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
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