would fail 3. This Article of the Divinity of the Son of God was originally in the Creed for that the Fathers meant when in the Apostolical Creed they confessed Christ to be Gods only Son. And this they grounded on the Gospel of S. Iohn who wrote his Gospel which begins with Christs Divinity with this intention that Men should beleive Jesus to be the Son of God. 4. Protestants admit of no Article of Faith which is not grounded on the Scripture which was never known before and never oblig'd before yet in the mean time they see no reason why an Article assaulted by Hereticks and Sophists may not be explained or why the form of Confession design'd for Baptism might not be enlarged for the benefit of the Church and made a Sum of the Necessaries to be believ'd It sufficed at the first Incorporation of Persons to be Baptiz'd that they profess'd to believe the Religion which owneth Father Son and Holy Ghost 5. A particular Church may put an Article of Faith into a Creed without pretending to Infallibility She has Ability to do it because she has an Infallible Rule by which she can go But she ought not to say it is impossible any Church should do otherwise because a Party of Men may do that which they ought not to do and to which they were not constrain'd Prejudice Mis-attention Corruption may so prevail as to clap a false Byass upon Makers of Creeds Else how came we by those of Sirmium and Rimini And for instance sake in the Infallible Science of the Mathematicks the perverseness of the Temper of the Leviathan would not permit him to agree with a Learned Professor of that Science even in the first Elements of Geometry and a Controversie was maintain'd not only about the squaring of the Circle but about the Dimensions of a Point and a Line The Force of the Third Conference may be set down on this manner A Protestant submits to the Decrees of a Council no further than he is convinc'd that the same Council is rightly constituted and that her Definitions are founded on the Word of God. He believes that it may err in things not Necessary and in Necessaries too if it be not a truly General Council He can scarce give to it the Obedience of silence in that which he believes contrary to the Scripture The Socinian says the same things and denies the Council of Nice to be constituted rightly Therefore the Protestant justifies the Socinian Our Author should have gone on and said for so a Romanist is by the Tenor of his Faith oblig'd to say That the Protestant with reference to the Council of Nice has the Reason on his side A Son of the Church of England reverenceth the Four General Councils of which Nice is the First He believes its Faith to be bottom'd on the Scriptures and so did the Council itself and so does the Church of Rome He receives it as a General Council rightly Constituted though no Pope call'd it or otherwise confirm'd it than the rest of the Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops He believes its Dâ—…ctrine to be in the Phrase of Vincentius 〈◊〉 well-founded Antiquity and he offers to prove it A Socinian therefore if he has retain'd him will as soon as he hears such a Plea as this desire him to return his Fee. But what if a Socinian be found perverse and being a Disputer of this World will have his own way of arguing May not the Protestant wave the Council of Nice and enter the Lists with Reason and Scripture He that will not have him do it is not of the same mind either with the Fathers of Nice on with the Celebrated Latin Doctor S. Austin The Council of Nice disputed with the Arians out of the Scripture and confuted them by it The Bishops of it by Eusebius cite against them the words of St. Iohn In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. They argue from the words themselves as words clear and plain in their signification They take notice of the Word was as contrary to was not and was God as contrary to was not God. S. Austin observing the perverseness of Maximine lays aside Councils not as useless but as of lesser Authority than the Holy Scripture the force of which his Adversary could not with the same ease and readiness have avoided Neither ought I saith S. Austin to alledge the Council of Nice nor you that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor you to that of the other Let us both dispute with the Authorities of Scripture which are Witnesses common to us both Our Author puts this Citation into the Socinians Mouth and takes it from Dr. Taylor 's Dissâ—…asive from Popery but seeing it is the Method of S. Austin why does he not justifie a Protestant in using of it The Sum of the Fourth Conference is this A Protestant excuseth himself from Heresie by saying A Heretick is what he himself is not an Obstinate Maintainer of a Fundamental Error None can be such Hereticks to whom the Truth is not sufficiently proposed Councils may not always rightly distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and not Fundamentals He is not oblig'd to receive their Definitions till he is convinc'd of the truth of them He himself is Judge whether the Article be sufficiently propos'd and whether he is convinc'd by that which is offer'd to him The Socinian says the same thing for himself Our Author should have added that he says it with equal Reason if he would have made the one plead for the other But the Protestant in this point of the Divinity of the Son of Gon which is the Authors Instance does acknowledge that the Doctrine is sufficiently propos'd does receive the Council of Nice does own that he is convinc'd And the Romanist confesseth that thus far he is in the right and the Socinian in the wrong This comes to the same thing which was said before and the Answer is repeated because the Objection is brought again And indeed there is but one Argument strictly so call'd in all the Five Conferences which turn upon the same Hinge and one Answer suffices viz. That when Two say the same things concerning contrary Doctrines one of them only can have Truth on his side And that if both be equally confident the Confidence of the Persons does not make the Contradiction true The Plea is his not who barely offers it but who can make it good In this Point of the Divinity the Protestant makes his Plea good by the Scripture and the Council of Nice as a true General Council And if his Plea be true surely it does not cease to be so because he has not had it allow'd before a Roman Judge A Man is sure that all the Articles in the New Covenant are genuine though they be not confirm'd under the Lead of the Fisher. I come
the Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice were ignorant of that Notion of the Trinity which is now commonly embrac'd that all of them deny'd the Eternal Generation of the Son of God that all believ'd the Father to be the only Sovereign Omnipotent Eternal God. The Socinians who offer'd to make Application here to the late Ambassador of the King of Fez and Morocco would in their Epistle perswade his Excellency That Antiquity was on their side from Adam to Christ and that all the Primitive Christians in and after Christ and his Apostles times never own'd any other besides the single and supreme Deity of the Father This could not be said of all the Fathers from a Judicious Reader of them but might be borrow'd from the same Person who furnish'd Sandius with his false Witnesses This brings to my memory in due method the Second Assertion That some of the Arians and Socinians who put Tradition into their Plea have fetch'd their Materials from a Roman Storehouse thâ—…ugh not directly from the Church herself The Jesuite Petavius is the Man And his Second Tome of Ecâ—…lesiastical Doctrines is their Magazine Insomuch that the Companions of Monsieur Clerc having first taken notice of the Citations of Curcellaeus in favour of the Arian Doctrine do after that refer us to Father Petau as to the Author whom he follow'd The Modern Arians have also call'd Huetius in to their assistance in their Plea from Tradition against the Divinity both of the Son and of the Spirit of God But the mistakes of Petavius and others in this matter have been publickly shew'd by a Learned Person of this Church whose Work though the Friends of Monsiâ—…ur Clerc have touch'd upon they have not refuted Mr. Chillingworth urg'd some such thing as this in part of his Answer to the Iesuite who charg'd the Protestant as the Advocate of the Socinian and he cited only the Notes of Petavius on Epiphanius the Ecclesiastical Doctrines of that Father not being then come forth into the Light. I will set down Mr. Chillingworths words because they are omitted by this Author who quotes him often where it is less to the purpose and omits that in which he speaks directly to his point The Iesuite had thus Misrepresented the Faith of the Reformed Chap. 〈◊〉 Sect 2. The very Doctrine of Protestants if it be follow'd closely and with coherence to itself must of necessity induce Socinianism To this Charge Mr. Chillingworth makes the following Reply 16. Had I a mind to recriminate now and to charge Papists as you do Protestants that they lead Men to Socinianism I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence than you have done For I would not tell you You deny the Infallibility of the Church of England Ergo you lead to Socinianism which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Roman Church Ergo they induce Socinianism nor would I resume my former Argument and urge you that by holding the Popes Infallibility you submit your self to that Capital and Mother Heresie by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease to believe Virtue Vice and Vice Virtue to believe Antichristianity Christianism and Christianity Antichristian he may lead you to Socinianism to Turcism if he have a mind to it But I would shew you that divers ways the Doctors of your Church do the principal and proper work of the Socinians for them undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity by denying it to be supported by those Pillars of the Faith which alone are fit and able to support it I mean Scripture and the Consent of the antient Doctors 17. For Scripture your Men deny very plainly and frequently that this Doctrine can be proved by it See if you please this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Cardinal Hosius De Author Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De Verbo Dei C. 19. By Gretserus and Tannerus in Colloquio Ratisbon And also by Vega Possevin Wiekus and others 18. And then for the Consent of the Ancients that that also delivers it not by whom are we taught but by Papists only Who is it that makes known to all the World that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian Libraries was an Arian Is it not your great Achilles Cardinal Perron in his Third Book 2 Chap. of his Reply to King Iames Who is it that informs us that Origen who never was questioned for any errour in this matter in or near his time denied the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost Is it not the same great Cardinal in his Book of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis l. 2. c. 7 Who is it that pretends that Irenaeus hath said those things which he that should now hold would be esteemed an Arian Is it not the same Perron in his reply to K. Iames in the Fifth Chapter of his Fourth Observation And doth he not in the same place peach Tertullian also and in a manner give him away to the Arians And pronounce generally of the Fathers before the Council of Nice that the Arians would gladly be tried by them And are not your Fellow Iâ—…suites also even the prime Men of your Order Prevarieators in this point as well as others Doth not your Friend M. Fisher or M. Floyd in his Book of the Nine Questions proposed to him by K. Iames speak dangerously to the same purpose in his discourse of the resolution of Faith towards the end Giving us to understand that the new reformed Arians bring very many Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers to prove that in this point they did contradict themselves and were contrary one to another which places whosoever shall read will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see that to common People they are unanswerable yea that common People are not capable of the Answers that Learned Men yield unto such obscure passages And hath not your great Antiquary Petavius in his Notes upon Epiphanius in Haer. 69. been very liberal to the Adversaries of the Doctrine of the Trinity and in a manner given them for Patrons and Advocates First Iust in Martyr and then almost all the Fathers before the Council of Nice whose Speeches he says touching this Point Cum Orthodoxa Fidei regulâ minimè consentiunt Hereunto I might add That the Dominicans and Iesuites between them in another matter of great importance viz. Gods Prescience of future Contingents give the Socinians the Premises out of which their Conclusion doth unavoidably follow For the Dominicans maintain on the one side That God can foresee nothing but what he decrees The Iesuites on the other side That he doth not decree all things and from hence the Socinians conclude as it is obvious for them to do That he doth not foresee all things Lastly I might adjoyn this That you agree with one consent and settle for a Rule unquestionable That
Word in a great Volume of Refutation The Bottom on which all is built is shew'd to be false and if a Workman discovers the unsoundness of the Foundation he is not oblig'd to tell particularly how every single Brick is dawbed with untempered Mortar The Guide is sufficiently answered if it be prov'd either that the first step he sets is false or that he wants Eyes or that he is by prejudice blinded Some such thing seems to be in some degree in this Guide in Controversie and I may set it down as my Second Observation That though there is a commendable Temper in this and his other Writings yet there is an obscureness in all of them and he that is conversant in his Books is as if he walk'd in a calm but darkish Night Part of this obscureness to the Unlearned riseth from Hard Words which though they seem not to be affected by the Author are yet very frequently used by him Such are in his other Discourses Relative Cult Salvifical Non-clearness Inerrability Church-Anarchical Traditive-Sense Decession And in this Plea Autocatacrisie Plerophory Cognoscitive Faculties Unliteral Consubstantiality But the plain truth is this That where the Cause will not bear manifest and sound Sense it must be darkned with Words if Men will plead with Art for it Concerning the Sense of the Protestants darkned in this and his other Discourses he has done it with Art enough I cannot say with equal Sincerity Little Pieces of their Writings are taken out of their Places and inlaid in such manner as to serve the Figure of his Work but to blemish theirs And it may be a Third Note with particular reference to Mr. Chillingworth whom in this short Dialogue he has cited more than twenty times that whilst he has picked out of him many other Words he has omitted every one of those which do expresly answer this Plea for a Socinian I will set down these Words afterwards in their due place for the Satisfaction of Ingenuous Readers and to shew that great Accomplishments may be attended with great Insincerity Fourthly I observe concerning this Writer That he has not in this Dialogue betwixt a Protestant and a Socinian strictly kept the Character of either of them First He hath not accurately observed the Character of a Socinian He introduceth the Socinian as insisting perpâ—tually upon the Point of the Consubstantiality of thâ— Son of God or his being of one and the same Eâ—sence or Substance with the Father Whereas that â—â— properly the Point in Controversie betwixt the â—â—rians and the Catholick Christians rather than betwixt them and the Socinians who derive them selves from Artemon and Samosatenus more directly than from Arius It is true they deny that Christ is of the same Substance with his Father but their proper Heresie is the denial of his being any thing before he was conceiv'd by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary For this reason the Extracts out of the Readings of the College of Posnan against the Socinians have the Name given to them of Theological Assertions against the New Samosatenians and not the New Arians yet in some respects they are and may be so called without absurdness of Speech Socinus himself will not admit that the true Arians are of his way further than as they agree with him in affirming the Father to be the only God by Essence And Sandius though he was a professed Arian and an avowed Enemy of the Nicene Doctrine yet he wrote against the Socinian Heresies which affirm That Christ was a meer Man and deny that the Spirit of God is a Person But the Author may have been moved to select this Point because of its accidental difficulty occasion'd by Scholastick Niceness in their Disputes about this Mystery and the Controversies which they have carry'd on about the very term of Homousiety There was artifice therefore in singling out this Point as capable of being turned into perplexity Especially as Goâ—… us the Socinian notes when the Occams and the Durands enter into Questions about Formalities Quiddities and Personalities Other Points as about Baptism the Lords Supper Orders and the Church would have been too plain for the purpose Again This Author brings or rather forces in his Socinian and makes him to speak to the Protestant in these words I pray tell me Whether do you certainly know the Sense of the Scriptures for the Evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther requiring Conformity to the contrary Doctrines as a Condition of her Communion This is rather the Phrase of a Papist than a Socinian For though Socinus believ'd his own Scheme to be new and distinct from the whole Church he did not believe that the Lutherans had made such a Separation Neither would he have disputed with them about the Sense of the Scriptures for the Evidence of which they separated or rather were driven from the Church of Rome for he did allow that those places were clear Nor would he have given to the Roman Church the name of the whole Church or scarce of a Church at all He did not so much as allow it to be a true Church in the most favourable sense of the Protestants who distinguish betwixt a true and a pure Church and compare it to a Mass of Silver embased with Lead Socinus plac'd the Truth of the Church in the Truth of its Doctrine from which Truth he held the Church of Rome to be extreamly departed He affirm'd concerning the Notes or Signs of the Church That either they were false or if true belong'd not to the Church of Rome And he made particular Instance in the Mark of Holy. He declar'd concerning Luther That he drew Men off from false Worship and Idolatry and brought them to that Knowledge of Divine Matters which was sufficient for the procuring of Eternal Life He added That God did afterwards by Zuinglius and Oecolampadius reform certain things of very great importance He repeats it again That by the means of Luther Men were enlightned in those things which were absolutely necessary to Salvation So that this Author does not exactly personate a Socinian when he speaks thus in a Sonian's Name Whether do you certainly know the Sense of the Scriptures for the Evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther Again A Socinian would not have spoken as this Author does in his Name calling a heinous Iniquity a very great Mortal Sin. Nor would any accurate Speaker have us'd that improper Expression Then Secondly for the Protestant in the Dialogue he does here and there misrepresent his Sense and speak at the same time as by him and yet against him For Example-sake the Socinian having said out of Mr. Chillingworth That his Party had not forsaken the whole Church seeing themselves were a part of it which by the way a Socinian would scarce have said
inclined to believe that the way to Socinianism has been much open'd and widen'd by the Popish Doctors who have so vehemently urg'd the Obscureness of the Scriptures in the Doctrine of the Trinity and who at this very time furnish the Hawkers with their little Dialogues endeavouring to equal the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation with that of Three Persons in one incomprehensible Essence For to say that that invention of Paschasius is as reasonable to be believ'd as the great Mystery of the Trinity by all good Catholicks is in effect to say that neither of them is reasonable CHAP. II. Considerations touching the General Argument of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian shewing the weakness of it and that it is not of force enough to overthrow the Plea of the Reformed LET that which hath been said suffice for the Quality of this Writing I will proceed to the General Argument of it which may in brief be thus represented The Protestants and Socinians agree in their Plea they alledge Scripture they measure Faith by it as by a compleat and clear Rule They reject Councils and the Major part of Church Authority if they are not convinc'd that they are founded on the Scriptures in finding out the sense of which both sides profess due Industry Both parties excuse themselves whatsoever Doctrines they advance whatsoever Wounds they open in the Church as uninfected with Hâ—…si and free from Schisan till their private Spirit be satisfi'd and before the Tribunal they erect in their own Heads they are self-accus'd and self-condemned Therefore Protestants make Apology for Socinians and are neither able to confute them upon these Principles and Methods nor to justifie themselves but are oblig'd to appeal to the Infallible Iudge or the Major part of the Bench of Iudges in the Roman Church where all such Controversies may be effectually ended The force of this specious Argument will be abated as all such Arguments may easily be whose force lays only in plausible appearance by a few plain Considerations First the Socinians will not allow their Plea to be perfectly the same with that of the Protestants especially those of the Established Church of England The Socinian Author of the Brief Disquisition proceeds upâ—…n a supposed difference and he endeavours to shew that unless the Evangelical quitted their own way of Resolving Faith and made use of the Methods of Socinus they could not Solidly and Evidently refute the Romanists and particularly the Judgment of Valerianus Magnus concerning the Protestant Rule of Believing Secondly Both Arians and Socinians plead Tradition though their Plea is not manag'd exactly after our better manner And when they plead Tradition why is not theirs then as much the Popish Plea as when they plead Scripture it is the Protestants for neither do they plead that just as this Church does Two Assertions may be here advanc'd First that the Arians and Socinians plead Tradition Secondly that some Papists have help'd the more Modern of them to Materials for the making of that Plea. First Arians and Socinians plead Tradition against the Divine Nature of Christ as the Romanists plead Tradition for it Artemon taught the Heresie of our Saviours being a meer Man. And we are assured by an unnamed but an antient and as appeareth by his Fragments a very sagacious Author that his Party declared that they follow'd Antiquiry that their Ancestors and the Apostles themselves were of the same belief that to the time of Pope Victor the true Doctrine of the Apostles was preserved and that it was corrupted in the times of his Successor Zephyrin These how unjust soever were their Allegations Socinus takes the boldness to affirm That the Romanists are not able to defend their Principles about the Trinity by the Authority of the Fathers And on the contrary that the Earlier Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice were firm in his belief He cites the Council of Ariminum Iustin the Martyr and S. Hilary He promiseth upon supposition of leisure to write a Tract on this Subject for the satisfaction of those who are moved with such Authority Crellius pretends that during 300 years after Christ the Doctors of the Church consented in this Faith That the Father was the most High God whilst the Son was a Diety different from the Creator of the World. He says of Grotius in upbraiding manner That he must needs know of this Historical Truth being a Man conversant in the Fathers He quotes Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho as Evidence on his side He has the Confidence to say That the Men of his Way have demonstrated this and that the very Adversaries of the Unitarians have confessed this to be true in Tertullian and Origen He introduceth S. Hilary as a Patron of that Doctrine which denies the Divinity of the Spirit of God. He presumes to say That the nearer approaches we make to the Anti-Trinitarians the higher we come to the Apostolical Faith. Moscâ—…rovius charges his Adversaries with misrepresenting of the first Fathers when they bring them in as Witnesses of that Faith concerning the Trinity which they profess And he proceeds in telling of them That Ignatius the most antient of those Church-Doctors whose Writings are extant does openly say the contrary in his Epistle to those of Tarsus affirming that Christ is not the Deity who is God over all but only the Son of God. He goes on in citing Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Origen how much to the purpose it is not my business here to determine It is true Ignatius is not the most antient of those Doctors whose Writings are extant but when he wrote this Mr. Young had not published Clements Epistle nor Mâ—…rdus that of Barnabas It is also confess'd that he cites a spurious Piece of Tradition for Ignatius wrote not that Epistle Ad Tarsenses but in the mean time to Tradition he in part appeals Lubieniecius spends a Chapter in Demonstrating as he imagin'd that God had not left his Church from the Apostles times to his without Witnesses of the Doctrine which denies the Trinity He glories in Artemon Samosatenus Photinus and others for Men are apt in all Factions to pretend to Number and Antiquity Christopher Sandius wrote his indigested Heap of Church-Story with this very design that in the several Centuries he might take especial notice of the Favourers of the Arian Doctrine And under the borrowed Name of Cingallus he gives himself the Honour of having made a most solid proof concerning all the Fathers of the three first Ages that they believed as Arius believ'd Mr. Biddle in the Appendix to his Book against the Holy Trinity endeavours to strengthen his Plea with the Testimonies of Irenaeus Iustin Martyr Novatian Theophilus Origen Arnobius Lactantius Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poictiers He pretends to the Fathers though he is guilty of false mustering Monsieur-Aubert du Versoy tells the World with great assurance That all
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
divided from them and rather Glories that he gives light to all the World than borrows from it The Author of the Brief Disquisition blames the Protestants for the great deference they pay to unwritten Tradition meaning by it that which is not Written in the Scriptures but in the Fathers although at the same time he makes them to ascribe to Councils and single Fathers a greater Authority than they really do notwithstanding they are very just to them Ruarus though he was a Man of extraordinary Candor yet in his Letters to Bergius he does not barely refuse but reject with derision his Catholick Interpretation of Scripture according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis which admitteth That Sense which was every where always and of all beleived A Rule by which we help our selves And he further professeth that he should be much concern'd if the Interpretations of Calvin and Luther were not more solid and acute than those of the Fathers We of this Church consider in the Interpretations of the Fathers not so much the acuteness though in S. Chrysostome for instance sake and in Theodoret it is not wanting as we do the History and the light which they may give us into the consent of the Churches in the Primitive times We are not apt to believe that there was such an Universal Corruption and Apostacy as Socinians speak of immediately after the Apostles times We are not Strangers to the Testimony of Hegesippus of which they make use for the blackning of the Primitive Church He does not say that the Leprosy was spread throughout the Church but that it began early We do not undervalue the Fathers but proceed in the method of the Antients who begun first with the Holy Scriptures and then descended to those who wrote next after the Holy Pen-Men The Calvinists themselves Radon and Silvius in a Disputation at Petricow in Poland did not plead just after the manner of the Socinians They pleaded the Scriptures together with Councils and Fathers as Subordinate Witnesses Their Socinian Adversaries Gregorius Pauli and Gentilis mock'd at their way of arguing They profess'd they would admit of nothing but the pure Word of God as shiing sufficiently by its own Light. And they denied that there was contain'd in formal terms in the Holy Scriptures the Doctrine of Three Persons in one Divine Essence Again the Members of our Church do not imitate the Socinians in traducing Constantine the Great and preferring Constantius the Arian before him They celebrate his Memory as a Defender of the Faith so far are they from reviling him as a Perverter of it They do not joyn with Socinians in reproaching the Fathers of Nice as Mercinary and Flexible Men whom Constantine had gained to his party by interest or force They do not with Gregorius Pauli call the Explication of the Nicene Faith the Creed of Sathanasius They hate the irreverence as much as they despise the jingle They do not beleive that the Nicene Creed is forg'd as some Socinians do though at the same time they take this upon the modern Authority of Laurentius Valla whom they make to say that he read it in very Antient Books of Isidore who in his time was a Collector of Councils Such a Collector of Councils as Varillas of History a Father and a Collector together The truth is it is Valla's business to elude the sense of Isidore and to ascribe a twofold Creed to the Nicene Fathers the Apostolical and that which bears their Name Whereas Isidorâ—… distinguishes betwixt their Creed and that of the Apostles The Protestants repeat in their Liturgy the Creed of Nice in the form agreed on in the Council of Constantinople and would not do so if they did not beleive it Orthodox They do not say with some modern Arians that it was framed by Marcellus Ancyranus a Heretick or joyn with those Spanish Iesuites who it seems charg'd this Creed with the Heresie of Photinus the Master of Marcellus They pay a more just Duty to the Emperour and the Nicene Fathers than to say with the Enemies of the Holy Trinity that setting Council against Council they chuse rather to follow those of Sirmium and Rimini than those of Nice Our Church-Men do not with the Socinians disregard the Fathers who liv'd after that famous Council and acknowledge that those Fathers are against it and bid defiance to their opposition But so does Socinus so does Crellius so does Pisecius for thus he discourseth Do they say Theology knows nothing of this It is enough if the Apostles do S. Austin damns this Christ approves it The same Pisecius is more severe in his censure than Socinus himself and he agrees with Scaliger if Scaliger be by him rightly cited in accusing all the Fathers up to S. Austins time of ignorance in another Doctrine about the Receipt of departed Souls not Martyrs and in affirming that the Errours of the first Fathers prepared the way for Antichrist In fine Though the Church of England does not make the Councils her Rule of Faith or make her last Appeal to them yet she believes that in times of Controversie when the Heads of Men are apt to be disturb'd even in Matters otherwise plain enough by the Heats and Distempers of the Age they live in they are of special use The Authority of them tends to the quelling of the Party And then when the Faction cools it tends to the fixing and further strengthning of the weak and interrupted Faith of many For as in a Ballance one Scale may descend more or less below the Level so there may be Faith and Assent without adding the weight of Fathers and Councils and yet in unquiet Times especially and disputing Ages such Testimonies may give some further strength to Minds made feeble either by publick Distractions or the private Attacks of Crafty Seducers Thus our Church gives to the Scripture the things that belong to the Scripture and to Tradition the Dues of Tradition And it gives more even to the former than generally Socinians do and more also to the latter though with just Caution and Subordination So that their Plea and ours is not in a strict way of speaking the very same But Fourthly If we admit that the Plea of the Protestant and Socinian is the same for the general nature of it we cannot be truly said to plead for them unless the general Plea be with Truth and Pertinence as well as Boldness applied to the very merit of the Cause If two Men will plead the same thing with equal Assurance but not with equal Reason in Truth and Merit 't is not the same If the Confidence of Men in pleading might weigh against the Right of others they that were in the wrong would be in the right For what was wanting in the Reason of the Case would be supply'd by Impudence But is it said by any of the Robe
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
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
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