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
but rather have own'd his Church to have been a new one upon the whole Matter and granted a kind of Universal Apostacy the Protestant is brought in as in a manner deriding this Argument in his own Person or at least as contented with it as by a Socinian propos'd So then it seems we need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick till a part can divide from itself which can never be Whereas a Protestant would have first told them that there is just fear of a Schism in the Body of the Church Catholick though not from it And that they had made a Separation from the sound parts of it though not from the whole whilst the Protestants were both Members of the Universal Church and in Communion with all particular Churches so far as they are Christian. He would have added That Mr. Chillingworth's Words were proper in his own Case but not in the Case of a Socinian Church which is taken to be a Member in the Universal Church but unsound and out of its place Fourthly It may be noted that the Author of this Book is not the Inventer but the Borrower of this Argument call'd The Protestants Plea for a Socinian It has been used by Valerianus Magnus by the Author of the Brief Disquisition by Sir Kenelm Digby in his Discourse concerning the Infallibility of Religion if he be the genuine Author by the Iesuite who cavill'd against Dr. Potter's Book call'd Want of Charity Which Argument of the Iesuite was long ago answer'd by Mr. Chillingworth though this Author who was under Obligation by the very Nature of his Undertaking to have Reply'd is pleas'd to pass it over in silence Since that time Louis Maimbourg then a Iesuite wrote a Book Intituled A Treatise concerning the True Word of God Four Chapters of that little Book are spent in the managing of this Method And If you will take it upon his own Word he has come into the Field with Invincible Weapons About two years after this Protestants Plea is set to sale among us after the English manner in other knacks After the French comes the English Guide after the Foreign Expositor the English Misrepresenter We follow when the Mode declines elsewhere When others molt their Feathers we take them up and write with them Yet this is to be acknowledg'd that our Author both in his Judgment and Manners and closeness of Writing does much exceed that Monsieur Maimbourg though he may seem to have taken some Hints from him My Last Observation toucheth the design of this Book which looks as if it were particularly levell'd against the Established Church of England It is true the more general Name of Protestant is used but the Authors who are cited are not Luther or Calvin Calâ—…xtus or Daille Cartwright or Travers but Archb. Laud Archb. Bramhal Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Hammond Dr. Fâ—…rn and Dr. Stillingfleet Now it has been one of the later Stratagems of evil Men to Misrepresent the Ministers of this Sound Church as favourers of the Doctrines of Socinus and at this very time this Art is in Practice Otherwise why dâ—…es the Paper just now scattered abroad style the Socinians the Brethren of Protestants by descent and iniquity To what other purpose serveth the beginning of the long Book just now appearing and call'd a Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln For the Author complains of the Arian History of Sandius as publish'd here at London though 't was set sorth in Holland and in England twice refuted and of that Bishops declining an Answer to it which surely he might reasonably do without any approbation of so ill a Book for every Man is not at leasure to do every thing in Learning which in the general is fit to be done The Title of this Book is Serviceable to the abovesaid design by way of Insinuation And who will assure us that it was not pick'd out of the Guide for this disingenuous end That it was gathered meerly as the choicest Flower contain'd in that Book and not as the fittest in this juncture for this calumniating purpose I do not believe that this was the principal design either of the Author or the Publishâ—…r But if a Man that goes about to fence himself from his Neighbour can both dig his Ditch and cast his durt upon him he may perhaps be so ill natur'd as to think he does well to dispatch two works at a time However it be with our present Author this is certain Socinus himself taking notice of it that England and Scotland were not favourable to his Doctrine and that it sprang out of Italy Sozzo the Uncle Blandrata Paruta Alciat were Italians and bred in the Roman Church Ochinus was of Siena and some say Confessor to the Pope and General of the Order of the Capucins Faustus Socinus the Nephew as well as Laelius the Uncle was of the same Siena and nearly related to Pius the Second and Third and to Paul the Fifth And of the First Chapter of the Second Book of the Reformation of the Church of Poland these are the Contents After what manner the Seeds of Divine Truth were carried out of Italy into Poland in the Year 1551 by Laelius Socinus And before his remove in the Year 1546 he had form'd a Socinian Cabal of Italians in the Territories of Venice and especially at Vicenza amounting to a considerable number And I find it said elsewhere that in the Year 1539 the burning of a Lady who had turn'd from the Church of Rome open'd the Eyes of Men in Poland and dispos'd them to inquiry into Truth I have seen some Applications of the Socinians to the Mahometans in which they shew what approaches they make towards them I have read of Conditions of Accommodation betwixt the Socinians and the Romanists But Fame it self I think has not invented any such project betwixt the Socinians and the English Church I do not offer this discourse as a proof of encouragement for Socinianism in the Church of Rome yet it is an Argument sufficient for the Silencing of those of that Communion who charge it upon Ours And for other Churches that which is said already may be a proof of the wonted Sincerity of Monsieur Maimbourg who tells his Readers with assurance that the Persons who after the interval of nigh 900 Years reviv'd Arianism were all of them either Lutherans or Calvinists before they became the Disciples of Socinus A Man ought to have been Master of their History before he had pronounc'd so freely of them But some have an extraordinary Talent in making History It is true the Author de Constantiâ Religionis Christianae was by Education a Lutheran but he was taken young into the School of the Iesuites And after having been Ten Years among them he turn'd Socinian as he himself relates his own Story And Men who consider the Nature of causes and effects are
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
to the last Conference where our Author reasons to this effect THE Protestants imagine they excuse themselves from Schism by alledging that they left a Corrupt part of the Church meaning the Roman and Reform'd themselves That the Schism is theirs who caus'd it that they are united to all Churches in Charity and in the unity of the Catholick Church being with them in all things in which they are obliged to be with them And in the rest they are hindred from external Communion by the sinful Conditions which a particular Church puts upon them The Socinians say the same thing for themselves with reference to other Communions besides the Roman therefore the Protestant justifies the Plea of the Socinian in Relation to Schism The same Answer serves for the same Objection Socinians say as Protestants do but the reason is on the side of the latter and not on the former And our Author himself with respect to his Instance of the Divinity of the Son of God will by no means say that the Sociâ—…ians who make that Article where impos'd a sinful condition of Communion can by saying so excuse themselves from Schism whilst they any where refuse external Communion upon the pretence of that Article as not Christian. A Romanist cannot say that it is not sufficiently propos'd to the Socinians and that it was never in their power to be convinc'd If they will turn this upon us with reference to our not separating from them but standing where we were after having in Christian and Legal manner also thrown off the Corruptions which were unagreeable to the Primitive Christianity we will try it over again with them by Scripture Antiquity and Reason and the Impartial World shall judge if it pleases Whether the Additional Articles in the Creed of Pope Pius are of God or Men. For this point of Schism as here manag'd the reasoning of this Fifth Conference was long ago confuted by Mr. Chillingworth But our Author did not condescend to take notice of it though he cites many other Words of Mr. Chillingworth not far from these But a Cunning Marks-Man will not put that into his Gun which may make it Recoil However I shall be bold to produce the Words which he in all probability did studiously omit Whereas D. Potter says there is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of ourselves This you say is a quaint Subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your Judgment that Thieves and Adulterers and Murtherers and Traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they do no hurt to others but only Reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism And that to this day never any Thief or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apology And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who Excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the Peace of the Church presently upon the Intercession of the Confessors whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not Excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the Sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to Tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Error in Doctrine neither pernicious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches Unity and Obedience because their Opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious Conversation they are impatient of their Churches Censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any Face or without extream Impudency put in this Plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own Defence falsly doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to employ'd by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a Reformation of ourselves This you reply is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same Words as any Rebel that makes Conscience the Cloak of his impious Disobedience may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn We must obey God rather than Men But then the Question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this Question you say just nothing But conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should have said S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an Answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their Disobedience and Rebellion against the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority The Conclusion AFter all this causeless finding fault with the Plea of the Protestant what is it that the Romanists aim at and after what manner would they mend this Plea They will tell you This seems to be the Consequence of the late way taken up by many Protestants viz. That in stead of the Roman Church her setting up some Men the Church-Governors as Infallible in Necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both Infallible in all Necessaries and certain that he is so They will endeavour to persuade you that the Great Ends they aim at are Truth and Peace And that these Blessed Ends are never to be universally attain'd without an Infallible Church to which all may submit their Judgments in Religion and by such submission preserve Unity They will continue their discourse and say Without such a Judge every Mans Reason is Reason and every Mans Scripture is Scripture and he is left to run wild after his own Imaginations And though a Man is not in the right he will not yield he is so till it is given against him by an Infallible Judge But Men must first be satisfi'd that there is such a Judge and who he is and where and how to be found and how far Men will follow him When there was such a Judge on Earth the most Infallible High-Priest the Blessed IESUS prejudic'd and perverse Men would neither be of One Faith nor of One Heart The Wisdom of God will