The Growth of Error, Chapter 4 · Section 9
SECT. IX.
The Socinian Trinity propoſed: Their Explications of it myſterious. They affirm the Holy Ghoſt to be Eternal, and yet not God, nor a Creature. That Jeſus Chriſt is but a Creature, and yet God. That the Father is the moſt High God, but not Infinite, Immenſe, or Omniſcient.
BY what hath been hitherto aſſerted of the Engliſh Socinians, it is apparent, that whatever their Religion is, they are not prepar'd, as yet, for that Concord, as to be able to Compoſe, and Publiſh an Exact Scheme of it; but do they bend their Strength rather to tear up old Foundations, covering themſelves in ſuch a manner under Generals, that it's Impoſſible to ſind out what they would in Particular be at. And, that they may ſtrew the way for the moſt eaſy making Proſelytes, they apply themſelves to ſuch Methods, as I have in the foregoing Sections obſerved: And whereas the different Explications given of the Trinity by ſome Orthodox Divines, are made by them the Matter of ſo much Triumph, I will, as an agr… able Return, ſhew how Myſterious the… ſelves are in Explaining their Trinity.
It muſt be acknowledged, that about the Year 1562. theſe Hereticks did their uttermoſt to engage the Miniſters to abſtain from Philoſophical Terms, or Humane Forms of Speech. Epit. Hiſt.And, as Stoinius obſerves, it was this Year concluded in a Synod at Pinczow, that the Miniſters do not uſe any Philoſophical Modes of Speech about the Trinity, Eſſence, Generation, or Mode of Proceeding; but that every one ſhould Confine himſelf to the Terms uſed in the Writings of the Prophets, and Apoſtles; and in the Apoſtles Creed. But notwithſtanding this Decree Sarnicius contended earneſty againſt Gregorius Pauli, for their uſe; on which occaſion, Staniſlaus Szafranicius did, in a Synod met the ſame Year at Rogow, labour to compoſe the Differences between them, but in vain; only 'twas then Decreed, that they ſhould tolerate one another, and abſtain from ſuch Forms as are unſcriptural.
But,Hiſt. Ref. Pol. l. 3. c. 1. p. 167. ſaith Lubienieſcius, in June the Year following viz, 1563. another Synod met, which wrote unto Prince Radzivil, That altho they could not becauſe of ſome weak Brethren, wholly ſuppreſs the uſe of the Word Trinity; yet they had in a great meaſure purged it from the preſent Abuſe. And in the Year 1567 it was Decreed, That the Trinity is to be Piouſly, and Religiouſly Retain'd on this Condition, that Brotherly love, according to the Rule given, by the Son of God be obſerv'd, each one bearing with the Infirmities of one another, &c.
The Orthodox adhered ſo firmly to the uſe of thoſe Terms (as what did moſt clearly expreſs the Truth and Diſtinguiſh it from Error,) that the Socinian Party judg'd it convenient to continue the uſe of theſe Terms, and therefore had their Trinity too: tho they oppoſed a Trinity of Perſons in the Godhead; yet they ſtill profeſſed to believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt.
Andreas Dudicius, in an Epiſtle to Beza, ſets before him a Confeſſion of the Socinian Faith, and the Athanaſian Creed, with his reaſonings on the one, and the other: Their Confeſſion is very ſhort in theſe Words. We believe in one only True God; The Creator of Heaven and Earth,Socini Oper. Tom. 1. p. 529. and of all things in them, or elſewhere, Gen. 1.24. Ex. 20. Deut. 4.6.27.32. — ſee the Refutation of Johannes Sommerus, Lib. 1. cap. 4. We believe alſo in our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, by whom are all things — Cor. 8. &c. vid. ibid. We believe that the Holy Ghoſt is the Spirit of God the Father and Son, Mat. 3.10. Luc. 4. Rom. 8. — That he proceeds from the Father, Joh. 15. That he is given to them, who believe, by the Son, Titus 3. vid. Sommerum. Lib. 2. cap. ult. pag. 171.
Beſides, whatever elſe is in the Holy Scriptures aſcribed to the moſt High God, or to his Son Jeſus Chriſt, or to the Holy Ghoſt, which thro' haſte we may have omitted, we do moſt readily, and with the Profoundeſt Submiſſion, aſcribe to them, moſt ſincerely confeſs, and without the leaſt Heſitation believe.
I will add but one Authority more to clear this, which you may ſee in the Polonian Catechiſm, where they do not only acknowledge,Sect. 3. c. 1. p. 18. that Mat. 28.19. 1 Cor. 12.4, 5, 6, 7. and 1 Joh. 5.7. do ſhew, there is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt; and that they are Ʋnited; but they conſtantly aſſert it. So that, ſay they, we declare, that he, who is ignorant of this Doctrine, or doth not believe it, cannot be a Chriſtian.
This Notion after much Deliberation had of it, is Publiſhed as theirs by Crellius, Sclichtingius a Bukowiec, Martin Ruarus, and Andreas Wiſſowatius, and not only embraced by the Foreign, but by the Engliſh Socinians, as appears from what is in their Ʋnitarian Hiſtory, and in Biddble's Confeſſion, which by Reprinting, and Placing it in the Collection of their Writers, they have made their Own.
In this Confeſſion it's declared, that they believe, there is one moſt High God, Creator of Heaven, and Earth, and that this God is none but the Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt the firſt Perſon of the Holy Trinity. — They believe, there is one Chief Son of the High God; and this Son of the moſt High God, is none but Jeſus Chriſt the Second Perſon in the Trinity. They believe that there is comprized in the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Miniſter of God, and Chriſt.
But tho' they believe a Holy Trinity, yet they cannot agree about what this Holy Trinity is. They are Three Perſons, as Ruarus, Przipcovius, John Biddle, and his Followers affirm: They are but Two in the Judgment of Socinus, Sclichtingius, Crellius and the Generality of em both at home and abroad, whoſe Sentiments I will examine, and begin with what they ſay of the Holy Ghoſt.
1. The Holy Ghoſt is, in their Opinion, one of the Three, but not a Perſon; nor God, nor a Creature.
In their Attempts to Explain this Notion, they heap up Myſtery upon Myſtery, even ſuch Myſteries, as ſeem to our dull Underſtandings, as full of Contradictions as a Myſtery of the groſſeſt ſort can be: For they Acknowledge, that what is Peculiar unto God, is Artributed to the Holy Ghoſt, yea his very Eternity, That the Holy Ghoſt is a thing truly Divine and Eternal, and the Third in order with Reſpect to the Father, and the Son, and proceeding from the Father and the Son, we ſhall,Cont. Meiſ. p. 604. (ſaith Sclichtingius) eaſily agree with them in, but yet deny him to be God. And altho it's natural for us to ſuppoſe that Being, which is not God, and yet exiſts, to be a Creature, they are expreſs that he is neither God nor Creature.
In Grawerus, Pol. Sacr. p. 635.the Controverſie about the Spirits being the Third Perſon in the Godhead, is fairly ſtated; where, among other Things, he accquaints us with a Diſpute between Oſtorodius, and Tradelius. In this Diſpute Tradelius arguing againſt the Socinian Notion, ſaid, That in his Opinion, if the Holy Spirit be not God, ſeeing every Thing that is, is either a Creator, or his Creature, he muſt neceſſarily be his Creature.
To him Oſtorodius thus replied. 1. Tis one thing to ſay, that an Abſurdity flows from ſuch a Man's Notion; another to ſay, that this Man holds the Abſurdity: For Doctor Tradelius doth not only endeavour to draw from what I hold, that the Holy Spirit is a Creature, but ſaith Categorically, that I am of Opinion, That the Holy Ghoſt is a Creature: A thing, that never came into my Mind: For on the contrary I affirm, that if the Holy Spirit be the Power of God, he is not a Creature; for the Power of God is not Created. (2) I further ſay, that tho' the Holy Spirit be not God 'twill not immediately follow, that he is a Creature; for that Maxim, Omne quod Creator non eſt, eſt Creatura, is Uncertain; For the Juſtice, Love, Grace and other Properties and Attributes of God, are not Creatures, nor are they God in that ſenſe Tradelius will have the Holy Spirit to be God.
Thus far Oſtorodius; who delivering the Socinian ſenſe, ſaith, That the Holy Spirit is neither God nor a Creature, but a Somewhat between them boeh; tho' the Oppoſition between God and the Creature is ſo immediate, that non datur Tertium, Yet contrary to the Plaineſt Reaſon, the Socinians Affirm the Holy Spirit to be an Eternal Somewhat, that is neither Creator, nor Creature. A Contradiction ſo groſs, that it cannot be either ſolv…d o… covered by Oſtorodius his Alluſion to the Attributes of God; for tho' they are not God in the Senſe Tradelius ſaith the Holy Ghoſt is God, that is, they are not God Perſonally, yet they are Eſſentially, and are Infinite; and whatever is Infinite is God: Infinite Juſtice is God, and yet not many Gods but One, becauſe there can be but One Infinite.
If then the Holy Ghoſt be the Power of God, it is either Finite, or Infinite: If Finite, it can't be Eternal, it muſt have a Beginning, receive its being from another, and be a Creature; If Infinite, it is God; or, ſomewhat beſides God is Infinite, that is to ſay, there are Two Infinites the One God, the other not, which to our underſtandings is Contradiction all over.
How they can come off, I cannot ſee, eſpecially conſidering another Opinion of theirs, which is, That tho' it be a Sin to Worſhip the Holy Ghoſt, yet it's not Idolatry to do ſo.
Sclichtingius doth, I confeſs,Con. Meiſ. p. 11, 12. with much Candour towards us, endeavour to Vindicate our Worſhipping the Holy Ghoſt from being Idolatry; tho he be not God. But thus much he doth, by affirming that there is ſo cloſe an Union between the Holy Ghoſt, and the moſt High God; that the giving Divine Worſhip to him, cannot be either Impious or Idolatrous. And in his Anſwer to what Meiſner urged, from the Attribution of the Divine Properties to the Holy Ghoſt, in Proving him to be God; he turns it all off, by ſaying, That doth not Evince the Holy Ghoſt to be a Perſon, but it is ſufficient to my Purpoſe, that they Acknowledge the Holy Ghoſt to be as Divine, as Infinite, and Eternal, as the Attributes of God are, ſeeing hereby they muſt either own him to be God; or that ſomewhat beſides God is Infinite.
II. As they ſay the Holy Ghoſt is neither a Creature nor God, ſo on the other hand, they make Chriſt to be but a Creature; and yet to be God alſo.
1. They affirm Jeſus Chriſt to be a True God; True, in Oppoſition to the Falſe Gods of the Gentiles, who are indeed Falſe Gods, becauſe they are Gods without a Deity: A God without a Deity is a falſe God becauſe he wants Infinite Perfection; a true God then hath Infinite Perfections, and therefore muſt be the moſt High God, except there are Perfections more High than what are Infinite.
But thus much they Deny, tho' Chriſt be a true God, yet he is not the Moſt High God. He is but a Subordinate God in his Eſſence. This then is their Notion, Chriſt is a True Subordinate God, i. e. A True God whoſe Perfections are Infinite; a Subordinate God in his Eſſence whoſe Perfections can be but Finite, and therefore can be no God at all▪ Again,
2. Chriſt is, they ſay, God, on the Father's giving him Abſolute Dominion over all things, with a Power, and Knowledge, whereby he knoweth the Diſtreſſes of all, and is able to Relieve the Diſtreſſed; But, ſeeing Nothing, ſhort of Omniſcience, and Omnipotence, can know, and Relieve, and theſe together with abſolute Dominion, are Eſſential Properties of the Moſt High God, How comes it to paſs, that Chriſt is not the moſt High God? Here are the Eſſential Properties of ſuch a God, and yet no ſuch God.
Theſe are ſome of their Myſteries. The Holy Ghoſt is an Eternal Omnipotent. Increate Being, but not God. He is neither a Creator, nor a Creature, but an Omnipotent Somewhat, different from Both: Increate or Unoriginated Omnipotence is not ſufficient to evince the Eternal Spirit to be God; but a Derived Omnipotence is enough to make a Creature to be a True God. Unoriginated Omnipotence is not Reaſon enough for the adoring the Eternal Spirit; but Derived Omnipotence is a good Ground for Rendring Divine Worſhip to a Creature. Theſe Gentlemen, you ſee, are the Grand Tranſubſtantiators; for they can Tranſubſtantiate a Creature into a True God, and ſtill remain a Creature, they can Transfer the Eſſential Properties from one being to another; and each Being remain the ſame it was before the Tranſlation; They can Order and Diſpoſe of the Divine Properties in ſuch a Way, that they ſhall be inſufficient to Denominate him a True God, in whom they were from all Eternity, and yet be Powerful enough to make him, in whom they were not two Thouſand Years ago, to be a True God. Whether theſe are Real Myſteries, or Real Contradictions, let the Prudent judge.
I will not treat theſe Over-Wiſe Men with that Scurrilous Language they do the Myſteries of the Holy Trinity; But without Exaggeration I will proceed to Examine what they ſay of God the Father.
III. That God the Father is only the moſt High God, is their Aſſertion; of whom they have nevertheleſs form'd ſuch an Idea as fails of Infinite Perfections. So that if we purſue their Notion of a Deity to its utmoſt Length, we muſt at laſt ſit down amongſt the Atheiſts.
For the clearing this, I do in Concurrence with the Common ſentiments of Mankind, averr, that what Being ſoever is deſtitute of an Infinite Perfection is not, cannot be God. The Eſſential Properties belong to the Divine Nature, including Infinite Perfection; that being which is deſtitute thereof, wants what is Eſſential to God, and cannot be the True God.
If then the Socinians deny any one Infinite Perfection to belong to their God, it muſt be acknowledged, that he wants what is eſſential unto God, and is not God. And that they Deny thus much, is Evident, from the Notion they frame of his Eternity, and their Rejecting his Immenſity and Omniſcience.
I might begin with what they ſay of God's Eternity, but I will only obſerve what the Engliſh Socinian ſaith of my Lord of Worceſter's arguing from God…s Eternity, to prove Somewhat in the Attributes of God incomprehenſible, who inſtancing in Eternity, ſaith, If God was from Eternity he muſt be from himſelf. In their Anſwer they tell us, To ſay a Perſon,Anſ. to the Bp. Worceſ. Serm. p. 5. or Thing was from it ſelf, is a Contradiction. It implies this Contradiction, It was before it was, Thus our Engliſh Socinian; who adds, I am ſorry an Eternal God muſt be a Contradiction, had he no way to Defend the New Myſteries, but by Eſpouſing the Cauſe of Atheiſts?
In Return to this Gentleman, paſſing by what his Lordſhip hath ſaid in his Conſu…ation of him, I will only obſerve, how he doth at once expoſe himſelf, and his Leaders, ſuch as Socinus, Crellius, &c. who ſpeaking of what is the Eſſence of God, ſay it is from it ſelf.
Socinus, in his Inſtitution of the Chriſtian Religion, anſwering the Queſtion,Tom. 1. p. 651. What ought we to know of the Nature, and Eſſence of God? ſaith, Theſe two Things chiefly, That he is, and that …e is only One. Queſt. What is it to know, That He is? Anſ. It is to know, that he hath from himſelf a Divine Fu…pi… o…r us. Beſides, He tells us, that Eternity … neceſſarily included in God's having Divine Dominion over us from Himſelf, and ſo is his Juſtice, Wiſdom, and Power. A little after this, he further ſaith, That when it's ſaid God is One; The meaning is, There is but one who hath Dominion over us from himſelf. t…i. Sup. p. 681.In like manner the Tenth Argument Crellius preſſeth to prove, that the Father of Jeſus Chriſt is the only Supreme God, is this, That his Nature and whatever elſe is proper to the Supreme God, he receiv'd from Himſelf.
On this Notion of God it is, that they build the whole of their Religion, and on which they inſiſt, to the End they may the more effectually enervate our Arguments for Chriſt's being God tho' from the Father. But as Socinus, Crellius, &c. fail of their Deſign, in that when t…s ſaid▪ God is from Himſelf, it muſt be meant of God, taken Eſſentially, not Perſonally; ſo, this Gentleman makes the whole of the Socinian Religion to be founded on a Chimera or Contradiction. For, if the Nature of God, his Dominion, Eternity, Juſtice, Wiſdom, and Power, be from Himſelf, he muſt be before he had Dominion, Juſtice, &c. What then was He? He was, before he was; or as the Engliſh Socinian phraſes it, He muſt be a Contradiction. But as I ſaid, waving the Conſideration of this Contradiction, and their Notion of Eternity, which they make to be a ſort of Time, where are the ſucceſſive Parts of Paſt, Preſent, and to Come, which cannot be without a Firſt, Second, and a Third, and yet muſt be without 'em, or Eternity muſt have it's Beginning. I will urge againſt them their denying Immenſity and Omniſcience to belong to God.
Firſt then, they deny God's Immenſity, and Circumſcribe his Eſſence within the Heavens, acknowledging him to be no otherwiſe every where Preſent, than as he is by his Power, Providence, and Works.
Socinus aſſureth us,Soci. Frag. Catec. Tom. 1. p. 685. he could ſee no Reaſon to conclude God's Eſſence to be Immenſe, becauſe his Power was ſo; expreſly declaring, That the Divine Eſſence is not Infinite. Crellius, and Smalcius hold the ſame.Reſp. ad. …ranc. Dav. Tom. 2. p. 735. But if Gods Eſſence be not Infinite, tis only Finite; if but Finite, how can his Power be Infinite? can, a Finite Eſſence be the ſubject of an Infinite Perfection? Or can a Finite Being be from it ſelf? or be ſelf-Originated? Or can any one Finite Eſſence be ſo Great, that another cannot be as Great? After this manner we may have Twenty or Thirty Thouſand Gods as well as One. But a Million of theſe put together, cannot make One Infinite God. Thus by denying the Divine Eſſence to be Infinite, they Oppoſe God's Immenſity, and do their Part to give up the Cauſe to the Atheiſt.
Secondly, They deny alſo God's Omniſcience, which neceſſarily follows from the other; it being impoſſible for the Knowledge of a Finite Being to be Infinite.
After Socinus had diſcourſed very largely of Divine Preſcience, he Uſhers in his Concluſion thus, Seeing therefore there is no Reaſon,Praeb…c. Theol. c. 11. P. 549. nor One Text of Scripture from which it can be clearly inferr…d, that God knoweth all things, which …re done before they come to paſs. We muſt Conclude, that we may in no wiſe Aſſert his Divine Preſcience: eſpecially, conſidering there are Reaſons not a few, as well as ſundry Teſtimonies in Holy Writ, from whence it plainly appears that we ought to deny it. Smalcius and Crellius ſay the ſame. And Epiſcopius himſelf would have fall'n in with 'em, had it not been, that all Prophecies muſt then have been deſtroyed From this Notion of theirs, in the firſt place, Revealed Religion receives a Wound; for if God doth not know Future Contingents, how can he Foretell them? And if he can't Foretell them, of what Uſe is the Prophetiacal Part of the Holy Scriptures? And if they muſt be rejected, as uſeleſs, will not the Deiſts be Abundantly Gratified? Or, if it be yielded that God doth not foreknow Future Contingents, 'twill neceſſarily follow, that his Knowledge is not Infinite, and he can't be God.
Theſe few, amongſt many Inſtances, may ſuffice, to Convince us, that the Socinians, whatever their Boaſts are, have no Reaſon for the expoſing the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as they have done; nor for their Railing at Goſpel-Myſteries, as if they had been full of Monſtrous Contradictions. For you ſee, that they have their Trinity too, a Trinity throughout Myſterious; for, as they make the Holy Ghoſt an Increate Omnipotent Spirit, but not God, and Jeſus Chriſt to be but a Creature, and yet a God, a True, tho' but a Subordinate God; ſo God the Father, the moſt High God, is left by them deſtitute of Infinite Perfections. His Eſſence is but Finite, and therefore without a Contradiction cannot be infinitely Perfect.
Their Trinity you ſee is a moſt Myſterious one, and their Ʋnitarianiſm lyeth in the Belief of Two diſtinct Gods, a Greater and a Leſſer, to wit the Father and his Son Jeſus Chriſt; which iſſues in the Denyal of an Infinite God. For which Reaſon, amongſt others, Mr. Edwards hath very juſtly charged their Principles, for being Atheiſtical, as Biſterfield accuſes them for their Tendency unto Paganiſm, Adverſari is merito exprobramus, quod unum verum Deum agnoſcere nolunt, Duos Deos in Eccleſiam introducant, ficque ſi id omne crede…dum eſſet, quod ex ipſorum Opinione neceſſario ſequitur, Paganiſmum revocent, ac ſtabiliant, ipſomet Paganiſmi non accuſamus: ſperamus enim, quod non videant abſurdiſſima hac dogmata ex ipſorum Doctrina neceſſaria ſequi, &c. Biſterfield contra Crel. de Uno Deo, Lib. 1. ſect. 2. cap. 18.whilſt He is ſo Charitable as to hope they ſee it not.
Much more might be ſaid of our Socinians, but being Apprehenſive that what I have Remark'd is ſufficient to move ſuch as are enſnared by their Crafty and Deceitful Guides, to conſider how much they are Concern'd to take heed to themſelves. I will at this time forbear.