed in his Name. Touching the Prieſtly Office which lyeth in making Prayers for the People and Sacrificing, that is to ſay, Killing the Victim, and then according to the Law offering it for the Expiation of Sin, Chriſt a little before his Death pouring out moſt ardent Prayers to God, on behalf of all that then did, or after ſhould believe, and entering into Heaven through Death, doth now make Interceſſion for them, and freely offer'd up himſelf upon the Croſs. as one to be made an Atoneing Victim; and with this Victim of his Body prepared for an Oblation, by Death he entered into the Heavens, as into the Holy of Holies, and offer'd up this Sacrifice of himſelf without Spot, by the Eternal Spirit unto God, who is amongſt the Cherubims; or rather with the Myriads of Angels, there appearing for ever before the Throne of the Divine Majeſty, to expiate the Sins of the People, and procure their Pardon. And that he might enter on the Execution of his Kingly Office, whereby he doth all things which belong to the Salvation of the Elect, defending and freeing them from all Evil, and at length making them meet for the partaking of Spiritual and Heavenly Bleſſings: He did, by rendring Obedience to p. 27the Death open a way, whence we owe all unto Chriſt, who ſo readily dyed for us.

The Cauſes alſo of our Salvation may be conſidered as Three fold. The Firſt, the freeſt Grace of the Immortal God? The Second is Chriſt, who as our Head hath undertaken for his Body with God: The Laſt is our Faith and Obedience towards God, wrought by the Spirit of Regeneration.

To this of Ruarus, I will annex what Slichtingius, the Polonian Knight, hath, in the Pelonian Confeſſion, and Apology. In the Preface to the Confeſſion, they ſay, That the Apoſtles Creed is moſt Ancient, containing the moſt pure, and Apoſtolical Truth, as firſt delivered; that therefore in Publiſhing the Faith of their Churches to expreſs their Conſent with the whole World, they keep moſt cloſe unto this Creed, and although they eſteem the third Part about the Holy Ghoſt, not to be ſo Ancient, as the other two Parts, yet they Profeſs, that they believe all contained in it to be moſt true. And in their Expoſition of what is ſaid about Chriſt's being Dead, they declare, That then Chriſt's Soul was made an Offering for Sin, that all thoſe Scriptures which aſſign the Expiation and Remiſſion of our Sins to the Blood of Chriſt, do make it clear, that Chriſt's Death was tanquam victima …iacularis, that is, as an Expiatory Sacrifice, or Victim.

p. 28Beſides on theſe Words, [the Remiſſion of Sin] its thus: We believe all paſt Sins, how groſs ſoever, and all Sins of Infirmity committed after the Acknowledging of the Truth, are through the Obedience, Blood and Oblation of Chriſtfully …ven them, that have the Communion … formerly ſpoken of; For this … ſay they,) Juſtification is not … the Law, or our own … That this Remiſſion of …, and Juſtification is on our part ob…ed by …ith, and Repeniance, and contrued unto us by the Fruits thereof.

This is that part of the Socinian Confeſſion,Vid. Curcel. …u…ern. Differ. Theo. Adver. Mareſ. Differ. 4. Sect. 13. with which Stephen Curcellaeus twits honeſt Mareſius, as what is more Sound than what is embraced by him and other Calviniſts

Michtingius in his Apology, (which was occaſion'd by an Edict of the Lords of Holland and Weſt Frieſeland, for the ſupp eſſing all Socinian Prints and Conventicles, which they ſent out in purſuance of the Supplication made unto them by the Deputies of the Synod of South and North Holland, approved of by Triglandius, Heidanus, and Cocceius, Profeſſors at Leiden; I ſay, in this Apology, he doth his utmoſt by uſing Orthodox Phraſes, to make their Errors look, as though they differd but little from the Common Faith; For (ſaith he,) 'twas never in our thoughts to deny the Unity of the Trinity; that we do with our whole Heart Believe, and openly own p. 29the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt to be One, that we confeſs Chriſt to be God, aſcribing to him that Divinity, which appertains to the Son of God, the like of the Holy Ghoſt. And whereas we are charg'd for Denying Chriſt's Satisfaction, Apol. pro verit. accuſat. p. 12.if it be meant of the thing which in the Holy Scriptures is aſſigned unto it, we do moſt firmly believe, that Jeſus Chriſt, to the end he might obtain for us the Remiſſion of Sins, hath ſo far ſatisfied the Divine Will, P. 24.that there is nothing wanting to a moſt full and Compleat Satisfaction.

As to the Merit of Chriſt, if by it they mean his Perfect Obedience, and Righteouſneſs, we do freely confeſs, that Chriſt's Obedience for our obtaining Eternal Life doth much more abound to us, than Adam's Sin to our Condemnation, Apol. 25.not excluding our Obedience, which all that have received Faith and the Spirit of Chriſt, have, more or leſs, whoſe Defects are through the Grace of God ſupplyed by Chriſt's moſt Compleat and Perfect Obedience.

We acknowledge, that we are Sinners, Apol. p. 53.and fall very ſhort of the perfect Rule of Righteouſneſs, and therefore ſly unto Chriſt, that we may be juſtified by him, without the Deeds of the Law— nor do we by the Faith of Chriſt deſtroy the Law, as it reſpects Moral Precepts, which is the true Righteouſneſs, but eſtabliſh it.

p. 30That Converſion is by the Power of the Spirit we never denied, unleſs as held by ſuch, as make Men to be but as Stocks, utterly rejecting and baniſhing from the Chriſtian Religion all Vertue, and Vice, Re…ards and Puniſhments, P. 26.leaving it deſtitute of all Encouragements to true Piety. P. 87.We truſt not to the Strength or Power of our own Will, knowing that unleſs it be excited, cheriſhed, and helped by a Heavenly Power, we cannot ſo much as Will, much leſs Perform any thing—and ſeeing we can neither begin,P. 65. nor finiſh any thing without the help of God's Grace, we lift up our Prayers and Thankſgivings unto God …or do we deny the Reſurrection,P. 76. but with the Apoſtle we have our Hope in God, touching the Reſurrection of the …d, both of the Juſt and Ʋnjuſt, believing that the Juſt ſhall be raiſed to the Joys of an Eternal Life, and the Unjuſt to the Puniſhment of Everlaſting Fire, wherefore knowing the Terrour of the Lord we perſwade Men.

…ru…peorius, a …ni…ht, and Counſellor of the Flector of …randenlurg, Przip…v. Apol. … …cen.in his Apology for afflicted Innocence, directed to the F…lar, and Supreme Prince of Pruſſia, ſeems to ſpeak as Ortho loxly as any one could wiſh. For, (ſaith he) we with due Honour receive the Doctrine of the Triatry, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whoſe Name we are Baptized: Concerning the Divinity of our Lord, We acknowledge him to be properly, and p. 31truly ſpeaking the only Begotten Son of God, not meerly becauſe of the I ominion, and Omnipotence given to him, but becauſe of that Divine Nature, which he received by the voluntary Generation of his moſt loving Father, in which, the Character and Image of the Divine Sub ſtance of the Father ſhines, and ſo we Worſhip, Adore, and Invoke him as the True God, even by Nature, in a proper Sence, now and for ever Bleſſed. Then of the Holy Ghoſt he ſays. Nothing can by any Man be ſaid ſo ſublime concerning the Holy Spirit, which we do not willingly admit, ſo that the Name and Title of the Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt remain peculiar to the Omnipotent Perſon of the Father: Then concerning the Merit of Chriſt's Death We acknowledge the Merit of the Death of Chriſt, and our Redemption effected by his moſt precious Blood poured out, but ſo as that the Grace and Favour of Forgiveneſs, remain owing to his moſt merciful Father.

He is poſitive, that touching Magiſtracy, they confeſs with the Apoſtle Paul, that the Magiſtrate is the Miniſter of God to Puniſh, by the Sword, evil Doers, and protect the Innocent, and that they are not to be removed out of the Church of Chriſt, that in the other Articles of Religion, they hold nothing Blaſphemous, Heretical, or Abſurd, not daring to deviate in the leaſt from the Apoſtle's Creed, and Holy Scriptures.

p. 32Whoever conſiders that what is here delivered by this Author, is done Apologetically to put a ſtop to the troubles they endured, or at leaſt, to get 'em mitigated, cannot but concur with me in concluding, that He uſes theſe Orthodox Phraſes, to the end He, and they might be eſteemed as Men Sound in the Faith, far from holding the Hereſies they were charged with, and therefore no way deſerving the Severities, that were only due to Blaſphemous Hereticks; and yet, (as we ſhall hereafter ſhew) as there is a mixture of Unfound Expreſſions, even in the Places, where he ſpeaks thus of the Trinity, and Chriſt's Divinity, ſo doth he otherwhere deny theſe Doctrines.

…nyedinus, Superintendent of the Ʋnitarian Churches in Tranſilvania, in his Preface to his Explication of thoſe places in the Old and New Teſtament, produced by the Orthodox to prove the Trinity; doth poſitively aver,Enjed. Praeſ…ad explicat. Loc. V. & N. Teſt. That the whole they believe is owned by Papiſts, Lutheran, and Calviniſt, Namely, That Jeſus Chriſt called the Son of God, the Father Almighty, Maker of the Heavens and the Earth; even he who was conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, and Born of the Virgin, the Man Chriſt Jeſus is the One, and only Mediator between God, and Men, by whoſe Death Salvation is procured for us, and through whom both Jew and Gentile have Acceſs to the Father, and in whoſe Name, by the Holy Ghoſt we obtain a Pardon, and an Aſſurance of Eternal Life. p. 33This is the ſumm of the New Teſtament-Doctrine, and the Faith, which we conſtantly Profeſs, and Defend, And who dares deny it? Do the Papiſt, Lutheran, or Calviniſt? No, by no means.

I could eaſily add many other Socinian Authors, ſpeaking after this very way, as if they Diſſented not from the Orthodox in any Important Points: But theſe being enough to Evince the Truth of my Aſſertion, I will go on to ſhew, that notwithſtanding theſe ſeeming Approaches towards the Truth, they are at the utmoſt diſtance from it, denying thoſe glorious Doctrines, they would be thought to embrace.

SECT. III.

The real Diſtance there is between the Socinian and Orthodox. That the Difference lyeth in Fundamentals.

THAT they deny the Trinity of Perſons in the God-head, the Divinity of Jeſus Chriſt, and Perſonality of the Holy Spirit is the Burthen of all their Writings. Who can caſt his Eye on Socinus, Slichtingius, Crellius, Wolzogenius, and Smalcius, and not ſee how much they expoſe theſe Doctrines? Enjedinus hath a large Quarto to prove, that not one Word either in the Old or New Teſtament, can be found to favour the Trinity, or the Divinity of Chriſt.

p. 34Franciſcus Davidis, and George Blandrata, in their Refutation of George Major, inſinuate, that this Bleſſed Doctrine is a Papal Antichriſtian Invention. The Blaſphemies of Servetus may be ſeen in Calvin's Refutation of them, but too vile at this time to be mentioned. And in Calvin's Explication of Valentinus Gentilis his Perfidiouſneſs, there is an account of his Oppoſition to the ſame Truths. And whoever will, may conſult Sandius his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec, where is a large Catologue of Socinian Writers againſt the Trinity, &c.

And Chriſt's Satisfaction, which is really ſubverted by the denyal of his Divinity, is alſo expreſly Exploded. Though they grant a Satisfaction, the Payment of a Price, the enduring a Puniſhment, a Puniſhment equipollent to what we have by our Sins deſerved, yet they mean quite another thing than what is generally underſtood by us; which, as ſoon as they have, by the uſe of Orthodox Expreſſions, enſnared their Readers to put a favourable Sence upon their Writings, they diſcover, Inſinuating, that the Satisfaction, they, and as they will have it, the Holy Scriptures are for, is not to God's Juſtice, it is not properly by paying a foreign a Price, a full Price, nor an Equivalent to what we deſerved: It is only a Satisfaction improperly, and in a Figurative, a Metaphorical Sence, and that only to the Divine Will, and called Satisfaction, for no other Reaſon than, becauſe God is pleaſed freely to accept on't as ſuch. Ruarus p. 35therefore having called Chriſt's Sufferings a foreign, a Price, Equipollent to what our Sins deſerved, adds, Not that it is ſo any otherwiſe than Exclementi De…cceptatione, that is to ſay, Chriſt's Sufferings are Satisfactory through God's Gracious Acceptation; not to his Juſtice, but Will, which Smalcius, in his Anſwer to Smiglecius his Preface to his Diſcourſe about Chriſt…s Satisfaction, doth thus explain. We do acknowledge that Chriſt did ſatisfie in all thoſe things impoſed on him by God,Smal. Fraef. ad Smigl. de Satisf. for the procuring our Salvation, but Chriſt did not ſatisfie that Juſtice of God, which cannot ſuffer any Sin to go unpuniſhed, and appeaſe God's Anger, reconc…le him unto us, by enduring thoſe Puniſhments in our Stead, that were due unto us, and meriting Salvation for us.

Though there can be no Redemption without a full, and ſatisfying Price, and notwithſtanding the Holy Scriptures ſpeak much of Redemption, and of a Price, a full Price, and of Chriſt's Redeeming us by his Blood, as the Price; which Expreſſions can import nothing leſs than a proper Satisfaction; yet have they the Confidence to aſſert, not only that Chriſt's Redemption may be, but muſt be without Satisfaction; that ſuch is the tranſcending Mercy of God in our Redemption, that it cannot be otherwiſe. That the Righteouſneſs of God exacting Satisfaction, in order to the Pardon of our Sins is not ſo much as to be mentioned, that there is no ſuch Righteouſneſs p. 36in God; That it's inconſiſtent with the Excellency of his Grace and Mercy. So Smale. ubi ſup.

To put the beſt Colours they can upon this their odd Notion, they having granted that foreign, Price, and full Price, doth ſignifie a proper Price paid for the Redeeming a Slave out of Captivity, they averr that in the Holy Scriptures▪ it muſt be taken, otherwiſe, viz. improperly, and Metaphorically.

Wolzogenius in his Commentary on Matthew, interpreting theſe Words,Chap. 20.28. [The Son of Man gave his Life a foreign, a Ranſom for many] confeſſeth, That foreign, or foreign,Wolz. Mat. 20.28.Matt 20:28 Ranſom doth properly ſignifie the Payment of a Price for a Captive, and a Liberation or Deliverance from his Captivity: However, it is taken, amongſt Prophane Writers, and almoſt every where in the Holy Scripture, Metaphorically, for a Liberation; without reſpect to the Payment of any Price, — for it cannot (ſaith he) be proved, That Chriſt did make any Payment to the Juſtice of God, by his Death, for there is no ſuch Juſtice in God, as doth exact Vindictive Puniſhment for Sins.

Crellius, in his Anſwer to Grotius, de Satisfactione, Crel. Reſponſ. ad Grot. de Satisf. c. 6. Socin. Praelect. Theol. 6.19.argues after the ſame manner Wolzogenius doth; and what both urge, was more fully done before by Socinus himſelf, in his Theological Prelections.

As Redemption, which properly is the Paying a full Price for the Deliverance of a Slave, carries in it Satisfaction, and therefore p. 37by the Enemies of Chriſt's Satisfaction, the Scriptures, which ſpeak of Redemption without the leaſt ſhadow of a Reaſon, are turn'd into Metaphors; ſo Chriſt's …earing our Sorrows though granted by them, meets with the ſame Treatment, For as Smalcius. We confeſs, that Chriſt did truly bear our Griefs, and Sorrows,Smal…. contra Smigl. de Satisf. c. 6. p. 223. but we deny it to be in that manner which Smaglecius affirms it to be, namely, that Chriſt bore the Puniſhment of our Sins, for as in this manner, 'tis Impoſſible, Blaſphemous, and Pernicious; ſo there are other ways in which Chriſt may be ſaid to bear our Sins, and they, ſuch as are more conform to the Holy Scriptures, more worthy of God, and ſafe for Men; namely, That Chriſt ſuffered Death by Reaſon of our Sins, That he would never have Suffered, if Man had not Sinned; and that he himſelf bore our Sins, that is, aboliſhed them, it being moſt certain, that the Word [Bearing] in Scripture, ſignifieth a Power to take away Further, — God exacted not any Puniſhment due ex Juſtitia, being an abſolute Soveraign,Smalc. ubi ſup. p. 293. & p. 300. who can, as he pleaſeth, forgive the Sins committed againſt him; nor did Chriſt offer up himſelf to bear the Puniſhment of our Sins; nor if Chriſt had ſo offerd up himſelf, might God accept it. For, if God had Puniſhed the Innocent for the Nocent, he would have been not only Cruel, but Injuſt, and Unwiſe. And within a few Pages after this, he inſinuates, p. 38as if the Doctrine of Satisfaction, as held by the Orthodox, makes God more Cruel than any Tyrant.

And whereas it is expreſly aſſerted by the Holy Ghoſt, in 2 Cor. 5. and laſt Verſe, That Chriſt is made Sin, to take off the Force of the Argument we draw from thence, Smalcius doth aſſert,Smalc. Refut. Smigl. de ſatisf. c. 7. p. 229. That to be made Sin cannot ſignifie a Sacrifice for Sin, but Chriſt is ſaid to be made Sin, becauſe he was dealt with by God, as if he had been a Sinner, from which 'twill not follow, that therefore Chriſt made Satisfaction for us, or endured the ſame Puniſhment that was due to us. — We all acknowledge, that on him, who knew no Sin, the Puniſhment that was due unto Sinners, was inflicted, but not the ſame Puniſhment, nor what was Equivalent unto it, was, or could be laid on him— wherefore, what we have ſaid concerning laying the Puniſhments due for our Sins on Chriſt: By Puniſhments we mean Afflictions; which ſignifies no more than what was carefully delivered a Page or two before,Smalc. ubi ſup. p. 226. Slicht. Annot. in 2 Cor. 5.21. Crell. Reſponſ. ad Grot. de ſatisf. c. 4. Apol. Pol. Equit. p. 13.14. Przipcov. Cogit. in …oc.2 Cor 5:21 when he deſires it may be Remarked, That when they ſpeak of Chriſt's being Puniſhed for our Sins, they mean only that he was Afflicted. The ſame is affirmed both by Slichtingius, and Crellius.

Again, they own no other Imputation of Righteouſneſs▪ beſides that of our Faith, for, ſaith the Polonian Knight, in his Apology, The Scriptures makes no mention of the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, p. 39but ſimply of a Righteouſneſs imputed unto us by God through Chriſt, which is, when God doth of his Grace and Mercy, raiſe our Faith in Chriſt a living Faith, working by Love, ſo high, that by it we, who are guilty of moſt groſs Sins, may be eſteemed Juſt, and Righteous, which is alſo called the Righteouſneſs of God; not ours, becauſe it's given us freely, and not for any Merit in us.

Now, as they do thus ſet the Imputation of an Inherent Righteouſneſs of our own in the ſtead of Chriſt; ſo, notwithſtanding their many Pretences about aſcribing Converſion to the Power of the Spirit, they mean nothing leſs.

Ruarus, in his Epiſtle to Peuſchelius, Ruar. ad Joan. Peuſchel. Epiſt. 9.doth very fully expreſs the Socinian Sence. Converſion, which lyeth in a Reformation of the Ʋnderſtanding, approving the Goſpel, and of the Will, reſolved to Obey, or actually obſerving it, is cauſed immediately, by that Conception, we have in the Mind, concerning God, and Chriſt, and the things appertaining to Religion, and by ſuch Arguments as move the Ʋnderſtanding to approve, and the Will to obey the Goſpel. This Conception is begotten in the Mind, either by hearing the Word Preached, or Reading it; whence it is, that the Word, whether by Voice, or Writing expreſſed, is a kind of Remote Cauſe of Converſion, yet ſuch as ought neceſſarily to go before, and if diligently heard, or Read, is ordinarily p. 40ſufficient to begin it in all, excepting ſome dull Perſons, whoſe Minds are too much under the influence of wicked Opinions; and Wills diſtorted by a long cuſtom in Sin. I ſay, that the Word is ſufficient to begin our Converſion, for, I do not deny, but that after we have rightly uſed our Natural Faculties, the Help of the Divine Spirit is given for the encreaſing the Strength is in us, to the compleating and finiſhing of our Converſion, which yet we could not know how to uſe, to ſo Holy an End, unleſs we had been firſt moved by God, and excited by his Word. Hence it doth appear, that it is God, who works in us both to Will, and to i…o; the firſt, when invited by a putting us in mind of the Goſpel; the other, when by the moving of his Spirit, he ſtrengthens us; yet ſo, that there is ſtill Room left for the being excited to Vertue, by the Propoſals of Rewards, and deterr'd from Vice, by the threatning of Puniſhments. To which I add, That if any will have it, that this Knowledge in our Mind, which precedes our Aſſent, be rather a part of our Converſion, than a Cauſe, I will not content with him, only then the Word of God Preached, or Read, muſt not be eſteemed the Mediate, but immediate Cauſe of our Converſion. Thus far Ruarus, who makes it very manifeſt, that the Socinian Notion, touching the Power of the Spirit to Convert, lyeth in aſcribing the great turn from Darkneſs p. 41unto Light, and from the Power of Satan to God, unto the Hearing, or Reading of the Word without any ſpecial Help of God's Spirit.

There being then ſo great a Difference between the Orthodox Expreſſions, uſed by the Socinians, and the corrupt Senſe fo…ſ…ed in, under their Covert, we need not wonder at Ruarus his aſſerting, that the Papiſts amongſt all other Sects, have moſt Reaſon to be kind unto the Socinian, for how Orthodox ſoever they would ſeem to be, they embrace the moſt corrupt and hurtful parts of the Popiſh Religion. I will clear this Aſſertion, by giving you Ruarus his own Words, which are amongſt the Reaſons given by him to ſhow, why the Papiſts ought not to be ſo very angry with the Ʋnitarians, whom they call Socinians, or Arians. Another Reaſon (ſaith he) is,Ruar. becauſe in the chief Articles of the Chriſtian Faith, they agree with the Church of Rome more than any other Sect whatſoever, namely, in the Doctrine of Predeſtination, …lection, and Conditional Reprobation, the Ʋniverſality of God's Grace, and Fruits of Chriſt's Death, of free Will, and its Intereſt in the Converſion of Man to the Faith; of Juſtification, which is made effectual by Charity, of the Neceſſity of Good Works, which they urge more vehemently than any other Church, of the Poſſibility of keeping all God's Commands, of the Difference between the Old and New Teſtament, preferring the New before p. 42the Old, with reſpect to the Promiſes and Precepts, of the Difference between Venial, and deadly Sins.

It is alſo manifeſt, That how Orthodox ſoever Przipeovius would have his afflicted Innocence eſteemed; and, though he differs from Socinus about the Divinity of Chriſt, affirming him to be God, truly, in a proper Sence, and by Nature: Yet he is as far from the Truths he would be thought to embrace, as any of that Gang. For in that very place, where he oppoſes them, who aſcribe to Jeſus Chriſt Divine Attributes, and yet deny his Divine Nature, to expoſe the Ridiculouſneſs of this Notion, he tells his Readers, that it's as Abſurd as the Doctrine received by the Orthodox about Diſtinction of Perſons in the ſame Eſſence: And, although he ſpeaks of Chriſt's being God truly, in a proper Sence, yet denies him to be Co-eternal, and Co equal with the Father, and makes him to be but a Subordinate God, Przipcov. Hypera. p. c. 4.not properly God, and Man at the ſame, but at diſtinct Seaſons, firſt Man, then God: Nor doth he hold, that the Holy Ghoſt is a Perſon diſtinct from the Father, and is of the ſame Opinion with the Socinians about Satisfaction, giving the ſame Interpretation of thoſe Texts that ſpeak of [Chriſt's being made Sin] and [giving himſelf a full Price] that Wolzogenius. Crellius, and Slichtingius have done before him, as may be ſeen in his Cogitations on the New Teſtament.

p. 43What Socinus, and his Followers have herein done, it's very probable they learned from their chief Leader, Bernhardinus Ochine; who, Writing more Academicorum, did not only ſo deceitfully deliver his Sence, as to bring the Truth in doubt, but urges Arguments ſo cloſely in defence of Error, as to give it the Advantage.

Though Sandius, in his Antitrinitarian Bibliothec, accuſes Hoornbeck, for miſunderſtanding Zarnovecius; and Zarnovecius, for miſrepreſenting Matters of Fact, when in the Preface of his Anſwer to Socinus de Servatore, he makes Ochinus to be his Maſter, from whom he had his Errors, Sandius is under the Miſtake, and Zarnovecius in the right.

Zarnovecius, in his Preface, Zarvov. contra Socinum de ſervat. Praef.having in one Paragraph ſhown too great an Agreement between Socinus, the Jews, and Turks, doth in the next aſſure us, That Socinus had not his Blaſphemies againſt the Son of God out of the Holy Scriptures, nor from the ancient conſent of godly Men, profeſſing the Orthodox Faith from the Apoſtle's Days to our Times, but out of the Dialogues of his Country-Man, and undoubtedly his Maſter Ochinus, who had written at large thirty years before.

By [Maſter] Zarnovecius cannot well be ſuppoſed to mean any more than One from whom Socinus took his Notions, which is freely confeſſed by Socinus himſelf,Socin. Epiſt. Vadovit. in an Epiſtle to Vadovita Profeſſor at Cracovia, where he is poſitive, That as he never p. 44Publiſhed any thing, but by the Importunity of others, ſo the very Notions complained or, had been long before propagated by others both in Poland, and elſewhere, particularly by Ochinus, as Zarnovecius had obſerv'd. For, really, that Opinion (ſaith Socinus) is clearly aſſerted, and inculcated in thoſe Dialogues; and it is in ſhort, this, That Chriſt did indeed, by his Blood waſh away, and expiate our Sins, but in another Manner than that vulgarly received, viz. [That he, by pouring out his Blood, paid to Divine Juſtice, all that we, by reaſon of our Sins, were indebted to it; or, that he made Satisfaction for us, and our Sins] for neither was there any need of it, nor would God require the Puniſhment of our Sins from another, or tranſact our Debts on him, but freely forgive them. This Paſſage of Socinus doth at once clear Zarnovecius from Sandius his Charge, and prove Ochinus to be for the very Notions, Socinus moſt heartily eſpouſed, which compared with the Profeſſion Ochinus makes of the Orthodox Faith, and his manner of handling it, may convince an Unbyaſſed Mind, that he made the firſt Publication of thoſe Errors in that deceitful way, ſince taken up by his Socinian Followers; for tho' Socinus himſelf aſſerts, That Ochinus openly delivered and inculcated the ſame Notion about Satisfaction he was charged with, yet Ochinus doth it by his Friend Jacobus, the other Dialogiſt, pretending an Anſwer to p. 45the Arguments he had urged, as if he had been a Zealous Aſſerter of the Doctrine of Chriſt's Satisfaction.

SECT. IV.

A Reflection on the deceitful Methods of the Socinians.

THESE few Inſtances are, I preſume, ſufficient to Evince, that the Socinians are not the Faireſt, and moſt Candid Adverſaries, nor ever can be juſtly ſo eſteemed, except Deceit, double Dealing, and Hypocriſie be made the Ingredients of true Candor, and a generous handling of Controverſies: For (as you have ſeen) their Method is firſt to make their Hereſies look moſt like the Doctrines they oppoſe, and as ſoon as they find their enſnared Proſelites able to bear it, they take of their Mask, acknowledge the difference to be great, and then go on to treat the Doctrines, that juſt before they would be thought to be for (to uſe Dr. Edwards his Word) moſtn="*" See Dr Edward's Preface to his Preſervative againſt Socinianiſm. ſcurrilouſly, and with the greateſt Impudence, inſinuating, as if they had been the only Maſters of Reaſon, and ſincereſt Profeſſors of true Piety and Holineſs.

They are ſo humble, and modeſt, that it's become impoſſible for them to forbear either the Deſpiſing others, or Applauding themſelves. Socinus therefore could not but write a Treatiſe on purpoſe to prove, That p. 46it's the Duty of every good Man among the Reformed in Poland,Socin. in Append. to ſeparate from them as from Perſons too Impious to be Communicated with, and joyn themſelves to the more Holy Aſſemblies of thoſe, falſely and undeſervedly (to uſe his own Words) called Afrians, and Eb…onites. He takes it for granted, that the Reformed were very Vicious and Debauch'd, and aſſigns the Reaſon partly to their Doctrines, and partly to their Neglect of Diſcipline: And glories in the Holineſs of their own Aſſemblies, pretending, that ſuch are their Principles, and ſuch the exactneſs of their Diſcipline, that it could not well be otherwiſe.

This Book of Socinus was anſwered by Balthazzar Meiſner, Slicht. cont. Meiſ. p. 485.a Lutheran, but defended by Slichtingius, who to expoſe the Reformed, enumerates many vile Practices, obſerved in common by them: And in Vindication of Socinus, and his Followers, makes no ſcruple to aſſert, That their Glorying not being Raſh, but well grounded, is no more than what the Apoſtle hath done before them;Ubi ſup. p. 488. nor did the Phariſee Sin in Publiſhing his Vertues, but in Exalting himſelf, and Contemning others, when he ſhould humbly have ſought for the Pardon of his own Sins, a thing they endeavoured, even when they modeſtly mention the things done by their Aſſemblies, that were worthy of Praiſe.

But though they uſurp to themſelves this Title, viz. [Great Maſters of Reaſon) they will not allow Reaſon the Privilege of p. 47being Competent enough to diſcover the plaineſt and moſt neceſſary Truth in the whole of our Religion; namely, That there is a God, and in ſome of thoſe very Inſtances, in which they aſcribe moſt unto it, they oppoſe its cleareſt Maxims, which is moſt effectually done in their Eſſays, to deſtroy the Divine Nature of our Bleſſed Redeemer, where, ſtruggling between plain Scripture, and their own Error; to maintain the latter, which lyeth in their making him but a Finite Creature, and own what is the burthen of the former, that Infinite Perfections belong unto him, and he the proper Object of our higheſt Adoration and Worſhip. They contradict the cleareſt Reaſon as groſly as ever the Papiſts do, by making a Finite Subject the Seat of Infinite Perfections.

Of this, Przipcovius being aware, he roundly aſſerts, That Jeſus Chriſt is truly God, in a proper Sence, and truly Man, but not at the ſame time; when on Earth, he was properly Man, and after his Reſurrection, and not till then truly and properly God. A Notion as groſs as the former, a true God in a proper Sence, and by Nature, and yet a God, but Sixteen, or Seventeen Hundred Years ago.

Nor are they more happy in their Morals, for (beſide their Hypocriſie) their denying all ſecret Aſſiſtances, and the certainty of God's fore-ſeeing all future Events, that depend upon the freedom of Man's Will, (as a very learned Perſon hath lately p. 48obſerved) muſt cut off the Exerciſe of many Devotions, and much weaken our Confidence in God, our Patience under all Miſfortunes, and our Expectations of a Deliverance in due time. Further, their vacating and making void the Fourth Commandment, which is attended with a neglect of the Lord's Day, is an in-let into all manner of Vice, and the very Notions they frame of God to ſupport their other Errors, are ſuch as leſſen the Fear Men ought to have of God's Judgments. And as Dr. Edwards hath well obſerved. Socinus, by denying the Divinity and Satisfaction of Chriſt, hath plainly over-turn'd the Foundation,Preſer. againſt Socin. p. 42. 43. upon which the Chriſtian Church, and Religion have been built, and by his other Methods hath given a ſhrew'd blow to all Religion whatſoever, whether Natural, or Reveal…d, ſo that an unwary Reader, by peruſing his Writings, may find himſelf an Atheiſt, before he well perceives how he comes to be ſo, as he ſaith in another Caſe, viz. His Opinion againſt Hell Torments, that he had ſo contriv'd the Matter, Ʋt lector prius ſentiat Doctrinam iſtam ſibi jam perſuaſum eſſe quam ſuaderi animadvertat.

When I moſt impartially weigh theſe things, I mean, their deceitful Attempts to enſnare the Unwary to favour their Opinions, their Contemptuous Treatment of the Bleſſed Myſteries of the Goſpel, and its Advocates, together with their aſſuming to themſelves the Character of being the moſt p. 49Rational Divines, and Men of Excelling Piety and Holineſs, even when none do more contradict the plaineſt Maxims of Reaſon, and lay a ſurer Foundation for the utmoſt Immoralities: When I lay theſe things together, I am ſo far from thinking, as thoſe great Men do, who repreſent them, to be the faireſt Adverſaries, that I rather incline at leaſt to fear, that the Account given of them by the deſpiſed Lubbertus, which I will lay down in his own Words, is moſt true They are (ſaith he) Arrogant and Proud, who meaſure all things by va…n Glory, and empty Names of Honour, when they ſee that thoſe, who in other Diſciplines invent ſome new Notions to be Commended, they think it will be Laudable in them to Innovate in Sacred Theology. And being unskill'd in true Divinity, they deſpair of gaining a Name by Explicating, or Defending the Orthodox Doctrine: But burning with a deſire of Praiſe, they diſturb every thing, that they may be Famous, and had rather be talk'd of for breaking of Churches, than grow old without Fame in the true and Orthodox Religion. When they perceive other Learned Men to be preferr'd before them, they are angry; and what is moſt baſe, they Diſſemble and Counterfeit the Orthodox Religion, pretend to a Zeal for defending ſound Doctrine; Lubbert. Praef. ad lib. de Jeſu ſervat. cont. Socin. p. 2.ſwear to our received Confeſſions and Catechiſms, and with their own Hands ſubſcribe to what they ſwore; and yet, they with utmoſt p. 50Endeavours oppoſe the Sound, and publickly embraced Doctrine, and craftily inſtill a new and wicked One into their Diſciples, and carry about Calumnies againſt the Orthodox.

Thus much touching the Methods uſed by Foreign Socinians to inſinuate, and ſpread their Errors, I will in the next place ſhow how exactly they are followed by the Remonſtrants, and then acquaint the Reader with the Arts of out Engliſh Socinians.

SECT. V.

The Arminians imitate the Socinians. They pretend an Agreement with the Orthodox.

THE Arminians, to the end, they might with the greater Succeſs inſinuate their Errors, do alſo their utmoſt to cover them. Nothing therefore (they ſay) can be found amongſt their Aſſertions, but what is conform to the Holy Scriptures, the Heidelberg Catechiſm eſtabliſhed A. D. 1578. by a Synod of Dort, for the publick uſe of their Churches, the Belgick, and other Reformed Confeſſions.Armin. Epiſt. ad Hypolit.

Arminius, in his Epiſtle to Hypolitus à Collibus, proteſts, that he never, either in the Church, or Univerſity, taught any thing, but what was according to the Holy Scriptures, the Belgick Confeſſion, and Heidelberg Cat…echiſm.

p. 51In a Letter to Johannes Matthiſius. Theſe things, which I have at this time delivered, as they do agree with the Holy Scriptures, ſo they are not contrary to our Confeſſion, and Catechiſm, for which reaſon I do the more freely expreſs my ſelf.

In another to Sebaſtian Egbert. I do publickly preach to a numerous Auditory, and frequently diſpute when my Reverend Collegues are preſent, at which times I have uſed the greateſt freedom, in the Anſwers I have return'd to Objections: Beſides I have a private College, at which thirty Students, or more attend; and yet never hath there been the leaſt mention, that I ever uttered any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or our Confeſſions, and Catechiſm; although ſome of my Collegues, whoſe Zeal is ſuch for the Purity of Doctrine, that they would never have been ſilent, had they whereof to accuſe me, have been inſtigated thereunto. And whereas it's ſpread abroad, that I direct my Pupils to Read the Writings of the Jeſuits, and Coornhertius, the ſlander is ſo groſs, that I cannot find ſofter Words to expreſs it by, than to ſay, It is a down right Lye, for I never advis'd ſo much as one to any ſuch thing. But this indeed I do, after the Reading of the Scriptures, which I do moſt earneſtly preſs, yea more than any other, as the whole Academy can teſtifie, I do direct to the reading of Calvin's Commentaries, which I praiſe much more than Helmichius himſelf p. 52ever did, as he hath confeſs'd. For I do eſteem them to excell all others ſo much in the Interpretation of Scriptures, that there are none to be compared with them, in the Bibliotheca Patrum, that there was a more excellent Spirit in him than in any other: As for Common Places, I Recommed his Inſtitutions to be read after the Catechiſm, as containing the beſt Explication of it. For the truth of this I can bring a multitude of Witneſſes.

In a Declaration of his Sentiments made to the States of Holland, and Weſt-Fr…ezeland, (wherein are the Reaſons, why he declin'd to give any Anſwer to the Queſtions propos'd by Lansbergius, Fraxinus, and Dolegius, Deputies from the Synod of South-Holland, and by Eogardus, and Rolandus, Deputies from the Synod of North-Holland) his endeavour is to ſhow an Agreement between his Notions in each of the controverted Articles, and the Belgick Confeſſion and Catechiſm. I will give you what he ſaith touching the Grace of God in Converſion, and the Juſtification of a Sinner in the ſight of God.

What concerns the Grace of God, I do, firſt of all, (ſaith he) believe it to be that gracious and free Affection, whereby God doth take pity on a miſerable Sinner, by which he doth, in the firſt place, give his Son, that whoever believes in him, may have Everlaſting Life; then doth he juſtifie him, and give him the Privilege of a Child by Adoption, even p. 53a Right to Salvation. 2. This Grace is an infuſion of all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are for the Regenerating, and renewing of the Ʋnderſtanding, as well as Will, and Affections, ſuch as Faith, Hope, Charity, &c. without which Gifts of Grace no Man is able to Think, Will, or Do any good thing. 3. It is the continued Aſſiſtance, and help of the Holy Spirit, according unto which the Holy Ghoſt does excite and ſtir up the Regenerate unto Good, by infuſing into them Spiritual and Heavenly Thoughts, inſpiring them with good Deſires, and enabling them actually to Will that which is good; yea more, according to this Grace, the Spirit doth Will, and work with the Man, that what he Wills, he may be enabled to Perfect. After this manner I aſcribe unto Grace, the Beginning, Continuation, and Conſummation of all Good, even ſo far, that a Regenerate Man without this Preventing, Exciting, Continued, and Co-operating Grace, can never think, will, or do any good, nor reſiſt the feebleſt Temptation to Evil. How then can I be ſaid to be injurious to the Grace of God, or attribute too much to free Will? The Controverſie is not about the Actions, or Operations aſcribed to Grace; I am for as much as any Man whatſoever; but it is only about the Mode, or Manner of its Oprations, whether it be by an Irreſiſtible Force, or not? Here, indeed, I do with the Holy Scriptures, hold, that p. 54many reſiſt the Holy Ghoſt, and reject the offer'd Grace.

And in his Letter to Hypolitus à Collibus, Concerning Grace, and free Will, according to the Scriptures, and conſent of the Orthodox, I do declare, That Free Will without Grace, can neither begin, nor perfect any true Spiritual good Work, and leaſt any think I do (as Pelagius did) play with the Word, [Grace] I mean that Grace, which is the Grace of Chriſt, and belongs to Regeneration; which I hold to be ſimply, and abſolutely neceſſary for the inlightning the Underſtanding, regulating the Affections, and inclining the Will to what is good, that infuſes ſaving Light into the Mind, inſpires the Affections with Holy Deſires, and boweth down the Will to act according to that ſaving Light, and theſe good Deſires. This Grace, Prevents, Begins, Accompanies, and Follows; It ſtirreth up, helps, and works, that we may Will; and that we may not Will in vain, Co-operates with us. It ſecures us from Temptations, Aſſiſts, and helps us againſt them, upholding us againſt the Fleſh, the World, and the Devil. In the Conflict it gives us the Victory, and if at any time, we are overcome, and fall in the Temptation, this Grace recovers us, eſtabliſhes and gives new Strength, making us more watchful. It begins the Work of Salvation, promoves, perfects, and conſummates it. The mind of a p. 55Carnal Man, is, I confeſs, dark'ned, his Aſſections vile and inordinate, his Will diſorderly; yea, he is dead in Sin, and that Preacher is moſt highly eſteemed by me, who attributes moſt to Grace, if ſo be, that, whilſt he is extolling Grace, he doth neither Impeach God's Juſtice, nor take from Man Free Will to what is Evil. What any Man can deſire more, I know not.

About the Juſtification of a Man in the ſight of God.Jacoh. Armin. Decla, ſentent. p. 127. I am not ſenſible (ſaith he) that I either teach, or hold any thing but what is Ʋnanimouſly received by the Reformed Proteſtant Churches, and moſt exactly agrees with their Senſe. There hath been, I know, a Controverſie in this particular, between Piſcator, and the French Churches, as whether the Obedience, or Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which is imputed to Believers, and in which the'r Righteouſneſs before God doth conſiſt, be only Chriſt's Paſſive Obedience, as Piſcator affirmed? Or whether it be alſo his Active, which all his Life he rendred to the Law of God, and that Holineſs, in which he was conceiv'd, as the Gallick Churches hold. But I never intereſted my ſelf in it.

And how oddly ſoever, he expreſſed himſelf in this place, he would ſtill be thought a good Calviniſt. Armin. Decla. ubi ſup.For (ſaith he) whatever I have in this Point delivered, I differ not ſo much from Calvin, but that I am ready with my own Hand to ſubſcribe p. 56what he hath on this Subject, in the third Book of his Inſtitutes.

In his Diſputations, Armin. Diſput. Theſ. 48. Sect. 5.he is more particular, ſpeaking diſtinctly of the ſeveral Cauſes of Juſtification: Of the Meritorious, and Material, thus:

That Chriſt, by his Obedience, and Righteouſneſs, is the Meritorious Cauſe of Juſtification, who may therefore be deſervedly called the Procatartick Cauſe. The ſame, Chriſt in his Obedience and Righteouſneſs is alſo the Material Cauſe of our Juſtification, that is, as God gives to us Chriſt for Righteouſneſs, and imputes his Obedience and Rignteouſneſs unto us; in reſpect to this double Cauſe, namely, the Meritorious, and Material, we are ſaid to be conſtituted Juſt, or Righteous, by Chriſt's Obedience.

In this place Arminius (you ſee) doth diſtinguiſh between the Meritorious, and Material Cauſe of Juſtification, the One being Extrinſick, belonging to the Efficient; the other Intrinſick, or made the Matter of our Juſtification. The firſt is Chriſt, by his Obedience; the other is Chriſt for Righteouſneſs; Chriſt Given, and his Righteouſneſs Imputed. He was too Learned to confound the Material, and Intrinſick with the Meritorious, which is an External, and Efficient Cauſe, aſſerting, that as Chriſt is the Meritorious Cauſe, ſo he, as an Efficient, juſtifieth us by his Righteouſneſs: As he is the Material, he is given by God for Righteouſneſs, and his Righteouſneſs is imputed to us for Juſtification.

p. 57His Thoughts touching the Inſtrumental, Formal Cauſe, he expreſſes in theſe Words. Faith is the Inſtrumental Cauſe, Armin. ubi ſup. Sect. 7, 8.or Action, by which we apprehend Chriſt, and his Righteouſneſs offered unto us by God, according to the Order and Promiſe of the Goſpel; where it is ſaid, That whoever Believes ſhall be Juſtified and Saved. The Form of Juſtification is the gracious Eſtimation of God, whereby he imputes the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt unto us, and imputes Faith for Righteouſneſs; that is, God doth forgive unto us who believe our Sins, for the ſake of Chriſt apprehended by Faith, and eſteems us as Righteous in him, which Eſtimation hath annexed unto it the Adoption of Sons, and a Collation of Right to the Inheritance of Eternal Life.

And among the Corollaries deduced from what he had aſſerted in his Diſputation, he is poſitive, That it is impoſſible for Faith, and Works to Concurr to Juſtification; that Chriſt did not Merit, that we be juſtified by the Dignity and Merit of Faith, much leſs that we be juſtified by the Merit of Works. But the Merit of Chriſt is oppoſed to Juſtification by Works, and Faith oppoſed to Merit.

Theſe Appeals to the Catechiſm, and Confeſſion, and the conſent of the Reformed Proteſtants, his recommending Calvin's Commentaries, and Inſtitutes to his Pupils; and theſe, and ſuch other Paſſages, make it clear, That Arminius would fain be thought p. 58an Orthodox Calviniſt; which was alſo the deſire and endeavour of his endeared Companions, and Followers, even of Vytenbogart, Borrius, Poppius, Grievenchovius, Arnoldus, Corvinus, and Epiſcopius, at their Conference, A. D. 1611. with Ruardus, Plancius, Becius, Fraxinus, Bogardus, and Feſtus Homnius at the Hague, where 'twas their care in each of the Five Articles, to ſhow an Agreement between themſelves and the Heidelberg Catechiſm, the Belgick and other Reformed Confeſſions.

There is ſo much to this purpoſe in Bertius his Scripta Adverſaria Collationis Hagienſis, that the mention of a very ſmall part thereof would fill up more Room than I can ſpare for this purpoſe; beſides, this very Method hath been taken by ſome later Arminians. Curcel. Diſſert. 4. de Juſtiſica. Sect. 7.Curcellaeus, to clear himſelf from the Charge of Hereſie, doth in the Doctrine of Juſtification, proteſt, That he doth not think any Man is juſtified in the ſight of God, for the Merit or Dignity of his Works: But only through the mere Grace, which is in Chriſt's Blood, do we obtain the Remiſſion of Sin, we amending our Ways, not walking according to the Fleſh, but according to the Spirit, Rom. 8.13.

When its objected, that his making Repentance neceſſary to Juſtification, which includes good Works, deſtroys its being freely of Grace, he Anſwers, Not that Repentance,Curcel. ubi ſup. Sect. 14 or our Works do Merit any thing from God; or are ſo perfect, as p. 59that, if God ſhould ſtrictly ſearch into them, they could ſtand before him in Judgment. God forbid, that I ſhould aſſert any ſuch thing; but this I ſay, they are neceſſary, becauſe God will not make us partakers of the Salvation, purchaſed by Chriſts Blood, by any other Rule or Condition. And that he may the more plauſibly inſinuate into the Minds of his Readers, his Orthodoxy in this Matter, he tells us, That they who hold Repentance, and Converſion to be required in order to Pardon, as the greateſt part of Proteſtants, he thinks at this time do, cannot contradict this Doctrine: For (ſaith he) Remiſſion of Sins and Juſtification are with them equipollent, which may be ſafely enough aſſerted; For, though they may be as things divers ſeparated from each other; yet God according to the Tenor of the Goſpel-Covenant, forgives no Man's Sins, but at the ſame time eſteems him Righteous, and promiſes to give him the Reward of Righteouſneſs, which is Eternal Life, which is alſo carried in the full Pardon of all our Sins: For, ſeeing our Sins muſt be reduced to theſe two Heads, namely, Sins of Commiſſion, and of Omiſſion, He,Curcel. ubi ſup. Sect. 9… whoſe Sins of both ſorts are pardon'd, muſt be conſider'd as perfectly Righteous, and therefore worthy of the Reward.

p. 60SECT. VI.

The Difference between the Arminians, and the Orthodox.

BUT what Care ſoever Arminius, and his Partakers, heretofore, and the more wary and fearful have ſince taken to cover the dangerous Notions they are for, and appear as like the Orthodox, as may be; yet, unleſs they would abandon all Eſſays to propagate their Dogmata, 'twas impoſſible for them, when moſt cautious, perfectly to conceal either their Notions, or Deſigns.

'Twas therefore a vexatious Affliction to Arminius, Epiſt. Vytenbog. p. 55.(as he oft told Vytenbogardus) that he could not meet with Men of Learning, to whom he might freely impart his Sentiments. This one thing I greatly bewail, and lament,Epiſt. Vytenbog. p. 121. (ſaith he) that there is no one I can venture to converſe with. The Reaſon he aſſigns for this his Complaint, was the prevailing Humour, then amongſt the Orthodox, to call every thing Hereſie, which they approv'd not, even when they themſelves either neglected cloſe Study, or were deſtitute of that Learning,See his Epi…l… to Vytenbogard. p. 57. which was neceſſary to ſearch into thoſe deep Myſteries, whereby Arminius, whoſe Learning and Abilities were too great to be confin'd within the old narrow Circle of ſolid Divinity, where Men of as much Learning, and deeper Judgment delighted to abide, breaks p. 61out, and makes Inquiries into the profound and unſcrutable things of God, where he was bewildred, and ſcon loſt himſelf.

Had he been as gently treated by all, as he was by that profound Scholar,Arminius's Intimacy with Juni▪ was A. D. 1597. Junius dyed A.D. 1602. Franciſcus Junius, he might have eſcaped the Snare, but this great Man ſoon dying after Arminius had freely opened himſelf unto him, and others, being ſevere in their Condemning his Inquiries, he had none to Confer with, but Vytenbogard, and Adrian Borrius; Men whoſe Inclinations too much ſuited his own to be a Balance to him in his Indagations. By theſe Men Arminius is confirmed in the Errors his own Mind diſpoſed him unto, and were then thrown in his way by the Socinians, who had furbiſh'd up ſeveral Pelagian Hereſies about Predeſtination,Theſe Writings were burnt. A.D. 1598. Orig'nal Sin, and Free Will, which about this time, on the burning the Writings of Oſtorodius, and Voidovius, were as an Introduction to Socinianiſm, Vid. Frid. Spanhem. F. Elench. co… tro…. p. 219▪craſtily inſinuated by Theodore Kemp, Koornhert and others.

Arminius, being thus provok'd by the angry Paſſions of ſome, entic'd by the Flatteries of others, and undoubtedly inſtigated too much by his own Spirit, is fixedly ſet againſt the Calvinian Doctrines, which he labours to Undermine, even when he profeſſed the moſt Zeal for them. For, altho' in purſuance of Vytenbogardus's earneſt Requeſt,Armin. Epiſt. Vytenbog. p. 213. Arminius was very careful (as he aſſur'd him he would be) to mention nothing Diſſonant from the Heidelberg Catechiſm, p. 62and Belgick Confeſſion, Armin. Epiſt. Vytenbog. p. 213and boldly undertook to defend all he wrote by them, yet 'twas only, that thereby he might the more effectually enſnare his Scholars to a Cloſure with his unſound Principles; for 'twas his labour to get a review of the Catechiſm and Confeſſion, in order to a ſubſtantial Change or total Remove.Ep. Armin. Vytenb. p. 202.

In a Declaration of his Judgment, made unto the States of Holland, and Weſt-Friezland, he ventures to offer his Reaſons for the Review of both; which being promiſed by a late Synod of South Holland, he was emboldened to do Some of his Reaſons are, that it might appear to all, they leaned chiefly on the word of God, in matters Religious, that the Cathechiſm and Confeſſion being written by Men who are Fallible, might contain in them ſome one Error or other; and it was not at all unmeet for a National Synod to enquire whether they did agree in every part with the word of God; even for the words, and manner of ſpeaking, as well as touching their real Sence? Whether there be not ſomewhat in them made neceſſary to Salvation, which is not in Truth ſo? whether there be not ſome Words and Forms of ſpeech uſed, which may be diverſly underſtood, and ſo give too much occaſion to ſtrifes and contentions! Whether there be not ſome things in them repugnant to each other? many other enquires he made, which ſufficiently ſhow, that Arminius could not heartily cloſe with all he had p. 63ſubſcribed unto, and therefore as he rejoyc'd at the news of an="(a)" Epiſt. Vytenbog. p. 212. 213. Ubi ſup. p. 123. review, ſo nothing was more grievous to him than to here of a frequent repeating their Subſcriptions, which he compares to the Spaniſh and Trent Inquiſition.

In his Apology, and Anſwer to the one and thirty Articles, ſaid to contain the Opinions of himſelf and Adrian Borrius; he gives a particular account, how he was by his Friend betraied in too free a diſcovery of his diſſatisfaction with the Catechiſm and Confeſſion: For (ſaith he) about two Months agoe, a certain Miniſter would fain know, why I was for a ſubmitting the Catechiſm and Confeſſion to the Examination of a National Synod? to whom I freely replyed; that my ſenſe of the thing was included in this Syllogiſm, viz. Every Humane Writing, not foreign, not of Divine Inſpiration, and conſequently, what might contain in it Error, may, yea muſt be examin'd, when it may lawfully, and orderly be done in a Synod, to which ſuch Examinations belong: But ſuch are the Cathechiſm and Confeſſion; therefore, to prove his Aſſumption, he gave a particular inſtance out of the Catechiſm, which inſtance, as he too juſtly complains, was ſoon in every bodies mouth. But tho' Arminius his Friend did ill to betray him, yet it's hereby manifeſt, that notwithſtanding his pretentions to an agreement with the Catechiſm and Confeſſion, he did really Diſſent from them.

p. 64The next ſtep made, to ſhow a Diſſatisfaction, was by them, who were to prepare matters for the Synod, at which time they propoſed, that untill the Examination was over, and all things ſetled, there might be no more Subſcriptions impoſed; and that the Obligation might be taken off from them, who had already ſubſcribed.

This Propoſal, was no ſooner made by Arminius and Vytenbogard, but the Calviniſts are alarm'd, and think on nothing leſs than that the deſign is to make a Change in the Doctrines of Faith: Several Letters are therefore written unto the Learned in divers Countries, particularly by Lubhertus unto Dr. Meivin at St. Andrews in Scotland, a Copy of which is within a year tranſmitted out of England unto Arminius and Vytenbogard, who ſent a defence of themſelves to Melvin, ſhowing how they were abuſed by Lubbertus, however,Vid. Prae…nt & Illuſir. vir…r. E…t…. 23….243. confeſs they were for a freeing the Subſcribers from their Subſcriptions, untill all was finiſhed about it in a National Synod: which, they ſay, was with a Caution, that during this time there ſhould be no diſputing, nor Preaching on the Controverted points.

A Recognition, or Review was preſs'd again by the Remonſtrants at the Hague Conference, with a deſire, that they might be freed frm their Subſcriptions, till the Review was over. In the National Synod of Dort, they alſo urge it, boldly declaring, that, by the Fundamentals of the Reformation, p. 65and the conſtitution of our Churches,Script. Hiſt Remonſtrant p. 20. no one ought to be cenſured meerly becauſe he taught any Doctrine, contrary to the Confeſſion, ſo long as it was not contrary to the word of God; for a Confeſſion was not the infallible rule of every Doctrine.Ubi ſup. 41. And one of the conditions, propoſed by them to be obſerv'd by the Synod, was this, That in examining the matters in Controverſie, the enquiry be not only whether they agree or not agree with the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, as may be ſuppoſed to be in their Confeſſions; but that in the firſt place, and above all things they conſider, whether they agree with the word of God, and that with reſpect to the neceſſity, as well as Truth of every Article: For which reaſon, let every one, be, by ſolemn Oath, bound to promiſe, that he will not in judging reſpect Confeſſions, Catechiſms, or any other Humane Writings, but only the word of God, &c. And that, touching the Review of the Confeſſion, and Catechiſm, every one have liberty to offer his Conſiderations on them, without any danger of incurring a Cenſure.

Who ever will conſider, how vehemently they preſs for a Review; how earneſt they were for the Examining every point in Controverſie, without a reſpect to the Confeſſion, or Catechiſm, tho' they were never made the Rule of Faith; and how eagerly they ſought a Freedom from their Subſcriptions, and from a Cenſure in caſe they objected againſt anything in them, and will alſo p. 66carefully peruſe their conſiderations, againſt both; where, amongſt Seven and Thirty Articles in the Confeſſion, he will meet with at leaſt Thirty, and in the Catechiſm where are about a hundred and Thirty Queſtions and Anſwers, he will find above Threeſcore to fall under their ſharp reflections: And that in oppoſition to the Canons of the Dort Synod, they did publiſh a Confeſſion of their own. Whoever will, I ſay, put all theſe things together, and compare the Catechiſm, and Belgick Confeſſion with the Remonſtrants Declaration, cannot but be abundantly ſatisfied, that, nor Arminius, nor the Remonſtrants his Followers, were ſincere in their Proteſtations and Subſcriptions, but very corrupt and deceitful, and whilſt they pretended to approve of the Confeſſion and Catechiſm, they eſteemed many things in both Diſſonant from the word of God.

Thus much is not only the Language of theſe endeavours, but ingeniouſly granted by Ʋtenhogard, Reſpon U…eaboe. ad ſpecim. Hem. p. 6.who, in h…s anſwer to Feſtus Homnius his Specimen, profeſſes himſelf to be one of them who thought it neceſſary, who deſired and pray'd, that there might be a Review of their Publick Confeſſion, and an examining of it by the Word of God, for this very end, that what he, or others thought was not ſo agreable with the word of God, might be propoſed to the common conſideration of the ſeveral Churches. And Epiſcopius, in his reply to Feſtus Homnius his Specimen, tho he falls very ſeverely upon Homnius, for bringing him in as an Aſſerter p. 67of what he poſitively denied, yet yields, that in the five Articles, they differ'd from the Belgick Confeſſion. His words are, That,Opt. Fid. Feſt. Homn. p. 2. excepting the five Articles, all that Epiſcopius is charged with, are either about Matters frivolous, next to nothing, or ſuch as differ not from the Confeſſion.

Arnoldus Poelenburg, in his Letter to Hartſooker, opens himſelf in this matter more freely. He is not aſham'd,Vid. Poeledb. Hartſook. p. 222. Cornelius Wigger. A. D. 1597. or near that time, oppoſed the Confeſſion and Catechiſm, as a Lesbian Rule, that might be turn'd to either ſide. He was ſuſpended, ſets up Conventicles and ſtiffly adberes to his peculiar notions. Vid. Epiſt. Cor. Wig. p. 35. &c. nor afraid to revive the memory of Coornhertius (for whom Arminius would not be thought to have any reſpect) and Cornelius Wiggerus, as oppoſers of the Catechiſm, and Confeſſion, lamenting a want of ſucceſs in the many attempts made againſt them by divers other Perſons, not only Arminians, but by ſome, who were their moſt violent oppoſers, ſuch as Piſcator, and the like.

Beſides, it cannot be denied, but that the Arminian Doctrines are too manifeſtly a Contradiction to the Heydelberg Catechiſm, and Belgick Confeſſion, to admit of a Conciliation with them: How zealous ſoever Arminius was to be taken for a Calviniſt, none more eagerly endeavoured to ſubvert the very foundations of the Doctrines embraced, explained and defended by Calvin. There is ſo much craft, and yet open contradiction to be found in his, as well as in his Followers Writings, that I ſee no reaſon to doubt of the Truth of thoſe things related of him and them in the Preface to the Acts p. 68of the Synod of Dort, Praſ. ad Ecleſ. p. 3.where it is affirm'd, that Corvinus ingenuouſly confeſſed in a certain Writing in Dutch, that Arminius defended many things againſt his own Judgment; that Gomarus humbled him by producing a Paper of his own Writing,Pag. 10. in which he had aſſerted, That the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not imputed for Righteouſneſs in the Juſtification of Man in the ſight of God, but Faith it ſelf, or the foreign credere: The very Act is by God's gracious Acceptation that Righteouſneſs of ours, whereby we are juſtified before God. What Gomarus here aſſerts to the ſilencing of Arminius, is no more than what he himſelf Pleaded for in his anſwer to the one and thirty Articles, and may at any time be ſeen in ſome of his other Writings.

SECT. VII.

They ſeparate from the Calviniſts.

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

In their Letter to Madame de la Hague, they give ſeveral reaſons for their Separation, Epiſt pag. 628.which I take to be the effect of much p. 69deliberation and advice for Conradus Vorſtius, Epiſt. p 540.in his Letter to Stephen De Ryeger, to whom (having blam'd him for want of Courage to appear on behalf of the Remonſtrants Cauſe, which the Lutherans univerſally, and more moderate Papiſts approved,) he imparts their purpoſe of entring a Proteſtation againſt the Synod, and of ſeparating openly from the Contra-Remonſtrants: A matter not yet ripe enough to be divulged, which yet he had communicated to Huberus

In a Letter of an Anonymus to Epiſcopius, it is reported from an old Acquaintance of Epiſcopius, that the Remonſtrants did ill to abandon Communion with the Reformed and at the ſame time liſt Socinians amongſt their Brethren, to whom Anonymus, as himſelf aſſures us,Vid. Epiſt. N. N. ad Epiſcop. p. 690. made no other anſwer than this; He knew not that there was any ſuch intimacy between the Remonſtrants, and Socinians, but the reaſon of the ſeparation was becauſe the Reformed expreſs'd no greater diſlike of Manichaeiſm, and were ſo much for Perſecution.

Poelenburg, tho he brings in many odious Charges againſt the Contra-Remonſtrants, yet one Principal Argument for their Seceſſion is grounded on their Diſſent from the Doctrines contain'd in the Heydelberg Catechiſm, and Belgick Confeſſion, which he thinks they muſt be thought to approve, if they joyn with them in the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper. What ſhall I think of them (ſaith Poelenburg) p. 70who hold Communion with the Contra-Remonſtrants, Catech. Heydeth. Quaeſt. 65. & 66.who offer either themſelves, or Infants to be Baptized by them, and joyn with the Prayers at Baptiſm; for ſeeing, as the Heydelberg Catechiſm will have it, the Sacraments are Seals of their Faith, how can ours, (ours I take them to be, who in judgment and heart are with us, tho' bodily preſent with the Adverſary) How, I ſay, can ours deſire the Sealing, and Confirmation of that Doctrine they can by no means approve? And ſeeing in the Celebration of the Communion, we declare an Unity in Faith, and mutual Charity, how can we profeſs to hold Communion in that Doctrine, we are perſwaded is altogether falſe? Doth not the Apoſtle command us to abſtain from all appearances of Evil? Is it not a vile thing to profeſs to believe that to be true, which we do really judge is falſe? Is it not a thing moſt abominable to turn the Bleſſed Sacrament which the Lord hath made the Bond of Love, and mutual Fellowſhip, into a Banner of Schiſm, and Diviſion?

So far Poelenburg, who hath many other Arguments againſt Communicating with the Contra-Remonſtrants, in his Epiſtolary Diſquiſition, whether the Remonſtrants may lawfully joyn themſelves to the Aſſemblies of the Contra Remonſtrants? But this little I have out of him, being ſufficient to ſhow that their ſeparation is an impregnable evidence of their rejecting p. 71the Doctrines contain'd in the Heydelberg Catechiſm and Confeſſion; I will go on to give an impartial account of the Charitable Opinion they have of the Hereſies of Socinus, and the Mennoniſts; which will farther evince, how far they were from a Cloſure with the Calvinian Doctrines, even when they would be thought ſincere in their Subſcriptions to them.

SECT. VIII.

Their good Opinion of the Socinians and Conjunction with the Mennoniſts.

FEſtus Homnius, juſt before the Synod of Dort met, ſends forth a Specimen of the Belgick Controverſies, and in it ſhewing, how far in ſome Momentous Points of Chriſtian Faith, the Remonſtrants differ'd from the Belgick Confeſſion, doth in ſeveral inſtances make it manifeſt, that they agree with the Socinians, particularly in denying the Simplicity, Ʋnchangableneſs, Infinity and Praeſcience of God, that no knowledge is to be had of God but by Divine Revelation, thereby deſtroying all natural Religion; that the Doctrine of the Trinity of Perſons in the Godhead, is not only contrary to common ſenſe, but plainly p. 72oppoſite to Divine Teſtimonies: In theſe and ſeveral other particulars the Agreement between the Arminians and Socinians may be gather'd from what Feſtus hath taken out of their own Writers; ſuch as Vorſtius, Welſingius, Epiſcopius, and Arminius himſelf.

The Synod of Dort, ſoon meeting after this Specimen was publiſhed, a complaint is brought againſt it to the Synod; however, the Synod confirming the oppoſed Catechiſm, and Confeſſion, and ſtrictly enjoyning ſubſcription to them, and their own Acts; the Remonſtrants compoſe and emit a Confeſſion of their own, which the Learned …odecherus. A. D. 1624. very diligently examines, and comparing it with the Racovian Catechiſm, the Writings of Fauſtus Socinus, Smalcius, Oſtorodius, and many others of that Party, doth in many inſtances, with much clearneſs ſhow a Parallel between the Socinians and Remonſtrants to be ſo exact as to move the Reader to conclude, that the Confeſſion of the one was taken out of the Writings of the other.

Polyander, Rivet, Walaeus, and Thyſius, Profeſſors at Leyden, do not only prefix their Approbation to Bodecherus, but within two Years after, they cenſure the Remonſtrants Confeſſion, wherein they are very poſitive, that under the pretence of Peace, Cenſur. Praef …ope finem.they would introduce Socinianiſm. Thus much is in the cloſe of their Cenſure of the Preface, and in ſeveral places of the Book it ſelf, which they do ſo cloſely p. 73urge, that the Remonſtrants in their Examen are forc'd to be more free in their Acknowledgements than their open …igns would otherwiſe have admitted

'Tis true, Epiſcopius, in his anſwer to Homnius, and in his Bodecheru… Inep…ens, would fain clear himſelf, and his Partners from this Charge, and to do them right, (for I would not willingly miſrepreſent them) I muſt confeſs, that in an inſtance, or two the Report made of Epiſcopius was not ſo well grounded, as might be wiſhed. For Homnius in his Specimen Quotes Epiſcopius for denying, that we can attain unto the knowledge of God by the Light of Nature, which is a Notion advanced by Socinus; Epiſcop. diſput. privat de Cognit. Dei. Corol. 2. Vid. Feſt. Homn. Spec. Controver. Art. 3.that Feſtus might faſten this imputation on Epiſcopius, he refers his Reader to his private Diſputations about the knowledge of God, where the queſtion is, whether the knowledge of God be Natural? To which Epiſcopius is ſaid to anſwer by a diſtinction thus. We diſtinguiſh whether the knowledge of God, which is attained unto by Nature, be Natural? and holds it in the Negative. This very paſſage, is ſeveral years after the Synod of Dort, repeated by Peltius.

To this Epiſcopius doth Satyrically enough reply, charging Homnius for being a Falſarius, who not only perverted his ſenſe, but changed his very words, putting into his corollary, [Naturalis] inſtead of [Salutaris.] This charge, (if true) being ſo very high, I could not ſatisfie my p. 74ſelf till I had examin'd the Place, to which Homnius doth refer, and whatever was in the Manuſcript, in the Print I found it thus, viz. in the cloſe of Epiſcopius his Diſputation about the knowledge of God, there are three Corollaries, the ſecond and third, being in theſe words.

2. An Cognitio Dei ſit Naturalis?

3. An Cognitio Dei, quae ex Natura habetur, Salutaris ſit? N.

This third Corollary, ſuppoſing the knowledge of God to be Natural, cannot without a too ſevere Reflection on Epiſcopius his underſtanding, be taken as Homnius hath Repreſented it; for, as it's thus, the queſtion muſt be, whether the knowledge of God had from Nature, be Natural? whereby as the queſtion is it ſelf an abſurdity, ſo the denyal carries in it a contradiction, as groſs as that Light is not Light; that what is from Nature is not Natural, can ſignifie no leſs than that what is Natural is not Natural. But to hold that the knowledge of God, which is from Nature is not ſaving, is a truth aptly enough expreſs'd, and what the Remonſtrants profeſs to be for, as I hope on another occaſion more fully to obſerve.

However, the Matter of Fact, concerning the Remonſtrants diſpoſition towards the Socinians, is too manifeſt to admit of doubt, and there is much more ſaid by Homnius, Bodecherus, Peltius, Vedelius, and many others, about their Agreement in Principles, than hath been fully anſwer'd p. 75either by Grotius, Epiſcopius, or any other that I have met with.

Beſides, the Applauſes given the Remonſtrants by the Socinians: and the numbring them amongſt the ſupporters of their Dogmata; with the Remonſtrants declining to condemn them; the Reaſons why they do ſo; their ſetting them in a higher Claſs than the Calviniſts; and maintaining Communion with them amongſt the Mennoniſts, ſets it above all Diſpute.

Vorſtius, tho a celebrated Remonſtrant, yet in good earneſt a Socinian, as may be inferr'd from what Smalcins, a great defender of Socinus in an Epiſtle, repreſents him to be, namely, a moſt uſeful Man, for whom many Prayers were ſent to Heaven by their Churches in Poland. It's true, Sandius was a while in doubt, whether he ſhould place this Vorſtius among the Antitrinitarian Writers; but, when he conſidered how much he valued the Writings of the Sarmatian Ʋnitarians, that he was the Author of the Compendium Socinianiſmi anſwer'd by Cloppenburg, and ſuppoſed to have been written by Oſtorodius and Voidovius, that the Lublinſe Synod, did in the Year 1600, call him to the Government of one of their Schools, and had ſeen a Confeſſion of his Faith compoſed by him on his Dying Bed, where he ſpake more freely of God and Jeſus Chriſt. When Sandius, Sand. Biblioth. Anti-trin. pag. 98, 99.had weighed theſe things, he doth with utmoſt aſſurance give him a place in the Antitrinitarian Bibliothec, as he alſo doth his Son p. 76William Henry Vorſtius, Paſtor of a Church among the Remonſtrants; and Curcellaeus who ſucceeded Epiſcopius in the Profeſſors Chair at Amſterdam.

Furthermore, I add out of Bogermanus his Notes, on the defence of Vorſtius, and the Remonſtrants,Praef. Lib. de Authorit. S▪ Script. made by Grotius, that Vorſtius his zeal for Socinianiſm, remarkably appear'd in his publiſhing Socinus his Diſcourſe concerning the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, which he recommended to the Reader as ſolid, nervous, profitable, and almoſt neceſſary for thoſe times, tho 'twas really full of Socinianiſm, and eſteem'd by that Party as an introduction to their Religion.

What therefore hath been urg'd by Grotius, Epiſcopius or others, in defence of Vorſtius, or by Vorſtius, himſelf to throw off the charge of Socinianiſm, doth ſerve only to convince us of the Hypocriſie of the Man, and that according to the fears of ſome of his Socinian Friends, Epiſt Smalc. Vorſtio.he had got ſo much of the Serpentine Craft, as to have loſt the Innocency of the Dove.

What leſs than this can be the Import of Vorſtius's recommending a Book, in which Socinus had laid the Foundation of his Heretical Superſtructure as nervous, profitable, and neceſſary; and yet in a Letter to David Paraeus, Vorſt. Epiſt. …araeo.declares that he condemned the Errors of Socinus about the Perſon and Office of Chriſt, of Faith, Juſtification, and the like, and whatever ſmelt of Socinianiſm?

But this deceitful method they learned of p. 77Ochinus, who ſometime before Fauſtus Socinus wrote any thing, vended the very Errors, that are now called Socinianiſm, who, as I have already obſerved, whilſt he brought many Arguments againſt the Truth, would be thought an embracer of it.

And as Vorſtius, Father and Son, with Curcellaeus, Vid. Dedi cat. Pes…i… ad Harmon. Remonſt. & Socin.are ſet in the Anti-trinitarian Bibliothec, ſo Arminius himſelf, as Peltius out of Paraeus averrs, is received by the Socinians as theirs. His words are "Paraeus in an Epiſtle dated the firſt of March 161…. writes thus; the Socinians in Poland have expreſsly named your Arminius, as their own, together with Bonfinius, and Acontius, their ſecret Followers, by whoſe Authority they demanded Admittance to the Communion of the Orthodox, but 'twas Reſolutely denyed them.

And as the Socinians Reckoned the Remonſtrants amongſt their Worthies, even ſuch as Arminius himſelf Applauding them for ſupporting their Dogmata; in like manner, tho the Socinians deny the Deity of Chriſt, and of the Holy Spirit, as alſo the ſatisfaction of our Redeemer, the Remonſtrants, in return to their Socinian Brethren, will by no means allow them to be Hereticks.

Epiſcopius, tho in his Bodecherus Ineptiens, his anſwers to Homnius, and his Apology, oft ſtrenuouſly endeavour'd to clear himſelf, and Remonſtrants, from the charge of Socinianiſm; yet, in his anſwer to the Specimen of Calumnies, and elſewhere, is p. 78bold enough to own that he cann't condemn them as guilty of Hereſie.Epiſcop. Reſp. ad ſpecim. Calum. ad Ca…al.

The reaſon (ſaith he) why we are not fully perſwaded that the Socinians are to be condemned for Hereticks are theſe.

1. Becauſe it's certain, that in the Holy Scriptures, neither expreſly, nor by manifeſt Conſequence, was any Anathema denounced againſt ſuch as err'd only as the Socinians do.

2. That they ſeem to have ſome weighty Reaſons for their Error, ſecuring them from a Pertinacious adherence thereunto, and conſequently from the Fault of Hereſie.

The Reaſons that ſeem to favour them are,

1. Many places in Holy-Writ at firſt view appear to be for them.

2. That what is urged againſt them from the Holy Scriptures, Councils or Writings of the Orthodox, are either ſo confounded by the variety of Interpretations, given by the Orthodox themſelves, or feebly preſt; or, ſo as to be accommodated to Socinian Errors.

3. They who write againſt them, freely yield, that the Socinian Notions are more conform to Humane Reaſon than their own.

4. That in every age from the firſt riſe of Chriſtian Churches, they mention Chriſtians not a few, even Doctors, and Biſhops, Eminent for Learning, and Holineſs of Life, that have thought and ſpoke differently of this matter — And many wholly ignorant of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God from the Father, even moſt of the Fathers before the Nicene Council, p. 79ſuch as Irenaeus, Juſtin, Tertullian, Oreign, and many others.

6. Becauſe there have ariſen incredible Diſſentions, Inexplicable Queſtions, Innumerable Controverſies, not only about the Doctrine it ſelf, but the terms and words uſed to explain it, which after utmoſt endeavours they could never underſtand.

7. Becauſe, out of Juſtin, the moſt ancient Writer, who lived next the Apoſtles times, a Martyr for the Truths of Chriſt, they have reaſon to believe, that the moſt Primitive Church held Communion with them, who profeſs'd to believe that Chriſt was but foreign a meer Man, begotten only of Man, and made Chriſt by Election.

Theſe are ſome of the Reaſons adduced by Epiſcopius (but learnedly anſwered by Dr. Bull) for Vindicating their refuſal to condemn the Socinians, as Hereticks; in which, abating the words, [Error,] given the Socinian, […nd Orthodox] given to their Adverſaries, he inſinuates as if the Socinians had the better of it in the Controverſie. What the Orthodox offer to explain their Senſe, is ſaid to be with ſo much obſcurity and Confuſion, that it's not eaſie to be underſtood; they are divided amongſt themſelves, and give different Interpretations of Texts; are looſe in their Arguing, and do oft in their oppoſition fall in with their Adverſaries; whilſt on the other hand, the Socinians have the Holy Scriptures in their firſt appearances, and the moſt reaſon, p. 80the Orthodox themſelves being Judges and all the Fathers till the Council of Nice, for them, all which is about the very Doctrines, wherein the Socinians differ from the Orthodox.

But touching the Points, wherein the Socinians fall in with the Orthodox, the Calviniſts are not to be compared with them. We cannot (ſaith Epiſcopius) forbear giving in our Teſtimony on behalf of Soci…s, Epiſcop. B… decher. Inepti. p 65.and let the whole World, if they pleaſe, conſider it, He diſputes moſt cloſely, giving the Adverſary ſcope enough, granting whatever may be without prejudice to Truth and his Cauſe. Where he is to preſs hard upon him, there he faſtens his Foot, and with much Pungency brings home his Arguments to the Conſcience; he will rather urge plain Scripture▪ than inſiſt on other Hypotheſes, and brings Reaſons without prejudice, and not argue after the manner in the Calvinian Schools, nor hide himſelf in Clouds of Sophiſtry, nor ſeek Evaſions, but haſten to the Merits of the Cauſe. So far Epiſcopius, whoſe farther endeavour is contemptuouſly to expoſe the Calviniſt…s, having juſt before boldly aſſerted, that the Socinians do really agree with the Orthodox touching the ſubſtance of theſe following Doctrines viz. The Authority, Perfection,Epiſcopius ubi ſup. Perſpicuity, the Reading, and Interpretation, of the Holy Scriptures; the Nature, Properties, and Actions of God; the Creation of Men and Angels; Providence p. 81and Predeſtination, the Precepts, Promiſes, Lords Prayer, Diſcipline, Church, &c. In all theſe things (ſaith Epiſcopius) as to what belongs to their ſubſtance, Socinus agreeth with the Orthodox. And about theſe very points lyeth the Vitals of Socinianiſm, even their denying the neceſſity of the Old Teſtament, their confirming the whole of Chriſtian Religion to the New, as if Chriſt had never been foretold, Praefigur'd, or Promiſed in the Old. The Scripture's ſo perſpicuous, that we may attain to the ſaving knowledge of them without the help of the Holy Spirit. That there is but one Perſon in the Nature of God. That God is not Immenſe, Omnipotent, Omniſcient, as in the Holy Scriptures 'tis declared and aſſerted. That Man was not created in Knowledge, and Righteouſneſs, that the Image of God on Man lyeth only in having Rational Faculties and Dominion over the Creatures. That in his firſt make he was Mortal, and ſhould have dyed tho' he had never ſinned. That future Contingents cannot be known by God himſelf. That on the admitting the Infallible Praeſcience of all things Future, there could be no withſtanding the Calvinian Doctrine of Praedeſtination. That the Precepts given Adam were adjuſted to the Infant ſtate of Mankind, and were imperfect; that Jeſus Chriſt gave new, and more perfect Laws. That he enlarged the Obligation of ſome of the Moral Laws, aboliſhed others, and added three new Moral Precepts to the p. 82Old given by Moſes. That the Promiſes of the Old Teſtament were only of Temporal Bleſſings; and that Men under it, were not ſav'd as we are under the New, by Faith in the Meſſiah.

Whatever Epiſcopius means by the Socinians Agreement with the Orthodox, theſe are the Doctrines of Socinus, and his Followers, moſt oppoſite unto, and inconſiſtent with what is held by the Orthodox, and cannot be ſound, and true, in the Judgment of Epiſcopius himſelf, unleſs he himſelf be a Socinian. And ſure I am, that whatever they ſuggeſt to the contrary, about their being in ſuſpence, and doubt in this Partit…cular, they look on the Socinians to be good Chriſtians, as appears further, by their holding Communion in Acts of Religious Worſhip, with them amongſt the Menniſt…s.

What I have taken out of theſe Arminian Writers doth, as any one may eaſily perceive, make it clear, that it hath been their, as well as the Socinian Method, by the uſe of Orthodox Phraſes, and Subſcriptions to ſound Catechiſms, and Confeſſions of Faith, to hide, for a while, their erroneous Opinions; and when they have gain…d a Reputation with the People then to open themſelves, and appear above board, ſlily inſinuating a New, and wrong Senſe on Orthodox Terms, and Phraſes.

To clear this, I will only obſerve, That, as they will have the Term, [Inſtrument] when ſpoken of Faith in Juſtification, to ſignifie the ſame with [Condition] whereby p. 83there is a great Turn made in Controverſe, as the Arminians Improve it; ſo they impoſe on the Phraſes, [Vice noſtra, Loco noſtro] a Senſe, moſt contrary to their ancient, and conſtant Meaning

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

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

That in this Senſe, the Orthodox Univerſally underſtand theſe Phraſes, [Vice noſtra, Loco noſtro] is ſo manifeſt, that, whoever is acquainted with their Writings, can't but acknowledge it: And it's no leſs Evident from the Scriptures, That foreign [for] when it's ſaid, Chriſt Suffered, [for us] p. 84ſignifieth a Proper Surrogation, which is Eſſential unto Satisfaction, made to Punitive, or Vindictive Juſtice. However, there are a ſet of Men, of the Arminian Tang, who will have it, That [Vice noſtra, or Loco noſtro] ſignifie no more than [noſtro …co] that when it's ſaid, Chriſt dyed in our ſtead, the meaning is, Chriſt dyed to beſ…ad us; and only, that the Bleſſed Effect, of his Death might be made ours.

Another expreſſeth it thus: If Chriſt dyed for our Benefit, ſo as ſome way or other by Virtue of his Death and Sufferings, to ſave us from the Wrath of God; this, for ought he knows, is All, that any body means, by his dying in our ſtead.

By ſuch Practices, as theſe, it is, that many are unawares enſnared into divers Pernicious, and hurtful Errors: Firſt, to the entertaining corrupt Apprehenſions about Chriſt…s Satisfaction, and then to a downright denyal of it; whence it is apparent, that the Arminian Errors lead the way to the Socinian, as the Socinian do to the Abomination of the Deiſt.

Thus much may ſuffice, touching the Methods, taken by Forreign Socinians, and the Arminians, to inſtill, and propagate their Doctrines. I will go on, in the next place, to conſider what Arts are uſed by our Engliſh Socinians, to ſpread their Hereſies.

p. 85CHAP. IV.

Some of the Various Methods, taken by the Engliſh Socinians, to Inſinuate, and ſpread their Errors, Detected.