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
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
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
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
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