The Growth of Error, Chapter 4 · Section 1
SECT. I.
The Engliſh Socinians can't agree in any one Particular Formula of Faith, or Catechiſm: Sundry Differences amongſt themſelves in Matters of Importance: Their Unanimity in taring up the Foundations, and commonly received Syſtems of Divinity.
IT being the Expectation of our Engliſh Socinians, that,Conſid. …n the explic. of the Trin. p. 32. if we attack the Doctrine of their Books; or deſcribe their Opinions, we do it out of their own Writings, not from the Books of Forreigners, I will confine my ſelf, in the Account I give of them, to their own Prints.
Firſt then, it muſt be obſerved, That the Engliſh Socinians have not made ſuch Advances in their New Divinity, as to be able to give a diſtinct Idea of what it is they do Believe.
The Reaſon is Obvious: To Invent, … Improve a New Religion, which they, who Reject the Old muſt do, if they will have any, is not Eaſy: Nor is there a Man, amongſt them, Great enough to Preſcribe to the Party: And the Fondneſs, Hereticks have for their own Particular Notions, is ſuch, as will not ſuffer them to Part with any thing of their Own, for the ſake of a Scheme, or Syſtem of anothers Compoſure.
Though Mr. Biddle did ſome Years ago Emit a Confeſſion, (Reprinted 1691.) and a Catechiſme; yet I cannot find that the Engliſh Socinians do Adhere thereunto, any more than the Followers of Socinus beyond the Sea's have done to the Racovian Catechiſme, which, as My Lord of Worceſter Obſerves, was ſo far from Pleaſing all, that the New Editions were with ſome, Important Alterations. And, whoever will Conſult what hath been Written, by our Gentlemen, ſince 1690, will ſee, that they Pretend not to give a Particular Summary of the Poſitive Parts of their Religion.
'Tis true, they Generally Profeſs a Zeal for the Apoſtles Creed, One of 'em tells us, That he Reſolves his Syſtem into the Creed of the Ʋniverſal Church,Some Thought sup… Dr. Stel. Vindic. p. …8. which by Reaſon of it's Antiquity, but eſpecially of the Authority of its Doctrines, is Rightly called the Apoſtles Creed, and Admitted of all Chriſtians, notwithſtanding their Implacable Hatreds, and Diviſions. Thus, they Confining themſelves to Generals, leave us in the Dark… about the Particular Articles of their Faith; beſides, their Preſences about the ANTIQUITY of this Creed, are, as hath been Unanſwerably Proved by the Learned Voſſius, moſt Weak and without the leaſt Shaddow of Reaſon, and their Senſe of it, if in favour of their Anti-Trinitarianiſm, Contrary to that, Received in the Churches, ever ſince its firſt Compoſure; whereby, we are as much at a loſs, touching the Syſtem of their Faith, as if they had ſaid nothing at all of it.
We will therefore Look into the Brief Hyſtory of theſe Ʋnitarians, Letter 1. p. 3.as they call themſelves, and ſee, what they ſay there. Sir, In Anſwer to Yours, Demanding a Brief Account of the Ʋnitarians, called alſo Socinians; alſo their Doctrine concerning GOD (in which only they differ from other Chriſtians; the Remonſtrants PROFESSEDLY Agreeing with them in other Points of Faith and Doctriney and the Defence they uſually make of their Haereſie— They Affirm, GOD IS ONLY ONE PERSON, not THREE. They make our Lord Chriſt to be the Meſſenger, Miniſter, Servant, and Creature of GOD; They Confeſs, He is alſo the Son of GOD, becauſe He was Begotten on Bleſſed Mary, by the Spirit, or Power of GOD, Luke 1.35. But they Deny, that He, or any other Perſon but the Father is GOD Almighty, and Eternal. The Holy Ghoſt, or Spirit, according to them, is the Power and Inſpiration of GOD, Luke 1.35.
Tho', we might Reaſonably Expect a very Particular, and Exact Account, in this Hiſtory, of what they hold; yet, they ſtick in Generals, Referring Us to the Remonſtrants, for a Catalogue of all, beſides their Renouncing the Bleſſed Loctrine of the Trinity; ſo that we are ſtill where we were before we ſaw this Hiſtory: For, as the Remonſtrants do not PROFESSEDLY Agree with them in the other Points of Doctrine, They in like manner ſend us to the Calviniſts with an Aſſurance, we ſhall find a great Part of Socinianiſm in their Writings.
Epiſcopius, I Preſume, doth, in the Opinion of theſe Gentlemen, Underſtand what the Remonſtrants held, as well as any man; who, notwithſtanding the High Thoughts He had of the Socinians, doth poſitively Aver, that there is a moſt Exact Agreement betwixt them and the Calviniſis. Having,Cap. 2. (ſaith he, in his Podecherus Ineptians,) ſufficiently Cleared the Remonſtrants, from the Calumny of being Socinian, I will Retort upon them, and ſhow; that, with much more Appearance of Argument, we can faſten on the Contra-Remonſtrants the Charge of Socinianiſm, even in thoſe Points, which are Proper and Peculiar to Socinus, and are Deſervedly called Socinian.
This Epiſcopius, tho', probably enough, touching the Trinity, an Arian; and in other Points a Profeſſed Remonſtrant, will yet by no means Allow a PROFESSED Agreement between the Remonſtrants and Socinians. How then can we Hope to find in Their writings, a Formula or Summary of Socinian Doctrines? That there is too great an Allyance between the Remonſtrants and the Socinians; that the Doctrines of the Former are too near akin to what are held by the Latter, and Praeparatory unto them, I have cleared: But,Chap. 3. Sect. 6. &c. that in ALL other Points, excepting the Trinity, the Remonſtants PROFESSEDLY Agree with the Socinians, is too Notorious a Miſtake, for the Socinian Hiſtorian, to Impoſe upon us.
However, they go on to Aſſure us, they ſincerely Believe… That GOD is truly Omniſcient; Conſider. on the Explic, of the Trin. p. 32.That he Foreſeeth all Events, how Contingent ſoever they may be to us. But are they all of this mind? No; Others of 'em Ask;Def. Reaſon. of Chriſtianity againſt Mr. Edward…. p. 18. Which is more Diſhonourable to God, to be the Author of all the Sin and Wickedneſs that ever was, or ever will be in the World, or to Deny his Fore-knowledge of the Certainty of that, which is not Certain?
2. They Believe the Real Omnipreſence of God; That He is Preſent in his Eſſence, or Perſon in all Places: And not only by his Power, Knowledge, or Miniſters. There are others of them, who Deny ſuch an Immenſity of God, which makes him to be ESSENTIALLY, and wholly in every Point of Space; becauſe ſuch IMMENSITY would take away all Diſtinction between God, and the Creature. And, [as the Examiner of Edwards affirmes] has indeed an ATHEISTICAL TANG, for the greater part of Atheiſts, hold the Univerſe to be God. Another of 'em ſaith; "To Know whether there is an Immenſity of ESSENCE, or Operation, theſe are Metaphyſicks out of my Reach,Some Tho. upon Dr. S. Vindic. p. 14. and are no Helps to the Setling my Confidence, and Truſt in God. Therefore it is, that Revelation doth not ſpeak Preciſely of this.
Theſe Paſſages, do not only ſhow how much our Engliſh Socinians Diſſer from each other in matters of moſt Importance; But ſome of them, as well as Forreign Socinians, Deny Gods Omniſcience and Immenſity. One can't be, ſome of 'em ſuggeſt, without making God the Author of Sin: And the other hath an Atheiſtical Tang. Why then are they ſo Angry with the Learned Dr. Edwards, for charging them with the Denyal of thoſe Eſſential Perfections of the Divine Nature? 'Tis alſo affirmed by the Engliſh Socinians.
3. That the Holy Ghoſt is a Perſon. How could the Holy Spirit ſearch all things, Biddles Confeſ. of Faith. p. 21, 22.even the Depths of God? 1 Cor. 2. How make Interceſſion for the Saints, with Greans Ʋnutterable? Rom. 8 How could He ſay to the Chriſtians at Antioch, Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the work, whereunto I have Called them, Acts 13.2.—If theſe things, and ſundry more, which may be alledged out of Scripture, do not Evince the Holy Spirit to be a Perſon, what can?
In Oppoſition hereunto they ſay,Brief Heſt. Sect. 1. p. 7. That Rom. 8.—God's Spirit, or Inſpiration being Deſigned to be a continual Director, and Guide to the Faithful, is ſpoken of in theſe and ſome other Texts, as a Perſon, by the ſame Figure of ſpeech, that Charity is Deſcribed as a Perſon, &c. The Holy Spirit, you ſee, is and is not a Perſon with them.
4. They Generally, not only Grant, Brief Hiſt. Sect. 3. p. 38.but Earneſtly Contend that Chriſt is to be Worſhipped, and Prayed to, becauſe God hath, ſay they, by his inhabiting word, or Power, given to the Lord Chriſt a Faculty of Knowing all things; and an Ability to Relieve all our Wants.
In Oppoſition hereunto 'tis ſaid,Anſ. to Mith. p. 50. There are no Acts of Worſhip ever Requir'd to to be Paid to Chriſt, but ſuch as may be Paid to a Civil Power; to a Perſon in High Dignity and Office, or to Prophets, or Holy Men; or to ſuch as are actually Poſſeſſed of the Heavenly Beatitudes.
They are, I confeſs,Anſwer to Milb. p. 49. ſo Ingenuous as to Acknowledge, That the Queſtion about the Invocation of Chriſt has very much Divided them, and if I take 'em Right, the Engliſh Socinians generally fall in with the Notions of Franciſous Davidis, and Chriſtianus Franken, in Oppoſition to George Blandra…, and Fauſtus Socinus, who were followed by the Forreign Ʋnitarians, as they call themſelves, and notwithſtanding the ſpecious Pretences to Liberty of Conſcience,Brief Hiſt. Let. 4. p. 48. which they Reckon the Peculiar Principle of the Socinians, and Remonſtrants, the prevailing Party ſeverely Perſecuted their Brethren. They in Tranſylvania would not ſuffer any to come into any Places in the Miniſtry, unleſs they obliged themſelves under their Hands, not to ſpeak againſt Worſhiping Jeſus Chriſt. They in Poland, more Rigid, …xcommuni…ating and Depoſing from the Miniſtry, ſuch as held, Chriſt might not be Worſhiped with Divine Worſhip
This Perſecution had ſome what of Extraordinaty Cruelty in it, as it was againſt men, who differ'd ſo very little from them. For the Perſecutors did not affirm, that they were always Bound to Invocate, and Worſhip Chriſt, but that it might Lawfully be done. Nos non teneri Invocare Chriſtum; ſed tantum Jure omnino Poſſe, ſaith Socinus again and again: Ay ſo often, that he thought himſelf Obliged, in a Praemonition to what he Wrote againſt Franciſous Davidis, to Explain himſelf▪ which he did briefly by declaring, that there were Two Caſes, in which to omit the Worſhiping of Chriſt is a Sin. The firſt, when they joyn with them in Worſhip, who call on the Name of Chriſt; The ſecond, When the Spirit doth move them to do it; not to call on Chriſt in theſe Two Caſes is a Sin.
Theſe few Intimations make it Plain, that a…tho' they give us no Formula, nor Catechiſm in which we may find a particular Account of what it is they Believe, yet in thoſe few things they Profeſs to Own, they can't Agree about the Nature of God, whether Omniſcient and Immenſe? About the Holy Ghoſt, whether a Perſon, or not. About the Invocation of Jeſus Chriſt, whether a Duty or not? So that from any thing hath been Publiſhed by …em, we can't be ſure that any two of them are of the ſame Religion.
Howbeit, altho' they can't Agree what Religion to be of; they are moſt Ʋnanimous in Determining what to be againſt, it being their Maſter-piece to Quarrel with our Confeſſions, and Catechiſms, Deſtroy our Syſtems, and Tare up old Foundations. One ſaith, He can't find any Satisfaction, or Conſiſtency in any of our Syſtems. Praeſ. to Reaſ. of Chriſtian.Another Complains, that there is no Catechiſm, yet Extant, (that he could ever ſee, or hear of) from whence he could Learn the True Grounds of Chriſtian Religion,Praeſ. to Bid. Catechiſm. as the ſame is Delivered in the Holy Scriptures. The Examiner of Mr. Fdward's Exceptions runs higher, Declaring, that the Obſcurity, p. 4.….Numerouſneſs and Difficulty of Underſtanding Syſtematical Fundamentals Promotes Deiſm, and Subverts the Chriſtian Faith. Theſe are ſome of their ways.