Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_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
|
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
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