Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A64356
|
The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods in answer to a book written by a Romanist, and intituled, The Protestant's plea for a Socinian.
|
Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing T694; ESTC R10714
|
38,420
|
66
|
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
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