THE DIFFERENCE Betwixt the PROTESTANT AND Socinian Methods: In ANSWER to a BOOK Written by a ROMANIST, and Entitled, The Protestants. Plea for a Socinian.  
LICENCED, Decemb. 14. 1686.  
Printed for Benjamin took at the Sign of the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1687.   

THE Introduction.  
THE Author of a late little Book, which bears the Title of [Seek and you shall find,] does, both in his own Name, and in the Name of many Sincere Persons, make open complaint of the Licentiousness of the Press. 
a In the Epistle to the Reader, p. 9  If he means by those Persons, such as are so Sincere in their Credulity, that they mixed not one grain of reasonable Inquiry with it, the Complaint will give no pain to judicious People, unless it be by moving them to pity his Weakness. And a Man would imagine, that his ●…ort of Sincere People were so purely Credulous, seeing the Justice of the complaint is on the side of the Reformed. This lesser matter puts me in mind of a greater, yet of a like Nature, in the Circumcellions, one of those Branches into which the Faction, which sprang from Donatus, was divided. They went about doing injury to the Christians, from whom they had made a causeless Separation; and when their Incivilities were, by those whom they had provoked, turned upon them, they took the confidence to call themselves Martyrs.  
But certainly, those, who are the illegal Aggressors, deserve the Blame. Those who send the Challenge are the Litentious, rather than the modest Accepters. And, when Truth and Innocency are assaulted, such as Honour them and have interest in them, aught to do some just thing in their necessary defence; and, if need be, draw their Pens in their Service. Provided that it be done (as, I think, by our Churchmen, it has been generally done) in a way consistent with decency of Manners, and public Peace.  
If, therefore, there appear amongst the Romanists, Misrepresenters and crafty Softners and Colourers of their own Doctrine; True and Faithful Representers are not unreasonably Officious, when they enter upon the Stage and take off the Disguise.  
If Artificial Expositions are imposed, and set to Sale in our own Language upon every Stall; it is very proper for such as are Friends to Sincerity, to take upon them the Office of True Expounders, and to convince the World, that such Sweetners of the Doctrines of the Synod of Trent, have not declared what those Doctrines are, but what, in their Opinion, they ought to be; or, by what turns of Wit, they may be fenced against the Arguments of Reformed Catholics.  
If any Man thinks fit not only to Preach, but to Publish in this Nation, a Sermon of St. Peter, and, in that Sermon, to reproach all Churches 
See Dr. Godden's Servant on St. Pet. day, p. 39  besides the Roman, as New Trimmed Vessels, Leaky at the Bottom, and unable to carry those, who Sail in them; to the Haven; it cannot be a Crime to set forth a Discourse on the same Subject, (without any reflection either on such a Person, or his Performance;) and to show the true Sense of Thou art Peter, and the safety of our Communion, and the Soundness of our Bottom; whilst some are in a Vessel which has suffered so many Alterations and Additions, that it cannot be called the same Ship it was, when St. Peter was in it.  
Again, if such Guides in Controversy offer themselves, as lead Men out of the way, and turn them round in an endless Circle; the Direction of honest Guides is a debt which they owe to Truth and Charity.  
If Men in Books, in Pulpits, in Conversation, shall daily ask the question, Where is the Protestant's Judge? they aught to esteem it a Civility in others, when they give them a full Answer about a judge in Controversy.  
And if Men of like Persuasion revile this Church as the Schismatical party of Donatus, it is out of decency and not want of ability, that Men do not give them an Irene for their Lucilla. In the mean time, they have a Substantial Answer, though not so sharp a Rebuke, as their bold uncharitableness justly merited.  
Last of all, If a Romanist accuseth the Church of England, as a Patroness of the Heresy of Socinus, though not with a direct and downright charge, yet from the consequence of her Methods; common Duty to so Good and Venerable a Mother constraineth her Sons to appear in her Vindication; and to show that her Plea is very widely mistaken. If she pleads for Arians, Socinians, or any other Faction of Men, who have departed from the true Faith; she does it no otherwise than in the Words of her Litany. In that Pious Office, she beseecheth God to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived: And may God abundantly favour her Charitable Petition.  
By such Considerations as these, I have, at last, been moved to write an Answer to the Book which the Author is pleased to call The Protestants Plea for a Socinian, and to make that Answer public. But I must acknowledge, that, upon other Accounts, the Diversion which this Answer has given me, has been very unwelcome: As unwelcome as the trouble was to those of old time, who, when they were employed in offering Sacrifice, were forced to turn aside, and drive away from the Altar the greedy Fowls, and the impertinent Flies.  
Now, in this Answer, I shall, for Order-sake, and that I may proceed distinctly, reduce what I purpose to say to certain Heads; and they are these three which follow.  
I. Observations touching the Book itself, its Edition, Character and design.  
II. Considerations relating to the General Argument of it, by which it may appear to be of no real force against the Plea of the Reformed.  
III. Particular Answers to the Particular Parts of this pretended Protestants Plea, as it stands divided in the Five Conferences of the Author.   

The Difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian Methods, etc.  

CHAP. I.  
Observations touching the Book itself, its Edition, Character and Design.  
FOR the Book itself, it may be noted in the First place, That it is neither new, nor entire. It is the Fourth Discourse in the Second Edition of the Guide in Controversies, set out in the Year 1673. If this Tract was published before that time, to me it was not; for then, and not before, it came to my knowledge. But this is not the thing which gives our ecclesiastics offence; for whether the Men of Controversy bring into the Field either their Old or their New Artillery of Arguments, this Apostolical Church is proof against them.  
The Book, of which this Plea is a part, is believed, by many of the same way, to be of very great Strength and Solidity: And when a Question is moved concerning their Faith, they think it enough to say, The Guide is unanswered 
* See Resp. ad 〈◊〉 Ep. D. 〈◊〉.  If that be a good Method, a Protestant, upon the like occasion, may take leave to say, The Book against the Pope's Supremacy, written by the learned and humble Dr. Barrow, is unanswerable. And, after all this, the Guide is actually answered, though not in the Formality of Word for Word, in a great Volume of Refutation 
* See D. Still. sev. Discourses in Answer to the Guide in Contr. etc. p. 326, 327, etc. . The Bottom on which all is built is showed to be false; and if a Workman discovers the unsoundness of the Foundation, he is not obliged to tell particularly how every single Brick is daubed with untempered Mortar. The Guide is sufficiently answered, if it be proved, 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 Controversy; 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 walked 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, 
a Disc. 3. p. 〈◊〉.  Relative Cult. Salvifical 
b P. 3●…2. . Non-clearness 
c Disc. of 〈◊〉. of Ch. Guides, p. 8. . Inerrability 
d Dis. 3 p. 169 . Church-Anarchical 
e Disc. 1. p. 9 . Traditive-Sense 
f Disc. 2. p. 138 . Decession 
g Disc. 1. p 47. .  
And, in this Plea, Autocatacrisie 
h Prot. Plea, p. 24, 28. 29, 30 , Plerophory 
i P. 13. , Cognoscitive Faculties 
k P. 10. , Unliteral 
l P. 11. , Consubstantiality 
m P 4. 14, 16, 26, 32, 37. .  
But the plain truth is this, That where the Cause will not bear manifest and sound Sense, it must be darkened with Words, if Men will plead, with Art, for it. Concerning the Sense of the Protestants darkened 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 expressly answer this Plea for a Socinian. I will set down these Words afterwards, in their due place, for the Satisfaction of Ingenuous Readers; 
* See M. Chill. Pref. to the Author of Char. maintained, Sect. 16, 17, 18. and, in this Answer, p. 13, 22, 54, 58.  and to show 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 perpetually upon the Point of the Consubstantiality of th● Son of God, or his being of one and the same E●sence or Substance with the Father: Whereas that ●● properly the Point in Controversy betwixt the ●●rians and the Catholic Christians, rather than betwixt them and the Socinians, who derive themselves 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 Heresy is the denial of his being any thing before he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary: For this reason the Extracts out of the Readins of the College of Posnan 
n See Bibl. ●…tr. Pol. in Vol. 2. Op. See. p. 422.  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 
o Socin. Contra 〈◊〉, Vol. 2. p. 618. . 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 mere Man, and deny that the Spirit of God is a Person 
p Script. S. Trinit. Revelat●…ix, p. 173, etc. & Proh●…m. Paradox. de Sp. S. p. 3. etc. . But the Author may have been moved to select this Point because of its accidental difficulty occasioned by Scholastic Niceness in their Disputes about this Mystery, and the Controversies which they have carried 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 Go●… us 
q Gos●…. in 〈◊〉 ad Disp. de Personâ.  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: 
r Prot. Plea, p. 5. — 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 believed 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 placed the Truth of the Church in the Truth of its Doctrine 
s Socin. de Ecclesiâ, Op. Vol. 1. p. 341, 342. , from which Truth he held the Church of Rome to be extremely departed. He affirmed concerning the Notes or Signs of the Church, That either they were false; or, if true, belonged not to the Church of Rome: And he made particular Instance in the Mark of Holy. He declared concerning Luther, 
t Socin. Solut. Scrupul. Resp. ad 23. Vol. 1. Op. p. 332.  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 enlightened 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 
u Prot. Plea, p. 43.  very great Mortal Sin. Nor would any accurate Speaker have used 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 owned his Church to have been a new one upon the whole Matter, and granted a kind of Universal Apostasy 
* Prot. Plea, p 37. Soc. Though I stand separated from the present unreformed Churches, or also (if you will) from the whole Church that was before Luther. ) 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, proposed:— So then it seems we need fear no Schism from the Church Catholic till a part can 
Prot. Plea, Conf. 5. p. 33.  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 Catholic, 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 Inventor, but the Borrower of this Argument called 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 
x Chap. 16. p. 199.  concerning the Infallibility of Religion, (if he be the genuine Author;) by the jesuit who cavilled against Dr. Potter's Book called, Want of Charity. Which Argument of the jesuit was long ago answered by Mr. Chillingworth 
y See Chill. Pref. to the Author of Char. Maint. Sect 16. 17. 18 And here p. 9, 22, 54, 58. , though this Author, who was under Obligation, by the very Nature of his Undertaking, to have Replied, is pleased to pass it over in silence.  
Since that time, Lovis Maimbourg (than a jesuit) wrote a Book Entitled, A Treatise concerning the True Word of God 
z Traité de la Vraie Parole de Dieu, à Pari●…, 1671. c. 7. p. 47. c. 8. p. 62. c. 9 p. 71. c. 10. p. 87. Seepartic. p. 82. 87. 88 . 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 
a P. 380. Par des Raisons invincibles. . 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 moult their Feathers, we take them up and write with them. Yet this is to be acknowledged, that our Author, both in his Judgement 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 levelled 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; Cal●…xtus or Daille; Cartwright or Travers; but Archb. Laud; Archb. Bramhal; Mr. Chillingworth; Dr. Hammond; Dr. F●…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 d●…es the Paper just now scattered abroad, 
b Request to P●…ot p. 〈◊〉.  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 called, a Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln 
c See P. II●…. fourth Letter, p. 129, 130, 131. ? For the Author complains of the Arian History of Sandius, as published here at London, (though 'twas set forth 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 leisure 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 picked out of the Guide for this disingenuous end? That it was gathered merely as the choicest Flower contained 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 Publish●…r. But, if a Man, that goes about to fence himself from his Neighbour, can both dig his Ditch, and cast his dirt upon him, he may, perhaps, be so ill natured 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 
d Socin. Solut. Scrup. Vol 1. p. 332. , 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 Sienna, and, some say 
e Biblioth. Anti-Trin. p. 2. & Bzovius, A. 1542. , 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 Sienna, and nearly related to Pius, the Second, and Third; and to Paul the Fifth 
f Ibid. p. 64. . And, of the First Chapter of the Second Book of the Reformation of the Church of Poland 
g Hist. Refor▪ Polon. p. 38. , 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 formed a Socinian Cabal of Italians in the Territories of Venice 
h Bibl. Anti-Trin. p. 18. & H. Ref. Pol. p. 38. , and especially at Vicenza, amounting to a considerable number. And I find it said elsewhere 
i Excerpta MS. è Lib. Annal. Polon. p. 1. , that, in the Year 1539, the burning of a Lady who had turned from the Church of Rome, opened the Eyes of Men in Poland, and disposed them to inquiry into Truth.  
I have seen some Applications 
k MS. Ep. of English Unitarian●… to Ameth Ben Ameth Amb. of Fez and 〈◊〉.  of the Socinians to the Mahometans, in which they show what approaches they make towards them. I have read of Conditions of Accommodation betwixt the Socinians and the Romanists 
l Bibl. Anti-Trin. p. 149. Conditiones Unionis Christianorumcum Catholico-Rom. in Poloniâ. . But Fame itself (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 wont Sincerity of Monsieur Maimbourg, who tells his Readers with assurance, that the Persons who, after the interval of nigh 900 Years, revived Arianism, were all of them either Lutherans or Calvinists before they became the Disciples of Socinus 
m Maimb. Hist. de l'Arianisme. Liv. Douz. p. 360. . A Man ought to have been Master of their History, before he had pronounced so freely of them: But some have an extraordinary Talon in making History.  
It is true, the Author de Constantiâ Religionis Christianae 
n MS. in Praef. p. 1. , was by Education a Lutheran; but he was taken young into the School of the Jesuits: And, after having been Ten Years among them, he turned 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 opened and widened by the Popish Doctors who have so vehemently urged the Obscureness of the Scriptures in the Doctrine of the Trinity; and who, at this very time, furnish the 
Dialogue between a new Cath. Convert and a Prot.  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 believed as the great Mystery of the Trinity, by all good Catholics, 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; showing 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 allege Scripture, they measure Faith by it as by a complete and clear Rule. They reject Councils, and the Major part of Church Authority, if they are not convinced 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 H●…si, and free from Schisan, till their private Spirit be satisfied, and, before the Tribunal they erect in their own Heads, they are self-accused and self-condemned.  
Therefore Protestants make Apology for Socinians, and are neither able to confute them, upon these Principles and Methods; nor to justify themselves; but are obliged to appeal to the Infallible judge, or the Major part of the Bench of judges 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 up●…n a supposed difference; and he endeavours to show 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 Judgement of Valerianus Magnus, concerning the Protestant Rule of Believing.  
Secondly, Both Arians and Socinians plead Tradition; though their Plea is not managed 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 advanced.  
First, that the Arians and Socinians plead Tradition.  
Secondly, that some Papists have helped 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 Heresy of our Saviour's being a mere Man. And we are assured by an unnamed 
a A●…on. ap. Eus. Eccl. H. E. l. 5. C. ult. p. 195. , but an ancient and (as appeareth by his Fragments) a very sagacious Author, that his Party declared that they followed 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 
b Soc. de Eccles. Op. Vo●…. 1. p. 323.  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 
c Socin. Resp. ad Va●…m, p. ●…18. . who lived before the Council of Nice, were firm in his belief. He citys the Council of Ariminum, justin 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 
d Crell. Praes. ad Lect. Lib. de Satisfact. p. 4, 5.  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 Deity 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 justin 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.  
Mosc●…rovius 
* Hieron. Moscorov. in R●… Append. Mart. S●…glecii, p. 19  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 ancient 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 justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen; how much to the purpose, it is not my business here to determine. It is true, Ignatius is not the most ancient of those Doctors whose Writings are extant: but when he wrote this 
e R●…v. 1611. , Mr. Young had not published Clement's Epistle, nor M●…rdus that of Barnabas. It is also confessed that he citys 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 
f Lubien. first. Ref. Po●…. 〈◊〉. 1. c. 2. p 5, 6, 7, 8.  spends a Chapter in Demonstrating (as he imagined) 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 
g Cingal. Script. S. ●…rin. Re●…trix. p. 30. , 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 believed.  
Mr. Biddle, in the Appendix to his Book against the Holy Trinity 
h Bid●…e's Apostol. Opin. conc. the holy Trin. revived and affor●…d, Lond. 1653. , endeavours to strengthen his Plea with the Testimonies of Irenaeus, justin Martyr, Novatian, Theophilus, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Hilary of Poitiers. He pretends to the Fathers, though he is guilty of false mustering.  
Monsieur-Aubert du Versoy tells the World 
i Protestant Pacifique, part 2. p. 25.  with great assurance, That all the Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice were ignorant of that Notion of the Trinity which is now commonly embraced; that all of them denied the Eternal Generation of the Son of God; that all believed the Father to be the only Sovereign, Omnipotent, Eternal God.  
The Socinians, who offered to make Application here to the late Ambassador of the King of Fez and Morocco, would, in their Epistle 
k Tp. o●… S●… 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , persuade 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 owned 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 borrowed from the same Person who furnished Sandius with his false Witnesses 
l V. Sand. 〈◊〉 1. S●…. 4, 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 156●… 〈◊〉. . 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 fetched their Materials from a Roman Storehouse, th●…ugh not directly from the Church herself. The Jesuit Petavius is the Man: And his Second Tome of Ec●…lesiastical Doctrines, is their Magazine 
m See Petau. 〈◊〉. c 5 Sect. 7. de 〈◊〉. etc. & ap Sand. N●…l H. E. 12. l. 1. p. 217, 218. l. 2. p. 30. & ap. Cingal. p. 35, 36 & p. 31. quomodo enim illud queat esse ex Trad. Apostol. qu●…d de●…um quarto 〈◊〉. patefact. & constitut. ait Dionysius Petavius. See Sand. in Ind. H. Lit. P. Petavius probat omnes Patres ante Conc. Nic. Eadem cum A●…io ante doc●…isse . Insomuch that the Companions of Monsieur Clerc 
n Desense des S●…ntimens, p 〈◊〉. A●…es le P. Pe●…u Jesuit. , 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 followed. The Modern Arians have, also, called Huetius in to their assistance, in their Plea from Tradition, against the Divinity both of the Son 
o Cingall. p. 35, 36.  and of the Spirit of God 
p P. 16. P. 66, 67. ex Huet. Origen. . But the mistakes of Petavius and others in this matter have been publicly showed by a Learned Person 
q D. G. Bull. Def. Fid. N●…c.  of this Church, whose Work, though the Friends of Monsi●…ur Clerc have touched upon, they have not refuted 
r Defense des sentiments, etc. p. 78, etc. See here p. 9, 1●…, 54, 58. .  
Mr. Chillingworth urged some such thing as this in part of his Answer to the jesuit who charged 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 jesuit had thus Misrepresented the Faith of the Reformed, Chap. 〈◊〉. Sect 2. 
s In Chill. Pref Sect. 9 p. 6. 17, 18. p. 9, 10, 11.  The very Doctrine of Protestants, if it be followed closely and with coherence to itself, must of necessity induce Socinianism. To this Charge Mr. Chillingworth 
t Chill. Pref. to the Author of Charity Maintained, Sect. 16,  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 show 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 Pope's Infallibility, you submit yourself to that Capital and Mother Heresy, 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 show 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 ancient 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. Controu. 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 james? Who is it that informs us that Origen (who never was questioned for any error 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. james, 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- I●…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. james, 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 Just 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 Jesuits between them in another matter of great importance, viz. God's 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 Jesuits 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 adjoin this, That you agree with one consent, and settle for a Rule unquestionable, That 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 Falsehood; which is to say in effect, That Reason can never lead any Man to Error: 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 justify 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 error.  
The Socinians 
u Hist. Res. Polon. l. 1. c. 1 p. 7.  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 
x slight adv. Meisn. de SS. Trin. p. 67. Smalc. Cont. Frans. Disp. 4. . However, by their manner of objecting against the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity, the Sagacious are convinced, that they first think it to be against plain Reason, and then, rejecting it as an error, they colour their Aversion with forced Interpretations of Holy Writ.  
The words of Ostorodius 
y Ostor. c. 4. Instit.  hint to us at what end they begin. If Reason (said he) shows expressly 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 reconciled. Thus Ernestus Sonnerus lays it down 
z Ern. Sonn. Demonstr. Theol. & Philos. p. 36.  as his Principle in the first place that the Eternal pains of the Wicked are contrary to God's Justice; and being prepossessed with this prejudice, he can, thenceforth, find nothing in the Scripture which may overrule his Opinion.  
All this is not my private, and (as some Socinians may call it) uncharitable conjecture; there is a Romanist 
a Disc. of Infallib. in Religion. p. 200.  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 error 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 
p. 20●….  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 encountering those who dispute out of Antiquity; to the end that they may overcome them with their own Arms. Socinus 
b Resp. ad Vujek. p. 618.  had consulted some of the Ancient 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, 
c Socin. ibid.— in illorum gratiam qui istorum Patrum Authoritate plus quam deceat moventur.  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 citys the Ancients by way of Argument to the Men who esteem them; yet in other Articles he confesses that he stands divided from them 
d Soc. ibid. p. 618. Col. 1. Neque enim (arbitror) ex Script. nostr. hom. ostendetur unquam, eos afferere aut exstimare. Scriptores ante Conc. Nic. qui hodiè extant, nostrae sententiae fuisse, etc. nisi nostrae scent. nom. intelligatur simpliciter id, quod sentimus de Uno illo Deo, etc. , and rather Glories that he gives light to all the World, than borrows from it. The Author of the Brief Disquisition 
e Brev. Disqu. c. 5. de Trad. p. 22. See c. 2. p. 6, 7. etc.  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 
f Ruar. Epist. Vol. 1. p. 116. to 139. partic. p. 132, 134.  though he was a Man of extraordinary Candour, yet, in his Letters to Bergius, he does not barely refuse, but reject with derision, his Catholic Interpretation of Scripture according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis which admitteth, That Sense which was every where, always and of all believed. [A Rule by which we help ourselves.] And he further professeth that he should be much concerned, 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. chrysostom, 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 Apostasy 
g See Slicht. contra Cicohov. p. 181, 182.  as Socinians speak of immediately after the Apostles times. We are not Strangers to the Testimony of Hegesippus 
h Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 32. p. 104, 105. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of which they make use for the blackening 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 Ancients who begun first with the Holy Scriptures 
i V. Frag. ap. Eus. E. H. l. 5. c. 28. p. 195, etc.  and then descended to those who wrote next after the Holy Penmen. The Calvinists themselves, Radon and Silvius, in a Disputation at Petricow in Poland 
k A. 1566. See Maimb. Hist. Vol. 3. p. 355, 356, 357.  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, mocked at their way of arguing. They professed they would admit of nothing but the pure Word of God as shiing sufficiently by its own Light. And they denied that there was contained 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 
l Maimb. ibid. Biddle's Pref. to Cat. p. 23. After Constantine the Great, together with the Council of Nice, had once deviated, etc. this opened a Gap, etc.  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 join with Socinians in reproaching the Fathers of Nice as Mercenary and Flexible Men, whom Constantine had gained to his party by interest or force 
m See Disp. in Maimb. H. Arian. p. 357. . They do not, with Gregorius Pauli 
n Id. ib. p. 361.  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 believe that the Nicene Creed is forged, as some Socinians do 
* See Slicht. cont. Cicov. p. 184. and his mistake followed by Sandius, H. E. l. 1. p. 100, Octavo. , 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 Ancient 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 Isidor●… distinguishes betwixt their Creed and that of the Apostles 
o Is●…l Deer. Sub hoc 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Constantino) juxta fidem 〈◊〉▪ post etiam sancti Patres in Concilio Niceno de omni orbe terr. convenientes, Evangelicam & Apostolicam secundum (Vall●… from MS. A. C. reads it Apostolos symb. tradiderunt. .  
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 believe it Orthodox. They do not say with some modern Arians 
p Chr. Sand. Nu●… 〈◊〉. 1. p. 100 Oct●….  that it was framed by Marcellus Ancyranus a Heretic, or join with those Spanish Jesuits, who (it seems) charged this Creed with the Heresy of Photinus the Master of Marcellus. They pay a more just Duty to the Emperor and the Nicene Fathers, than to say with the Enemies of the Holy Trinity, that, setting Council against Council 
q See Maimb. H A. 357. , they choose rather to follow those of Sirmium and Rimini than those of Nice. Our Churchmen do not, with the Socinians, disregard the Fathers who lived after that famous Council, and acknowledge that those Fathers are against it, and bid defiance to their opposition. But so does Socinus 
n Resp. ad V●…iek. p. 618. Col. 2. , so does Crellius 
s Crell. Praef. ad lib. de Satisfact. p. 5. , so does Pisecius 
t Pisec. An Doct. de Trin. sit M●…st. In Ep. Ded. , 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. Augustine's time, of ignorance in another Doctrine about the Receipt of departed Souls not Martyrs; and in affirming that the Errors 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 Controversy, when the Heads of Men are apt to be disturbed 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 strengthening of the weak and interrupted Faith of many. For, as in a Balance 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 public 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 Deuce 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 'tis 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 supplied by Impudence. But is it said by any of the Robe, that when the Counsel on either side pleads Precedents, and Statutes, or Equity, the Plaintiff pleads for the Defendant, and the Defendant 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 falsely, it is so far not ours, but his. If Confidence in pleading may either carry or balance a Cause, than Pleas of Laws, Scriptures, Oral Tradition, Fathers, Councils, may be urged contrary ways, and each side be equally justified: For all such Pleas have been made by contrary Parties. Mr. Lilburn pleaded Law as much as Judge jenkin's, though not as well. Some Dissenters in the Queen's time wrote down their Arguments, and gave their Book the Title of Zions Plea. It may be their Adversaries might call it the Plea of Babylon. Whether it was the one or the other, was to be tried 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 descent from the Established Religion, use the same Plea, and generally in the same Words. But does this make the Pleas equal! Must they not join 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 Apology, by so doing, for all others who pretend to the same Rule; then Catholic Councils themselves plead for Socinians: For (to give an example,) the General Council of Chalcedon (and after it Evagrius) testifies 
u Evagr. H. F. l. 2. c 4. p. 293.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , That the Intent of the Second Council was, to make it appear by Scripture-Testimony, That such as Macedonius erred in that Opinion which they had advanced against the Lordship of the Holy Ghost. The Council here used 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 weighed.  
For Tradition, that was pleaded 
x See Clem. Alex. Str. l. 5.  by Valentinus, Basilides, Martion, who boasted of their following the Apostle S. Mathias. And Irenaeus 
y Iren. l 3.  observed concerning Heretics, that, being vanquished by Scripture, they accused it, and took Sanctuary in Tradition. Thus, after his time, did the Nestorian Heretics 
z See Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. c. 18. Tom. 3 c. 17. Socr. H. E. l. 〈◊〉. c. 32. : Their Epistle to the People of Constantinople begins on this manner, The Law is not delivered 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 foamed against them. S. Cyprian 
a S Cypr. Ep. 55. Pam. 59 Oxoh. p 136. Na●… 〈◊〉 statutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujusq●… 〈◊〉 audiatur, ubi est Crimen admissum, & sing. Pastor. portio Gregis sit ads●… 〈◊〉 ●…egat, etc. V. P. Nicaen. Can. 5.  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 considered, and not merely offered. If, for example sake, a Churchman quotes the same S. Cyprian in favour of the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity, and Sandius the Arian citys 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 mere 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 
b Chr. Sand. Append. ad Interpr. Parrad. p. 376, etc. 379.  citys the Book De Duplici Martyrio, as not owning the Text in S. John'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 Dioclesian's 
c De Dupl. Mart. Ed. Ox. p. 40.  persecution. And yet that spurious Book does not reject the place in S. john, though it does not exactly set down the Text 
d De Dupl. Mart. p. 594. Ed. Goulart. Sect. 4. 5. Commemorat & Joh. Evang. Triplex in terrâ Test. Sp. Aqu. & Sang. etc. quanquam hi tres unum sunt, etc. . And for the Genuine S. Cyprian 
e S. Cypr. de Unit. Ecclesiae, p. 109. Ox. dicit dominus, Ego & Pater unum sumus, & iterum de Patre & F. & Sp. S. scriptum est, Et hi Tres Unum sunt, V. Annot. Oxon.  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 falsely (even in the opinion of the Arians and Romanists themselves) 
f Editor. Diss. Anon. de Pace & Conc. Eccl. p. 3. ad Lect. Ingenuè fateor, Socini de Chr. personâ dogma— In eo mihi maximè improbari quod Christum ante suam ex Mariâ Virgine Nativitatem extitisse, neget. ; the Plea of the former does not justify the Plea of the latter; and [justify] is our Author's word. For the Trial 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 
Sect. 1.  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 
Arg. 1. Prot. Plea, p. 1. to p. 12.  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 assured in his persuasion; therefore the Protestant, in this Plea, justifies 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 
Answer to Arg. 1.  follows it, the other wrists it. And this ought not to be turned 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 straight 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 easy Socinian Doctrines, yet so it is that we find in St. john 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 jesus 
S. Joh. 20. 31.  is the Son of God: By which each Romanist, who owns (what his Church does,) the Catholic sense of St. John'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. john 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 convinced of their evidence. For Pride and Prejudice are not very yielding. My Adversary here (says a Learned and Good Man 
* D. F. Answ. to the Author of Sure-Footing, p. 346, 347 ) 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, believed 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 pharisees 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 obliged to own that the Protestant, so far as it is opposed to the Socinian Creed, is the true Catholic 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 discovered; whilst his Church condemns the Doctrines of Socinus as Haeretical, and therefore as such as cannot at all, either plainly or obscurely, be contained in the Holy Canon.  
Fifthly, This Author seems to magnify the Industry 
Prot. Plea, p. 1. & p. 4. etc.  of the Socinians, saying, That none have used more diligence in the search of the Scriptures, as appears by their Writings. This is true in part, and but in part; for sometimes they have been in haste enough. Slichtingius 
a Lubieniec. Historial. p. 6.  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 engaged in new Conceits, they are under a necessity of being diligent. A Text cannot be wrung and squeezed with a dead Hand, and there is more study required for the perverting of Truth, than for the declaring of it. For the true Interpretation of Scripture, much more is required than Industry and Study. The Protestant therefore, in this Author 
b Prot. Plea. p. 8. , speaks of a due Industry, void of Pride, Passion, and other Interest; and such Industry has not been always acknowledged either in the Arians, or Socinians.  
For the Arians, the Ancients looked upon them not so much as idle and ignorant, as mad and impious. The Fathers of the Sixth Synod 
c Auct. Incert. de 6. Syn. Oec. ap. Instell. p. 1161.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  were gathered together against Arius the Distracted Presbyter. And the Latins called his Doctrine the Arian Frenzy 
d Tit. c. 8. l. 1. E. H. Bedae, ut, etc. utque ad temp. Arianae Vesaniae.  Vincentius Lirinensis 
e V●…. Li●…. 〈◊〉. 6 p. 13.  calls that Heresy the Poison of the Arians, as if it was some venomous and enchanted Liquor. And the Lewdness of the Arian Manners 
f V. Li●…. p. 15. Temeratae Conjuges, etc.  discovered the Evil of their Temper; and there was Fierceness in it as well as Lewdness. A Disposition more fierce than that of their Adversary Nicholas 
g V. Sand. Append. ad Nucl. H. E. p. 22. Quarto. , who, they say, gave Arius a Box on the Ear, in the midst of the Council. Arius exercised the Office of an Expounder 
h Theod. H. E. l. 1. c. 1.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of Scripture in the Church of Alexandria: But his Fundamental prejudice is well understood; that is, be falsely imagined 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 extreme 
i V. Theod. Haer. Fab. l. 2. c. o. & Niceph. Call. H E. 〈◊〉 S c. 5. .  
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 allowed the Socinians to be very well qualified for the reading of the Scriptures. Vuje●…us chargeth them with beginning at the Alcoran, before they came at the Holy Bible 
k V. Resp. 〈◊〉. p. 535. ; 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 
l V. Conf. Christ. Vind. p. 3. in Resp. ad Ep. Ded. 〈◊〉.  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 disposed, how comes the One to Interpret as a Catholic, the Other as a Heretic? 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 
m V. Resp. ad Ep. Cicho●…. p. 3.  therefore, has accused the Socinians as making Christ an Idol. Socinus thinks 
n Resp. ad V●…k. p. 534.  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 
o Moscor. Refut. Append. M. Smigle●…. p. 21.  mentions a Polish M●…ssal, in which Prayer to the Holy Ghost was exprelly forbidden. And before the Conference betwixt a Carmelite and Stoienski 
p De Jesus Chr. Divin. etc. Disputat. Relatio, p. 3. 3.  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 was conceived in the Body of the Virgin: That the Question 
q Slicht. in 1. Tim. 6. p. 258. , Whether Christ was before the World, or after it, is of no moment. That his Blood is not a proper Sacrifice. That the Holy Spirit is not any Person at all, either Divine or Created. That those who are not Ordained by others may step forth and preach the Gospel, and administer the Sacraments 
r Socin de Eccl. p. 325, 326. Ep. 3. ad Radec. p. 384. Cat. Rac. de Eccl. p. 306, 307. . That although Officers are generally employed in those Functions; yet other Christians are not under Obligation to forbear the performance of them. That Baptism is none of Christ's perpetual Precepts in his Church. That it may be used in admitting those of riper years into a Church, but not as a necessary Christian Rite. That to hold it to be such is to add to the Scriptures 
s Socin. Op. Vol. 1. Ep. ad P. Sophiam Siemichoviam, p. 431, 432, 433. . That it is an indifferent Ceremony, and, if to be used, it is to be used in the admission of those who come from some other Religion to Christianity 
t Socin. Vol. 1. Ep. ad P. Stator. p. 433. . That in the words of Christ 
u S. Luk. 22. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , [This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood which is shed for you,] there is a Solaecism, or false Grammar, and that there are many such Incongruities in the New Testament 
x Socin. de usu & fine Coenae Domin. p. 773.  That it is an abuse of the Lords Supper to believe that it confers any benefit upon us, conveys any Grace from God, or give us any further assurance of his favour 
y Socin. de usu Coen. Op. Vol. 1. p. 775. Hales of Sacr. p. 59 Op. Vol 2. p. 185, 186. . That it is Idolatry to kneel at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and that it may be Celebrated with the Head covered. If these Doctrines be the results of due Industry in searching the Scriptures, Prejud●…ce and Negligence may likewise put in their Plea as Preparatives to true Interpretation.  
But farther, in the very manner of Socinian Exposition, there is apparent failure. For, though the Holy Writers express the same thing very differently, and without respect to nicety of Words, (as is evident from the several forms of Words used in representing Christ's Institution of the Lords Supper); yet the Socinians make Interpretations of places which relate to the great Articles of Christian Faith, to turn upon subtleties of Grammatical construction. For Example sake, they perplex the most comfortable Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction with curious observations about the Particle For 
z See Crell. de Sat. p. 6. 190, etc. about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. . Whereas our Churchmen make the Old Testament, the Key of the New; and finding plainly that the Sacrifices of Atonement under the Law, were the Types of the Offering the Blood of Jesus upon the Cross; they conclude that God, with respect to Christ's Death in the quality of the great Expiation, did admit the guilty World into a reconcileable Estate.  
I might add that, by coming to particulars, the Socinian Prejudice and insincere Artifice, in expounding such places of Holy Writ as concern their Scheme, will appear to all unbiased Readers. I will instance in the Interpretation of that place in S. john 
a S. Joh. 3. 13. Soc. Exp. Loc. Script. Vol. 1. p. 146. , No Man hath Ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven. Socinus, for the avoiding a twofold nature in Christ, by which he might be both in Heaven and in Earth, and exist before he was born of a Virgin, sets down a twofold Evasion in the place of an Explication. First, he interprets Ascending into Heaven, by seeking after Heavenly things, and Descending from Heaven, by having Learned such Celestial things. And, to make all sure, he takes the hardiness to say, in the Second Place, that as S. Paul was snatched up into the third Heavens, and let down again; so the Man Christ Jesus, was taken up into Heaven, somewhile before his Death, and made some stay there. And by his coming down again he explaineth his going forth from the Father, his Ascending into Heaven, his being in Heaven.  
If this be Interpreting, what is Perverting?  
Sixthly, Whereas (in the end of this first-Conference) the Author himself speaks as a third Person 
〈◊〉. Pl●…, Di●…ession, p. 9, 10.  and a Romanist, and raises a doubt about the certainty any Man can arrive at in having rightly used his Industry; I would only ask him, Whether a Man cannot be as sure of his industry in consulting his Reason and the Scriptures, as in attending on Councils, Fathers, Decrees of Popes, and the Method of the Major part of Church-Governors, in the Universal Church of all Ages?  

For the Argument of the Second Conference, this is the Substance of it. 
Sect. 2. Arg. 2.   
THE Socinians Plead, that they ought not to receive the Article of the Divinity of Christ, 
Prot. Plea, p. 12. to 16.  from the Major part of Church-Governors: That it was not originally in the Creed: That no Article ought to be received from Church-Authority, till Men are convinced that it is grounded on the Scripture, which Conviction they want. Now, unless the Church were Infallible in all she determined, or at least in distinguishing those necessaries in which she cannot err, from Points which are not of such necessity, she cannot justify herself in putting her Definitions into a Creed. Protestants, not withstanding they own the Article of Christ's Divinity, and urge the whole Creed into which it is put, do yet argue after the manner of the Socinians against Church-Authority, and plead the Scripture as their Ground, and a necessity of Conviction; therefore (whilst they continue this kind of Plea) they cannot by Church-Authority either justify themselves or confute their Adversaries.  
All this reasoning may be confuted by these distinct 
Answer to Arg. 2.  Answers.  
1. We have no need of confuting Arians and Socinians, by Church-Authority, seeing we can do it more effectually out of the Scriptures; and if they say, that the Scriptures are on their side, their saying so does not alter the Nature of Truth. And the Romanists allow that they say not true, and they may be confuted when they are not silenced. Protestants decline not a disputation with Socinians, by the Rule of Primitive Church-Authority. But if they undervalue this rule, it is discretion in Protestants to debate the matter with them in a way which they themselves best like of, seeing that is also a more certain, as well as a more speedy way, to Victory.  
2. Protestants do not well understand what Romanists mean by Church-Authority, for some of their Doctors. 
b J. Richard Apho●…ismes de Controverse. Instr. 34. p. 223. Le Concile de Trente, c'est à dire, toute l'Eglise. , can by a new figure of their own, make a part and the whole of the Church to be the same▪ They do not think that the present Major part of Church-Governors throughout the Church can be their Rule, because the People cannot always know which is that Part; or that it ought to be their Rule, because, in some Ages the Minor part is the wiser and better. Let not the Roman Church be grieved at this, as said from me; Vincentius Lirinensis said it long ago, that in the Arian times 
c Vinc. Lirin. adv. Haereses. cap. 6. p. 13.- propè cunctis Latini Sermonis Episcopis, partim vi, partim f●…aude deceptis, caligo, etc. Prot. Plea, p. 15. Sect. 17.  there was a general darkness even over the face of the Latin Church. In the mean time they are made to suppose by this Author what they do not suppose, that the judgement of the Catholic Church is not Infallible, in judging what points are necessary, what are not. For though this or that Church or party of Christians may fail, yet all cannot at once; for then the Church would fail.  
3. This Article of the Divinity of the Son of God was originally in the Creed; for that the Fathers meant when in the Apostolical Creed they confessed Christ to be Gods only Son. And this they grounded on the Gospel of S. john, who wrote his Gospel (which begins with Christ's Divinity,) with this intention, that Men should believe Jesus to be the Son of God.  
4. Protestants admit of no Article of Faith which is not grounded on the Scripture, which was never known before, and never obliged before; yet, in the mean time they see no reason, why an Article assaulted by Heretics and Sophists may not be explained; or why the form of Confession designed for Baptism, might not be enlarged for the benefit of the Church, and made a Sum of the Necessaries to be believed. It sufficed at the first Incorporation of Persons to be Baptised, that they professed to believe the Religion which owneth Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  
5. A particular Church may put an Article of Faith into a Creed, without pretending to Infallibility. She has Ability to do it, because she has an Infallible Rule by which she can go. But she ought not to say it is impossible any Church should do otherwise; because a Party of Men may do that which they ought not to do, and to which they were not constrained. Prejudice, Misattention, Corruption may so prevail as to clap a false Bias upon Makers of Creeds: Else how came we by those of Sirmium and Rimini? And for instance sake, in the Infallible Science of the Mathematics, the perverseness of the Temper of the Leviathan, would not permit him to agree with a Learned Professor of that Science, even in the first Elements of Geometry; and a Controversy was maintained not only about the squaring of the Circle, but about the Dimensions of a Point and a Line.   

The Force of the Third Conference may be 
Sect. 3. Arg. 3.  set down on this manner.  
A Protestant submits to the Decrees of a Council, 
Prot. Plea, from p 1●…. to p. 24.  no further than he is convinced that the same Council is rightly constituted, and that her Definitions are founded on the Word of God. He believes that it may err in things not Necessary, and in Necessaries too if it be not a truly General Council. He can scarce give to it the Obedience of silence in that which he believes contrary to the Scripture. The Socinian says the same things, and denies the Council of Nice to be constituted rightly; Therefore the Protestant justifies the Socinian.  
Our Author should have gone on, and said, (for 
Answer to Arg. 3.  so a Romanist is by the Tenor of his Faith obliged to say) That the Protestant, with reference to the Council of Nice, has the Reason on his side.  
A Son of the Church of England reverenceth the Four General Councils, of which Nice is the First. He believes its Faith to be bottomed on the Scriptures, and so did the Council itself, and so does the Church of Rome. He receives it as a General Council rightly Constituted, though no Pope called it, or otherwise confirmed it than the rest of the Patriarches, Metropolitans and Bishops. He believes 
Vinc. Lir. adv. haer. c. 6. De Arianorum ●…eneno, p. 15. ●…enè fundata Antiquitas.  its D●…ctrine to be, in the Phrase of Vincentius 〈◊〉, well-founded Antiquity, and he offers to prove it. A Socinian therefore, if he has retained him, will, as soon as he hears such a Plea as this, desire him to return his Fee.  
But what if a Socinian be found perverse, and, being a Disputer of this World, will have his own way of arguing? May not the Protestant wave the Council of Nice, and enter the Lists, with Reason and Scripture? He that will not have him do it, is not of the same mind either with the Fathers of Nice, on with the Celebrated Latin Doctor S. Austin. The Council of Nice disputed with the Arians out of the Scripture, and confuted them by it. The Bishops of it, by Eusebius, cite against them the words of St. john, In the beginning was the 
V. l. 3. Conc. Nic. Ed. Pis.  Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. They argue from the words themselves, as words clear and plain in their signification: They take notice of the [Word was,] as contrary to [was not,] and [was God,] as contrary to [was not God.] S. Austin observing the perverseness of Maximine, lays aside Councils, not as useless, but as of lesser Authority than the Holy Scripture, the force of which his Adversary could not, with the same ease and readiness, have avoided. Neither ought I (saith S. Austin) to allege the Council of Nice, nor you that of Ariminum; for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one, nor you to that of the other. Let us both dispute with the Authorities of Scripture, which are Witnesses common to us both. Our Author puts this Citation 
Prot. Plea. p. 18.  into the Socinians Mouth, and takes it from Dr. Tailor's Diss●…asive from Popery; but, seeing it is the Method of S. Austin, why does he not justify a Protestant in using of it?   

The Sum of the Fourth Conference is 
Sect. 4. Arg. 4.  this.  
A Protestant excuseth himself from Heresy by 
Prot. Plea, p. 24. to 32.  saying, A Heretic is (what he himself is not) an Obstinate Maintainer of a Fundamental Error. None can be such Heretics to whom the Truth is not sufficiently proposed. Councils may not always rightly distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and not Fundamentals. He is not obliged to receive their Definitions till he is convinced of the truth of them. He himself is Judge whether the Article be sufficiently proposed, and whether he is convinced by that which is offered to him. The Socinian says the same thing for himself. Our Author should have added, that he says it with equal 
Answer to 4 Arg.  Reason, if he would have made the one plead for the other. But the Protestant, in this point of the Divinity of the Son of Gon, (which is the Author's Instance) does acknowledge that the Doctrine is sufficiently proposed; does receive the Council of Nice; does own that he is convinced. And the Romanist confesseth that, thus far, he is in the right, and the Socinian in the wrong. This comes to the same thing which was said before, and the Answer is repeated, because the Objection is brought again. And indeed there is but one Argument, strictly so called, in all the Five Conferences which turn upon the same Hinge; and one Answer suffices: viz. That when Two say the same things concerning contrary Doctrines, one of them only can have Truth on his side: And that if both be equally confident, the Confidence of the Persons does not make the Contradiction true. The Plea is his, not who barely offers it, but who can make it good. In this Point of the Divinity, the Protestant makes his Plea good by the Scripture and the Council of Nice, as a true General Council: And if his Plea be true, surely it does not cease to be so, because he has not had it allowed before a Roman Judge: A Man is sure that all the Articles in the New Covenant are genuine, though they be not confirmed under the Lead of the Fisher.   

I come to the last Conference, where our 
Arg. 5. Sect. 5.  Author reasons to this effect.  
THE Protestants imagine they excuse themselves 
Prot. Plea, p. 32. to p. 45.  from Schism, by alleging, that they left a Corrupt part of the Church, (meaning the Roman) and Reformed themselves. That the Schism is theirs who caused it, that they are united to all Churches in Charity, and in the unity of the Catholic Church, being with them in all things in which they are obliged to be with them. And in the rest they are hindered 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. 
Answer to 5 Arg.  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 Soci●…ians, who make that Article, where imposed, 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 proposed to the Socinians, and that it was never in their power to be convinced. 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 managed, 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 citys many other Words of Mr. Chillingworth not far from these. But a Cunning Marksman 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 
* See here p. 9, 22, 58. Chill. part. 1. Chap. 5. p. 255. Sect. 8c. .  
— Whereas D. Potter says, there is a great difference between a Schism from them, and a Reformation of ourselves: This (you say) is a acquaint Subtlety, by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused. It seems, then, in your Judgement, that Thiefs and Adulterers, and Murderers, and Traitors, 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 Murderer should have been heard of to make use of this Apology! And then for Schismatics, 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 Church's 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 Church's Censure; I would know (I say) whether all or any of these, may with any Face or without extreme Impudence, put in this Plea of Protestants, and pretend with as much likelihood 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 falsely, doth it follow by any good Logic, that therefore this Apology is not to employed 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. john, We must obey God rather than Men:) But then the Question is, whether any schismatic 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. john 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 
Prof. Plea, Digress. p. 9  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 attained without an Infallible Church to which all may submit their Judgements in Religion, and, by such submission, preserve Unity. They will continue their discourse, and say, Without such a Judge, every Man's Reason is Reason, and every Man's 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 satisfied 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 Highpriest, the Blessed JESUS) prejudiced and perverse Men would neither be of One Faith, nor of One Heart. The Wisdom of God will not, by forcing of Assent, destroy the Nature and Virtue of it; and he hath declared 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 offered from myself, I will refer the Reader to a Book lately published, and called, A Discourse concerning a judge in Controversies; if he be not satisfied with that which Mr. Chillingworth hath said long ago, and to which this Author has here said nothing 
Chill. Pres. to Char. maintained, p. 8, 9 Sect. 12, 13, 14, 15. .  
You say 
See here p. 9 13. 22. 54.  again confidently, That, if this Infallibility be once impeached, 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 neverfailing Rules of Logic, 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 ofttimes follow a Company of Beasts. And in saying this, I say no more than S. john to all Christians in these words, Dear 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 trial by, is to consider, whether they Confess JESUS 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 yourselves 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 settled, 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 Falsehood; Therefore, by Discourse, no Man can possibly be led to error; but if he err 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, than we must follow either the private Spirit, or else natural Wit and judgement; 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 Judgement 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 irreconcilable 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 promised 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 join with him in his Protestants Exhortation to Humility 
Prof. Plea, p. 45. . 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 pleased to suffer this severe censure to drop from his Pen 
A Defence of the Papers, etc. p. 126. , [it is the less to be admired that [our Author] is such a stranger to that Spirit [of Meekness and humble Charity,] because among all the Volumes of Divinity, written by the Protestants, there is not one Original Treatise, at least, that I have seen or heard of, which has handled distinctly and by itself, that Christian Virtue of Humility.] I will tell him of one Book (as I could of many others) written singly upon that Subject. I mean a late Treatise by Mr. Allen 
A Practical Discourse of Humility, by W. A. Lond. 1681. , a Man who had considered many ways, but long before his Death, approved of that of the Church of England, as the most safe and Apostolical. He was a Layman, a Citizen, a Man of little skill in Languages or Scholastick-Learning, yet, by God's Blessing upon his Industry and Sincerity, and the Ministeral helps he met with in our Communion, I will be bold to say he understood the Scriptures as judiciously as many Learned Romish Commentators, who have got a Name in the World, and stand pompously, in several Volumes, upon the Shelves of Students.   
The End.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 3. lin. 7. for mixed, read mix. Pag. 13. lin. 6. for Fourthly, read Fifthly. Pag. 34, lin. 22. for Queen's time, read unquiet times.   

A Table of Contents.  

THE Introduction, showing, That this Tract, and most of those which have been lately written in the Controversies betwixt Romanists and Churchof-England-Protestants, have been occasioned by the former. P. 3. to p. 7.  
Chap. 1. Observations touching the Book itself called the Protestants Plea, etc. It's Edition, Character and Design. P. 7. to p. 17.  
Chap. 2. Considerations touching the General Argument of the Protestants Plea, etc. showing the weakness of it, and that it is not of force enough to overthrow the Plea of the Reformed. P. 17. to p. 38.  
Chap. 3. Particular Answers to the Particular Branches of the Protestants Plea, etc. divided into Five Conferences by the Author of it. P. 38. to p. 57  
Sect. 1. The Argument of the First Conference, with the Answer. P. 38. to p. 46.  
Sect. 2. The Argument of the Second Conference, with the Answer. P. 46. to p. 49.  
Sect. 3. The Argument of the Third Conference, with the Answer. P. 49. to p. 51.  
Sect. 4. The Argument of the Fourth Conference, with the Answer. P. 51. to p. 53.  
Sect. 5. The Argument of the Fifth Conference, with the Answer. P. 53. to p. 56.  
The Conclusion, showing that the Roman Plea does not mend that of the Reformed of this Church, but come short of it; and that every Protestant is not wholly left to the private guidance of his own Imagination.   
THE END.