that when the Counsel on either side pleads Presidents and Statutes or Equity the Plaintiff pleads for the Defendent and the Defendent for the Plaintiff Both pretend to the same Rule but he that is in the right measures his Case by it the other would bend it towards his illegal Interests One has a Plea the other a Pretence If a Socinian will plead Scripture and plead it falsly it is so far not ours but his If Confidence in pleading may either carry or ballance a Cause then Pleas of Laws Scriptures Oral Tradition Fathers Councils may be urged contrary ways and each side be equally justifi'd For all such Pleas have been made by contrary Parties Mr. Lilburn pleaded Law as much as Judge Ienkins though not as well Some Dissenters in the Queens time wrote down their Arguments and gave their Book the Title of Sions Plea. It may be their Adversaries might call it the Plea of Babylon Whether it was the one or the other was to be tryed not by the Name of the Plea or the Persuasion of the Advocates but by the Merit and Nature of the Cause itself The Apostles pleaded before Magistrates of another Faith that it was better to obey God than Man. All Parties who dissent from the Establish'd Religion use the same Plea and generally in the same Words But does this make the Pleas equal Must they not joyn Issue upon the Reason of the Case and compare their Circumstances and those of the Apostles and observe wherein they agree and wherein they differ If Men who plead Scripture as their Rule of Faith make Apologie by so doing for all others who pretend to the same Rule then Catholick Councils themselves plead for Socinians For to give an example the General Council of Chalcedon and after it Evagrius testifies That the Intent of the Second Council was to make it appear by Scripture-Testimony That such as Macedonius err'd in that Opinion which they had advanc'd against the Lordship of the Holy Ghost The Council here us'd the like Plea with Socinus but to a contrary End and upon surer Reason In such Cases there will be no satisfactory Conclusion till the moment of the Scriptures be particularly weigh'd For Tradition that was pleaded by Valentinus Basilides Marcion who boasted of their following the Apostle S. Matthias And Irenaeus observ'd concerning Hereticks that being vanquish'd by Scripture they accused it and took Sanctuary in Tradition Thus after his time did the Nestorian Hereticks Their Epistle to the People of Constantinople begins on this manner The Law is not deliver'd in Writing but is placed in the Minds of the Pastors And when the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Third Council that of Ephesus had confuted Nestorius out of the Scripture in stead of answering he foam'd against them S. Cyprian pleaded Universal Consent against Appeals to Rome and that is part of our Plea too Yet the Romanists will not allow that he either pleads for our Church or against their own The Plea is to be consider'd and not meerly offer'd If for example sake a Church-man quotes the same S. Cyprian in favour of the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity and Sandius the Arian cites the same Father as being against it are we not to have recourse to the Book itself and to examine the Pretences on both sides Or can any Man believe a Quotation is made good by the meer quoting of it And may not one Party be confuted without the Spirit of Infallibility It is evident it may be done for it is done on this manner Sandius cites the Book De Duplici Martyrio as not owning the Text in S. Iohn's Epistle There are three that bear Record in Heaven Now that Book is not S. Cyprians It would be a very Extraordinary Birth if he should be the Father of it for it makes mention of Dioclesians persecution And yet that spurious Book does not reject the place in S. Iohn though it does not exactly set down the Text And for the Genuine S. Cyprian he mentions the Text directly in his Book of the Unity of the Church And of this how are we sure Why Let us open the Book and read plain Words and their unwrested sense gives us satisfaction I conclude then that notwithstanding the Protestants and Socinians do both of them plead Scripture as the rule of Faith yet because Protestants plead the rule rightly in the point of the Divinity of the Son of God and the Socinians very falsly even in the opinion of the Arians and Romanists themselves the Plea of the former does not justifie the Plea of the latter and justifie is our Authors word For the Tryal of the Plea we must come to dint of Argument and Truth is great and will in time prevail CHAP. III. Particular Answers to the particular Branches of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian divided into five Conferences by the Author of it THIS Third Chapter needs not to be drawn into any very great length for after the general Considerations which answer the general Argument there wants little more than the Application of them to the respective Heads in the Dialogues Of the First Conference this is the Sum both Protestants and Socinians plead Scripture as the sole Rule of Faith. Both say the Scripture is sufficiently clear Both say it is clear in the Doctrine of the Nature of the Son of God. The Socinian professeth himself to be as Industrious in finding out the sense of the Scripture as the Protestant and he is as well assur'd in his persuasion therefore the Protestant in this Plea Iustifies the Socinian the latter saying the same thing for himself that the former does I answer First as before That though they pretend to the same Rule they Walk not alike by it One follows it the other wrests it And this ought not to be turn'd to the prejudice of him who is true to his Rule Let both Opinions be brought to it and then it will appear which is strait and which is crooked If Two men lay before them the same Rule of Addition and one works truly by it and the other either through want of due attention or out of unjust design shall cast up the Sum false there is no man who will tell us in good earnest that the first justifies the Second or that both of them needed an Infallible Arithmetician to be their Judg. Secondly Though this Author picks out this one point of the Divinity of Christ and represents it in the term of Consubstantiality which to the Vulgar here is more difficult than that of Homonsiety was to the Greeks and passes by many more easie Socinian Doctrines yet so it is that we find in St. Iohn this very Article plainly revealed For that Apostle who certainly was conscious of his own design wrote the History of his Gospel to this very purpose That we might believe that Iesus is the Son of God
but rather have own'd his Church to have been a new one upon the whole Matter and granted a kind of Universal Apostacy the Protestant is brought in as in a manner deriding this Argument in his own Person or at least as contented with it as by a Socinian propos'd So then it seems we need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick till a part can divide from itself which can never be Whereas a Protestant would have first told them that there is just fear of a Schism in the Body of the Church Catholick though not from it And that they had made a Separation from the sound parts of it though not from the whole whilst the Protestants were both Members of the Universal Church and in Communion with all particular Churches so far as they are Christian. He would have added That Mr. Chillingworth's Words were proper in his own Case but not in the Case of a Socinian Church which is taken to be a Member in the Universal Church but unsound and out of its place Fourthly It may be noted that the Author of this Book is not the Inventer but the Borrower of this Argument call'd The Protestants Plea for a Socinian It has been used by Valerianus Magnus by the Author of the Brief Disquisition by Sir Kenelm Digby in his Discourse concerning the Infallibility of Religion if he be the genuine Author by the Iesuite who cavill'd against Dr. Potter's Book call'd Want of Charity Which Argument of the Iesuite was long ago answer'd by Mr. Chillingworth though this Author who was under Obligation by the very Nature of his Undertaking to have Reply'd is pleas'd to pass it over in silence Since that time Louis Maimbourg then a Iesuite wrote a Book Intituled A Treatise concerning the True Word of God Four Chapters of that little Book are spent in the managing of this Method And If you will take it upon his own Word he has come into the Field with Invincible Weapons About two years after this Protestants Plea is set to sale among us after the English manner in other knacks After the French comes the English Guide after the Foreign Expositor the English Misrepresenter We follow when the Mode declines elsewhere When others molt their Feathers we take them up and write with them Yet this is to be acknowledg'd that our Author both in his Judgment and Manners and closeness of Writing does much exceed that Monsieur Maimbourg though he may seem to have taken some Hints from him My Last Observation toucheth the design of this Book which looks as if it were particularly levell'd against the Established Church of England It is true the more general Name of Protestant is used but the Authors who are cited are not Luther or Calvin Calâ—…xtus or Daille Cartwright or Travers but Archb. Laud Archb. Bramhal Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Hammond Dr. Fâ—…rn and Dr. Stillingfleet Now it has been one of the later Stratagems of evil Men to Misrepresent the Ministers of this Sound Church as favourers of the Doctrines of Socinus and at this very time this Art is in Practice Otherwise why dâ—…es the Paper just now scattered abroad style the Socinians the Brethren of Protestants by descent and iniquity To what other purpose serveth the beginning of the long Book just now appearing and call'd a Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln For the Author complains of the Arian History of Sandius as publish'd here at London though 't was set sorth in Holland and in England twice refuted and of that Bishops declining an Answer to it which surely he might reasonably do without any approbation of so ill a Book for every Man is not at leasure to do every thing in Learning which in the general is fit to be done The Title of this Book is Serviceable to the abovesaid design by way of Insinuation And who will assure us that it was not pick'd out of the Guide for this disingenuous end That it was gathered meerly as the choicest Flower contain'd in that Book and not as the fittest in this juncture for this calumniating purpose I do not believe that this was the principal design either of the Author or the Publishâ—…r But if a Man that goes about to fence himself from his Neighbour can both dig his Ditch and cast his durt upon him he may perhaps be so ill natur'd as to think he does well to dispatch two works at a time However it be with our present Author this is certain Socinus himself taking notice of it that England and Scotland were not favourable to his Doctrine and that it sprang out of Italy Sozzo the Uncle Blandrata Paruta Alciat were Italians and bred in the Roman Church Ochinus was of Siena and some say Confessor to the Pope and General of the Order of the Capucins Faustus Socinus the Nephew as well as Laelius the Uncle was of the same Siena and nearly related to Pius the Second and Third and to Paul the Fifth And of the First Chapter of the Second Book of the Reformation of the Church of Poland these are the Contents After what manner the Seeds of Divine Truth were carried out of Italy into Poland in the Year 1551 by Laelius Socinus And before his remove in the Year 1546 he had form'd a Socinian Cabal of Italians in the Territories of Venice and especially at Vicenza amounting to a considerable number And I find it said elsewhere that in the Year 1539 the burning of a Lady who had turn'd from the Church of Rome open'd the Eyes of Men in Poland and dispos'd them to inquiry into Truth I have seen some Applications of the Socinians to the Mahometans in which they shew what approaches they make towards them I have read of Conditions of Accommodation betwixt the Socinians and the Romanists But Fame it self I think has not invented any such project betwixt the Socinians and the English Church I do not offer this discourse as a proof of encouragement for Socinianism in the Church of Rome yet it is an Argument sufficient for the Silencing of those of that Communion who charge it upon Ours And for other Churches that which is said already may be a proof of the wonted Sincerity of Monsieur Maimbourg who tells his Readers with assurance that the Persons who after the interval of nigh 900 Years reviv'd Arianism were all of them either Lutherans or Calvinists before they became the Disciples of Socinus A Man ought to have been Master of their History before he had pronounc'd so freely of them But some have an extraordinary Talent in making History It is true the Author de Constantiâ Religionis Christianae was by Education a Lutheran but he was taken young into the School of the Iesuites And after having been Ten Years among them he turn'd Socinian as he himself relates his own Story And Men who consider the Nature of causes and effects are
THE DIFFERENCE Betwixt the PROTESTANT AND Socinian Methods In ANSWER to a BOOK Written by a ROMANIST and Intituled The Protestants Plea for a Socinian LICENSED Decemb. 14. 1686. Printed for Benjamin Tooke at the Sign of the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1687. THE Introduction THE Author of a late little Book which bears the Title of Seek and you shall find does both in his own Name and in the Name of many Sincere Persons make open complaint of the Licentiousness of the Press If he means by those Persons such as are so Sincere in their Credulity that they mixt not one grain of reasonable Inquiry with it the Complaint will give no pain to judicious People unless it be by moving them to pity his Weakness And a Man would imagine that his â—…ort of Sincere People were so purely Credulous seeing the Justice of the complaint is on the side of the Reformed This lesser matter puts me in mind of a greater yet of a like Nature in the Circumcellions one of those Branches into which the Faction which sprang from Donatus was divided They went about doing injury to the Christians from whom they had made a causeless Separation and when their Incivilities were by those whom they had provoked turn'd upon them they took the confidence to call themselves Martyrs But certainly those who are the illegal Aggressors deserve the Blame Those who send the Challenge are the Litentious rather than the modest Accepters And when Truth and Innocency are assaulted such as Honour them and have interest in them ought to do some just thing in their necessary defence and if need be draw their Pens in their Service Provided that it be done as I think by our Churchmen it has been generally done in a way consistent with decency of Manners and publick Peace If therefore there appear amongst the Romanists Misrepresenters and crafty Softners and Colourers of their own Doctrine True and Faithful Representers are not unreasonably Officious when they enter upon the Stage and take off the Disguise If Artificial Expositions are imposed and set to Sale in our own Language upon every Stall it is very proper for such as are Friends to Sincerity to take upon them the Office of True Expounders and to convince the World that such Sweetners of the Doctrines of the Synod of Trent have not declared what those Doctrines are but what in their Opinion they ought to be or by what turns of Wit they may be fenced against the Arguments of Reformed Catholiques If any Man thinks fit not only to Preach but to Publish in this Nation a Sermon of St. Peter and in that Sermon to reproach all Churches besides the Roman as New Trimmed Vessels Leaky at the Bottom and unable to carry those who Sail in them to the Haven it cannot be a Crime to set forth a Discourse on the same Subject without any reflexion either on such a Person or his Performance and to shew the true Sense of Thou art Peter and the safety of our Communion and the Soundness of our Bottom whilst some are in a Vessel which has suffer'd so many Alterations and Additions that it cannot be call'd the same Ship it was when St. Peter was in it Again if such Guides in Controversy offer themselves as lead Men out of the way and turn them round in an endless Circle the Direction of honest Guides is a debt which they owe to Truth and Charity If Men in Books in Pulpits in Conversation shall daily ask the question Where is the Protestant's Judge they ought to esteem it a Civility in others when they give them a full Answer about a Iudge in Controversy And if Men of like Perswasion revile this Church as the Schismatical party of Donatus it is out of decency and not want of ability that Men do not give them an Irene for their Lucilla In the mean time they have a Substantial Answer though not so sharp a Rebuke as their bold uncharitableness justly merited Last of all If a Romanist accuseth the Church of England as a Patroness of the Heresie of Socinus though not with a direct and downright charge yet from the consequence of her Methods common Duty to so Good and Venerable a Mother constraineth her Sons to appear in her Vindication and to shew that her Plea is very widely mistaken If she pleads for Arians Socinians or any other Faction of Men who have departed from the true Faith she does it no otherwise than in the Words of her Litany In that Pious Office she beseecheth God to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived And may God abundantly favour her Charitable Petition By such Considerations as these I have at last been moved to write an Answer to the Book which the Author is pleas'd to call The Protestants Plea for a Socinian and to make that Answer publick But I must acknowledge that upon other Accounts the Diversion which this Answer has given me has been very unwelcom As unwelcom as the trouble was to those of old time who when they were employ'd in offering Sacrifice were forc'd to turn aside and drive away from the Altar the greedy Fowls and the impertinent Flies Now in this Answer I shall for Order-sake and that I may proceed distinctly reduce what I purpose to say to certain Heads and they are these three which follow I. Observations touching the Book itself its Edition Character and design II. Considerations relating to the General Argument of it by which it may appear to be of no real force against the Plea of the Reformed III. Particular Answers to the Particular Parts of this pretended Protestants Plea as it stands divided in the Five Conferences of the Author The Difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian Methods c. CHAP. I. Observations touching the Book itself its Edition Character and Design FOR the Book itself it may be noted in the First place That it is neither new nor entire It is the Fourth Discourse in the Second Edition of the Guide in Controversies set out in the Year 1673. If this Tract was published before that time to me it was not for then and not before it came to my knowledge But this is not the thing which gives our Ecclesiasticks offence for whether the Men of Controversie bring into the Field either their Old or their New Artillery of Arguments this Apostolical Church is proof against them The Book of which this Plea is a part is believed by many of the same way to be of very great Strength and Solidity And when a Question is moved concerning their Faith they think it enough to say The Guide is unanswered If that be a good Method a Protestant upon the like occasion may take leave to say The Book against the Popes Supremacy written by the learned and humble Dr. Barrow is unanswerable And after all this the Guide is actually answered though not in the Formality of Word for
no part of Religion can be repugnant to Reason whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in saying From Truth no Man can by good Consequence infer Falshood which is to say in effect That Reason can never lead any Man to Errour And after you have done so you proclaim to all the World as you in this Pamphlet do very frequently That if Men follow their Reason and Discourse they will if they understand themselves be led to Socinianism And thus you see with what probable Matter I might furnish out and justifie my Accusation if I should charge you with leading Men to Socinianism Yet I do not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious Imputation And much less should you have charged Protestants with it whom you confess to abhor and detest it and who fight against it not with the broken Reeds and out of the Paper-Fortresses of an imaginary Infallibility which were only to make sport for their Adversaries but with the Sword of the Spirit the Word of God of which we may say most truly what David said of Goliah's Sword offered by Abimeleck Non est sicut iste There is none comparable to it Thirdly Though the Modern Arians and Socinians do speak of Tradition and not of Scripture only yet our Plea and theirs is not perfectly the same Touching the Holy Scripture we have a greater Veneration for it than many of them and for Tradition though we make it not the very Rule of our Faith nor place Infallibility in it yet in concurrence with Scripture it weigheth not so much with them as with us We have a greater Veneration for the Holy Scripture itself than the right Socinian For such a one makes Reason the Rule of that Rule and though he thinks a Doctrine is plain in Scripture yet if he believes it to be against his Reason he assents not to it Whereas a Man of this Church believes the Scriptures to be written by Inspiration from God And upon that account he assures himself that nothing contrary to true Reason can be contained in the Scriptures Therefore when he finds any thing in Holy Writ which to him is incomprehensible he does not say he believes it though it be impossible and irrational but he believes it to be rational though mysterious and he suspects not Reason itself but his own present Art of Reasoning whensoever it concludes against that which he reads and reads without doubting of the sense of the words And by Meditation he at last finds-his errour The Socinians challenge to themselves Petrus Abailardus as one of their Predecessors For this they cite St. Bernard and they strengthen their challenge with the Testimony of Baronius who says of Abailardus That he made Reason the Judge of Articles of Faith. It is true a Protestant judges whether his Faith be rational or whether it be founded on Divine Revelation but he will not allow his Reasonings to oppose any Principle in Holy Writ For that were either to deny it to be of God or with blasphemous irreverence to reproach the Almighty Wisdom with a Contradiction Yet after this manner Socinians argue though some of them use great caution and few make open profession of it Nay they sometimes tell us That the Scripture contains nothing contrary to manifest Reason However by their manner of objecting against the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity the Sagacious are convinc'd that they first think it to be against plain Reason and then rejecting it as an errour they colour their Aversion with forced Interpretations of Holy Writ The words of Ostorodius hint to us at what end they begin If Reason said he shews expresly that a Trinity of Persons in God is false how could it ever come into the Mind of an understanding Man to think it to be true and that it can be proved by the Word of God And further They own with us from the Principles of Reason that God is just and good but then with the Platonists they measure Justice and Goodness by particular Notions which are their Reasonings but not the Reason of Mankind And when any thing is said in the Scripture which is contrary to such measures they are ready to depart from it Upon this account it is that many of them deny the Doctrine of the Eternal Torments of the finally Impenitent not because it is not plain enough in Scripture but because it seems contrary to their Notions of Justice Goodness and Mercy though to the true Notions of them it may be reconcil'd Thus Ernestus Sonnerus lays it down as his Principle in the first place that the Eternal pains of the Wicked are contrary to Gods Justice and being prepossessed with this prejudice he can thenceforth find nothing in the Scripture which may over-rule his Opinion All this is not my private and as some Socinians may call it uncharitable conjecture there is a Romanist who has said the same thing and in very plain terms The Socinian saith he judgeth the Bible to be the wisest and most Authentical Book that ever was Written such a one as no other humane Writing can contest with it yet not such a one as no slip nor errour may fall into it even in matters of importance and concerning our Salvation And therefore that where reason is absolutely against it he may leave it though for Civility sake he will rather choose to put a wrong Gloss upon it than plainly refuse it It cannot be pretended that Scripture is his Rule for seeing he supposeth Scripture to be Fallible and that upon all occasions he correcteth it by his discourse it is not Scripture but his discourse and his reasoning that is his true and Supreme Rule Which is the cause that they or some of their party did denominate themselves Sanarations from right reason And as we have a greater Veneration for the Scriptures than most Arians and Socinians so have we a truer regard to real Tradition which they use not so much as a witness of any great value as a fit weapon for the encountring those who dispute out of Antiquity to the end that they may overcome them with their own Arms. Socinus had consulted some of the Antient Writers He was one of the first in his Age who suspected some of those Epistles to be spurious which went under the Venerable Name of Ignatius the Martyr But I have not observed in any of his Writings that he puts a value upon any such Authority nay he writes in Divinity in such manner as if no Church-Writers had so gone before him as to give any considerable light to him He promiseth a Tract for the satisfaction of those who were moved in his opinion more than was fit with the Authority of the Fathers And though in this one point of the Father as the one Creator he cites the Antients by way of Argument to the Men who esteem them yet in other Articles he confesses that he stands
By which each Romanist who owns what his Church does the Catholick sense of St. Iohn's first Chapter can understand no other Article than that of Nice that Christ is God of God. Thirdly Though the Socinians do pretend that the Writings of St. Iohn are to them as clear as to any Protestant and that they cannot discern in them the Divinity of Christ yet Confidence in saying a thing is not clear is not an Argument that it is not The House is not naturally made dark because the Blind will excuse their Infirmity upon it Men will say Doctrines are obscure even when they are secretly convinc'd of their evidence For Pride and Prejudice are not very yeilding My Adversary here says a Learned and Good Man seems to object as elsewhere that some who seem to follow the Letter of the Scriptures deny this that is the Divinity of Jesus Christ as do the Socinians What then This is not for want of Evidence in Scripture but from making or devising ways to avoid this Evidence Will this Author say that there was no Evidence of there being Angels and Spirits amongst the Jews because the Sadduces who had opportunity of observing all such Evidence beleived neither Angel nor Spirit And will he say that there was no clear Evidence from the Word of Christ and his Miracles that they were from God because the Pharises and other unbeleiving Jews who conversed with him and saw his Miracles and heard his Word did not acknowledge him for God I suppose not Fourthly It does not become the Author who is a Romanist to say of the Protestant pleading Scripture that in so doing he justifies the Plea of the Socinian For that supposes that the one has as much reason on his side as the other Whereas a Romanist is oblig'd to own that the Protestant so far as it is oppos'd to the Socinian Creed is the true Catholick Faith and that the Nicene Creed which is common to us and them is founded on the Scripture though the bottom on which it stands is by the Church to be discover'd whilst his Church condemns the Doctrines of Socinus as Haeretical and therefore as such as cannot at all either plainly or obscurely be contain'd in the Holy Canon Fifthly This Author seems to magnifie the Industry of the Socinians saying That none have us'd more diligence in the search of the Scriptures as appears by their Writings This is true in part and but in part for somtimes they have been in haste enough Slichtingius made quick dispatch writing many Commentaries in a few Months and doing this amidst the Heats and Interruptions of War. But I will allow Socinus himself to have been very industrious and Crellius also Some of the rest have been industrious rather as Scriveners than Commentators transcribing the sense and in part the words of those who went before them But if Men are ingag'd in new Conceits they are under a necessity of being diligent A Text cannot be wrung and squeez'd with a dead Hand and there is more study requir'd for the perverting of Truth than for the declaring of it For the true Interpretation of Scripture much more is requir'd than Industry and Study The Protestant therefore in this Author speaks of a due Industry void of Pride Passion and other Interest and such Industry has not been always acknowledg'd either in the Arians or Socinians For the Arians the Antients look'd upon them not so much as idle and ignorant as mad and impious The Fathers of the Sixth Synod were gathered together against Arius the Distracted Presbyter And the Latins call'd his Doctrine the Arian Frenzie Vincentius Lirinensis calls that Heresie the Poyson of the Arians as if it was some venemous and enchanted Liquor And the Leudness of the Arian Manners discover'd the Evil of their Temper and there was Fierceness in it as well as Leudness A Disposition more fierce than that of their Adversary Nicholas who they say gave Arius a Box on the Ear in the midst of the Council Arius exercis'd the Office of an Expounder of Scripture in the Church of Alexandria But his Fundamental prejudice is well understood that is be falsly imagin'd that Alexander was teaching the Doctrine of Sabellius who confounded the Three Persons and made them but One and he ran headily from thence and fell into his own extream It is true the Temper of the Socinians especially that of their Master Socinus and of Crellius and Ruarus seems much more Virtuous than the Disposition of the Arians less sensual less fierce and bloody For they were almost always bred in the School of Affliction whilst the Arians were sometimes an Imperial Party Notwithstanding which all Romanists have not allow'd the Socinians to be very well qualifi'd for the reading of the Scriptures Vujeâ—…us chargeth them with beginning at the Alcoran before they came at the Holy Bible though I believe that Charge has a grain of the Misrepresenter in it Cichovius the Jesuit has spoken as severely as Vujekus accusing the Secinians of making such a progress in blaspheming the Son of God as to seem to have fallen from a desire either of speaking or thinking rightly of Divine Things Let a Romanist consider of the Qualifications of a Protestant and a Socinian by the effect of their Labours in Matters of Christian Faith and if he be not blinded with very gross Partiality he will acknowledge a difference The Protestant finds in the Scripture the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost and the Merit of Christ's Sacrifice the Socinian pretends the contrary If the Protestant and Socinian were equally dispos'd how comes the One to Interpret as a Catholick the Other as a Heretick And how can a Romanist believe that God gives an equal Blessing to the Industry of the Protestants and Socinians whilst the latter do not so much as pray for Grace to the Spirit of God nor apply themselves to God the Father through the Meritorious Sacrifice of his blessed Son nor to Christ himself as God but as to the highest of Creatures Cichovius therefore has accus'd the Socinians as making Christ an Idol Socinus thinks those unfit to make such an Objection who add to the end of the Books they write Praise be to God and the Holy Virgin. And Moscorovius mentions a Polish Mâ—…ssal in which Prayer to the Holy Ghost was exprelly forbidden And before the Conference betwixt a Carmelite and Stoienski a Minister of Lublin the One prays for success first to the Virgin and then to Christ as God the Other to Christ though not as the only God. But let those Parties look to this matter whom it so particularly concerns The Question I here ask is this Whether these following Doctrines proceed from an industrious search of the Scriptures by a Mind humble and free from Prejudice Passion and Worldly Interest As ex gr That Christ was not at all till he
not by forcing of Assent destroy the Nature and Virtue of it and he hath declar'd that he will permit Heresies that those who are approved and excellent Christians may be distinguished from those who are not This Expedient of the Romanists is like that of the Atheist Spinoza who has left the following Maxim to the World as his Legacy for Peace viz. That the Object of Faith is not Truth but Obedience and the quiet of human Society And they say in effect Shut all your Eyes and agree in one who shall lead you all and you will all go one way But the difficulty lies in getting them to agree It is not difficult to say a great deal more upon this Subject but in stead of that which might be here offer'd from myself I will refer the Reader to a Book lately publish'd and call'd A Discourse concerning a Iudge in Controversies if he be not satisfi'd with that which Mr. Chillingworth hath said long ago and to which this Author has here said nothing You say again confidently That if this Infallibility be once impeach'd every Man is given over to his own Wit and Discourse By which if you mean Discourse not guiding itself by Scripture but only by Principles of Nature or perhaps by Prejudices and popular Errors and drawing Consequences not by Rule but by Chance is by no means true If you mean by Discourse Right Reason grounded on Divine Revelation and common Notions written by God in the Hearts of all Men and deducing according to the never-failing Rules of Logick consequent Deductions from them If this be it which you mean by Discourse it is very meet and reasonable and necessary that Men as in all their Actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to Happiness should be left unto it And he that follows this in all Opinions and Actions and does not only seem to do so follows always God whereas he that followeth a Company of Men may oft-times follow a Company of Beasts And in saying this I say no more than S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no And the Rule he gives them to make this tryal by is to consider whether they Confess IESUS to be Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their Action not Whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more than S. Paul in exhorting all Christians To try all things and hold fast that which is good Than S. Peter in commanding all Christians To be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them Then our Saviour himself in forewarning all his Followers that if they blindly followed blind Guides both Leaders and Followers should fall into the Ditch And again in saying even to the People Yea and why of your selves judge ye not what is right And though by Passion or Precipitation or Prejudice by want of Reason or not using what they have Men may be and are oftentimes lead into Error and Mischief yet that they cannot be misguided by Discourse truly so called such as I have described you yourself have given them security For what is Discourse but drawing Conclusions out of Premises by good Consequence Now the Principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be Infallibly true And you have told us in the Fourth Chapter of this Pamphlet That from Truth no Men can by good Consequence infer Falshood Therefore by Discourse no Man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his Conclusions he must of Necessity either err in his Principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his Discourse that is indeed not Discourse but seem to do so 13. You say Thirdly with sufficient confidence That if the true Church may err in defining what Scriptures be Canonical or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the private Spirit or else natural Wit and Iudgment and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or false Doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proof of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly err in her Judgment touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the private Spirit and the Examination of the Contents which latter way may conclude the Negative very strongly to wit that such or such a Book cannot come from God because it contains irreconcileable Contradictions but the Affirmative it cannot conclude because the Contents of a Book may be all true and yet the Book not Written by Divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three and that is the Testimony of the Primitive Christians 14. You say Fourthly with convenient boldness that this Infallible Authority of the Church being denied no Man can be assured that any parcel of the Scripture was Written by Divine Inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proof is pretended and besides void of Modesty and full of Iniquity The First because the Experience of Innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assured that the Scripture is Divinely inspired and yet deny the Infallible Authority of your Church or any other The Second because if I have not ground to be assured of the Divine Authority of Scripture unless I first believe your Church Infallible then can I have no ground at all to believe it Because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe the Church Infallible unless I first believe the Scripture Divine 15. Fifthly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the Infallible Authority of your Church but he must abandon all infused Faith and True Religion if he do but understand himself Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of the Heart you speak very often that all Christians besides you are open Fools or concealed Atheists All this you say with notable Confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their Confidence of Prevailing in their Confident manner of Speaking but then for the Evidence you promis'd to maintain this Confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible Hitherto I have been arguing against our Author but now in the close I cannot but joyn with him in his Protestants Exhortation to Humility It is an Admirable Virtue and may God grant to me and to all Men a greater Measure of it It is a Virtue proper even for Guides in Religion that they may humbly help the Faith of others and not exercise Dominion over it And because a late Writer has been pleas'd to suffer this severe censure to drop from his Pen it is the less to be admir'd that our Author is such a stranger to that Spirit of
Meekness and humble Charity because among all the Volumes of Divinity written by the Protestants there is not one Original Treatise at least that I have seen or heard of which has handled distinctly and by itself that Christian Virtue of Humility I will tell him of one Book as I could of many others written singly upon that Subject I mean a late Treatise by Mr. Allen a Man who had considered many ways but long before his Death approv'd of that of the Church of England as the most safe and Apostolical He was a Lay-Man a Citizen a Man of little skill in Languages or Scholastick-Learning yet by Gods Blessing upon his Industry and Sincerity and the Ministeral helps he met with in our Communion I will be bold to say he understood the Scriptures as judiciously as many Learned Romish Commentators who have got a Name in the World and stand pompously in several Volumes upon the Shelves of Students The End. ERRATA PAg. 3. lin 7. for mixt read mix Pag. 13. lin 6. for Fourthly read Fifthly Pag. 34 lin 22. for Queens time read unquiet times A Table of Contents THE Introduction shewing That this Tract and most of those which have been lately written in the Controversies betwixt Romanists and Churchof-England-Protestants have been occasion'd by the former P. 3. to p. 7. Chap. 1. Observations touching the Book itself call'd the Protestants Plea c. It s Edition Character and Design P. 7. to p. 17. Chap. 2. Considerations touching the General Argument of the Protestants Plea c. shewing the weakness of it and that it is not of force enough to overthrow the Plea of the Reformed P. 17. to p. 38. Chap. 3. Particular Answers to the Particular Branches of the Protestants Plea c. divided into Five Conferences by the Author of it P. 38. to p. 57. Sect. 1. The Argument of the First Conference with the Answer P. 38. to p. 46. Sect. 2. The Argument of the Second Conference with the Answer P. 46. to p. 49. Sect. 3. The Argument of the Third Conference with the Answer P. 49. to p. 51. Sect. 4. The Argument of the Fourth Conference with the Answer P. 51. to p. 53. Sect. 5. The Argument of the Fifth Conference with the Answer P. 53. to p. 56. The Conclusion shewing that the Roman Plea does not mend that of the Reformed of this Church but come short of it and that every Protestant is not wholly left to the private guidance of his own Imagination THE END a In the Epistle to the Reader p. 9. See Dr. Godden's Ser. on St. Pet. day p. 39. * See Resp. ad 〈◊〉 Ep. D. 〈◊〉 * See D. Still sev Discourses in Answer to the Guide in Contr. c. p. 326 327 c. a Disc. 3. p. 〈◊〉 b P. 3â—…2 c Disc. of 〈◊〉 of Ch. Guides p. 8. d Dis. 3 p. 169 e Disc. 1. p. 9 f Disc. 2. p. 138 g Disc. 1. p 47. h Prot. Plea p. 24 28. 29 30 i P. 13. k P. 10. l P. 11. m P 4. 14 16 26 32 37. * See M. Chill Pref. to the Author of Char. maintain'd Sect. 16 17 18. and in this Answer p. 13 22 54 58. n See Bibl. â—…tr Pol. in Vol. 2. Op. See. p. 422. o Socin Contra 〈◊〉 Vol. 2. p. 618. p Script S. Trinit Revelatâ—…ix p. 173 c. Prohâ—…m Paradox de Sp. S. p. 3. c. q Gosâ—… in 〈◊〉 ad Disp. de Personâ r Prot. Plea p. 5. s Socin de Ecclesiâ Op. Vol. 1. p. 341 342. t Socin Solut Scrupul Resp. ad 23. Vol. 1. Op. p. 332. u Prot. Plea p. 43. * Prot. Plea p 37. Soc. Though I stand separated from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther Prot. Plea Conf. 5. p. 33. x Chap. 16. p. 199. y See Chill Pref. to the Author of Char. Maint Sect 16. 17. 18 And here p. 9 22 54 58. z Traité de la Vraie Parole de Dieu à Pariâ—… 1671. c. 7. p. 47. c. 8. p. 62. c. 9. p. 71. c. 10. p. 87. Seepartic p. 82. 87. 88. a P. 380. Par des Raisons invincibles b Request to Pâ—…ot p. 〈◊〉 c See P. IIâ—… fourth Letter p. 129 130 131. d Socin Solut Scrup. Vol 1. p. 332. e Biblioth Anti-Trin p. 2. Bzovius A. 1542. f Ibid. p. 64. g Hist. Refor Polon p. 38. h Bibl. Anti-Trin p. 18. H. Ref. Pol. p. 38. i Excerpta MS. è Lib. Annal. Polon p. 1. k MS. Ep. of English Unitarianâ—… to Ameth Ben Ameth Amb. of Fez and 〈◊〉 l Bibl. Anti-Trin p. 149. Conditiones Unionis Christianorumcum Catholico-Rom in Poloniâ m Maimb Hist. de l'Arianisme Liv. Douz p. 360. n MS. in Praef. p. 1. Dialogue between a new Cath. Convert and a Prot. a Aâ—…on ap Eus. Eccl. H. E. l. 5. C. ult p. 195. b Soc. de Eccles Op. Voâ—… 1. p. 323. c Socin Resp. ad Vaâ—…m p. â—…18 d Crell Praes ad Lect. Lib. de Satisfact p. 4 5. * Hieron Moscorov in Râ—… Append. Mart. Sâ—…glecii p. 19. e Râ—…v 1611. f Lubien first Ref. Poâ—… 〈◊〉 1. c. 2. p 5 6 7 8. g Cingal Script S. â—…rin Reâ—…trix p. 30. h Bidâ—…e's Apostol Opin conc the holy Trin. reviv'd and afforâ—…d Lond. 1653. i Protestant Pacifique part 2. p. 25. k Tp. oâ—… Sâ—… 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l V. Sand. 〈◊〉 1. Sâ—… 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 156â—… 〈◊〉 m See Petav. 〈◊〉 c 5 Sect. 7. de 〈◊〉 c. ap Sand. Nâ—…l H. E. 12. l. 1. p. 217 218. l. 2. p. 30. ap Cingal p. 35 36 p. 31. quomodo enim illud queat esse ex Trad. Apostol quâ—…d deâ—…um quarto 〈◊〉 patefact constitut ait Dionysius Petavius See Sand. in Ind. H. Lit. P. Petavius probat omnes Patres ante Conc. Nic. Eadem cum Aâ—…io ante docâ—…isse n Desense des Sâ—…ntimens p 〈◊〉 Aâ—…es le P. Peâ—…u Jesuite o Cingall p. 35 36. p P. 16. P. 66 67. ex Huet Origen q D. G. Bull. Def. Fid. Nâ—…c r Defense des Sentimens c. p. 78 c. See here p. 9 1â—… 54 58. s In Chill Pref Sect. 9. p. 6. 17 18. p. 9 10 11. t Chill Pref. to the Author of Charity Maintain'd Sect. 16 u Hist. Res. Polon l. 1. c. 1 p. 7. x Slicht adv Meisn. de SS Trin. p. 67. Smalc Cont. Frans. Disp. 4. y Ostor. c. 4. Instit. z Ern. Sonn Demonstr Theol. Philos. p. 36. a Disc. of Infallib in Religion p. 200. p. 20â—… b Resp. ad Vujek p. 618. c Socin ibid. in illorum gratiam qui istorum Patrum Authoritate plus quà m deceat moventur d Soc. ibid. p. 618. Col. 1. Neque enim arbitror ex Script nostr hom ostendetur unquam eos afferere aut exstimare Scriptores ante Conc. Nic. qui hodiè extant nostrae sententiae fuisse c. nisi nostrae