The Rise Growth and Danger of Socinianism

Chap. I. Of the Rise of Socinianism.

T He Socinians have raked many sinks, and dunghills for those rags and that filth, wherewith they have patched up and defiled that leprous body which they account a complete body of pure Religion. Ever since the world was possessed with the spirit of Antichrist some Malignant Heretics have been ever and anon desperately striking at the Person, the Natures, the offices, the grace and Spirit of Christ. Cerinthius and Ebion began to blaspheme Christ, even in the Apostles time. I need say nothing of Theodot us Byzont in us, Paulus Samosatenus, Arius and the rest; yet it will not be amiss to show wherein the Socinians have refined or enlarged the ancient heresies, which have been long since condemned to hell. Ostorodus would not have the name of Ebionites imposed upon the Socinians, quia vox Ebion Hebraice egenum significat, Praef. Just. pag. 10. 11. it seems they would not be counted mean conditioned men: and there are some indeed and those no beggars (unless it beat Court) who are too much addicted to Socinian fancies; and yet if that be true, which Ostorodus cites out of Eusebius, that the Ebionites were so called because they had a mean and beggarly opinion of Christ, sure the Socinians might well be called Ebionites, for none have baser and cheaper thoughts of Christ, then they. If Ostorodus had thought it worth while to have consulted Eusebius his Ecclesiastical history, lib. 3. cap. 24. or Epiphanius Haeres. 33. he might have seen another reason why those heretics were called Ebionites.

The Socinians take it no less unkindly that they are called Arians. Ex consensu tantùm in principalibus cum Ario de Jesu Christo, Arianismi jure quis argui potest? saith Smalcius. It is well he confesses that they may be called Arians who agree with Arius in the main, I deny that the Arians had higher thoughts of Jesus Christ, then the Socinians. The Arians were termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because they maintained that Christ was created 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Some Arians did acknowledge that Christ was equal to the Father in essence and nature, though they denied him to be of the same essence with the Father; and others of them did only say, that the Son was unlike the Father, and were therefore called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; yet these also were condemned because neither of these sects would acknowledge the Son to be consubstantial with the Father; for if they would have confessed that the Father and the Son were of the same essence, they would never have said that their essence was equal, but rather that their persons were equal, and their essence the same; for equality is ever between two at the least: therefore by saying that their nature was equal, they implied that they had two different natures. And they who talked of a dissimilitude of nature, must necessarily suppose, that the Father and the Son had different natures, for a nature cannot be said to be unlike it self: and if this latter sect by dissimilitude meant an inequality, then they were blasphemously absurd, in fancying that there was majus and minus in the same most indivisible, and single essence. Reverend Beza hath set this forth to the life, in his preface to the description of the Heresy and Perjury of that Arch-heretic, Valentinus Gentilis, Ariomanitae—in duas minimùm factiones divisi sunt, nempe in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He disputes the the point, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did not imply as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — nisi voxilla 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (sicut de Dionysio Corinthio, Basilius ad fratrem scribit) commodâ quadam interpretation (sed plane ut mihi videtur violentâ) leniatur, Nam certe in unâ eadem{que} prorsus essentiâ nullus est ne{que} aequalitatine{que} inaequalitati locus, utpote quae minimùm in duobus cernantur; ac proinde in hypostasibus, non in essentiâ spectare aequalitatē necesse est. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — qui Filium Patri faciebant dissimilem, se vel Arianos prodebant vel stolidos, quum in simplicissimâ & singularissimâ naturâ, nempe Deitate, majus & minus quiddam imaginarentur, pag. 4. & 5.

By this and much more which might be added, it doth plainly appear that if the Arians were not more Rationall, yet they were more devout then the Socinians, they had a a more honorable and reverent opinion of Christ. For the Socinians will not acknowledge that God and Christ are equal, or like in nature. The Socinians make Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Arians thought him the most excellent of all creatures, and therefore said, that he was created before any other creature, and used by God as an Instrument to create the rest, as Doctor Stegman observes, Dispute. 1. pag. 3. Finally the Arians and Socinians agree in this, that both deny Christ to be consubstantial with the Father, and therefore though they differ in telling their tale, in explaining their error, yet both agree in the main, and that's ground enough to call them Arians, if Smalcius may be Judge.

Doctor Stegman usually calls the Socinians, Photinians, and therefore entitles his own book Photinianismus; and the Socinians do acknowledge that they agree with Photinus in the main, yet they say it is not sufficient ground to call any man Photinian because he agrees with Photinus in Fundamental points; but Smalcius tells us that Socinus was the servant of Christ, they own his doctrine, and own the man as their fellow-servant: Quid Photinus? quid alii? nisi servi Christi? they give him and others that are as bad as he is, the right hand of fellowship; and it is commonly conceived that Mahumetisme took his rise from Photinianisme. I have no book about me, that fhewes so clearly what the Photinians held, as Jacobus ad Portum Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausannenfi, in its Epistle Dedicatory, Doc • erunt Christum Iesum naturâ esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , gratiâ divinâ tamen insigniter ornatum, eum{que} tum demum esse coepisse, cùm in utero virginis Mariae conciperetur; ac proinde verbum Dei, vel Deum non aliter in ipso quàm in aliis Prophet is habitasse, nec ipsi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unitum fuisse, sed tantum gratiâ & efficaciâ ipsi assedisse: ipsum deni{que} esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , non autens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ut loquuntur, ex quâ infoelici heresy postmodum Mahumetismus ortus esse perhibetur.

Others call the Socinians Samosatenians, and therefore Thalyaeus calls his book in which he answers the arguments of Socinus, Eniedinus, Ostorodius, and Smalcius, Anatome Samosatenianismi, in which he shows that the Socinian glosses are of the same color with Turkish and Jewish blasphemies; the four Professors of the Theological Faculty at Leiden, have given a large commendation of Thalyaeus in their approbation, printed before the book, and signed with the hands of all the Professors, in which they with one voice vote Socinianism to be Recoct Samosatenianisme; Impiam Pauli Samosateni sententiam melior & sanctior Ecclesia sub Cruce adhuc militans, ut enata fuit exhorruit, ea{que} mox publico Episcoporum judicio execrata est. Scriptum illud conscriptum contra renatum & ab infausto illo Socino ejus{que} asseclis recoctum Samosatenianismum censemus pie docte & solid &c. The Samosatenians did borrow their name from Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of the Church of Antioch, and therefore his practices were the more abominable, because he poisoned that Church, in which Disciples were first called Christians, with Heretical blasphemies against the Lord Christ, as reverend Beza observes. I find in Augustine that Artimonius did first broach this heresy, and Paulus Samosatenus did revive it; but I need say no more of the Samosatenians, having said enough already of the Photinians, for Photinus did confirm that heresy which Samosatenus did revive, and therefore the followers of Paulus Samosatenus. were more commonly called Photinians then Paulians, or Samosatenians. And though Philaster reckon Samosatenus his heresy by itself, & Photinus his heresy by itself, yet to show that they were not different heresies, he saith Photinus did in all things follow Paulus Samosatenus. I do not reckon up all the disorderly Heretics in order, take them as it happens. Nestorius denied that the self same person was God and man, he would not acknowledge that the Word was made flesh, only the Word was with that flesh, (by an effectual Presence) which was taken of the substance of the Virgin, Affirmabat enim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illi carni ex Mariâ prognatae nonnisi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adfuisse, as learned Beza declares it in brief. If any man desire to be further acquainted with the opinion, and the desputes about it, let him read S. Cyril, and peruse the famous and Orthodox (not the spurious and surreptitious) Ephesine Council, and he may receive full satisfaction. The Socinians are far worse then Nestorius, for they do not only deny, that the self same person who was borne of the Virgin, is the second person in the Trinity, but they utterly deny that there is any second Person, or third Person which is Consubstantial with the Father.

Having mentioned Nestorius, I must not skippe over Eutyches, who in opposition to Nestorius his dividing of the Person of Christ, did vainly imagine, that the natures of Christ were mingled, and so he confounded both natures, and their Essentiall properties: Yet the Eutychians did grant that there were two natures in Christ, which the Socinians deny.

The time would fail me, or at least the Readers patience, should I show how the Socinians agree with the Noetians, who maintained, that there was but one person in the Godhead: with Macedonius, who denied the Holy Ghost to be a Person: with the Pelagians, concerning their denial of the Image of God in Adam before his Fall, and their maintaining of Freewill, and denial of original sin since the Fall. In a word, how they agree with the Valentinians, Marcionites, Cerdonians, Manichees, Apollinarists, Sabellius, the Donatists, Sadducees, Papists, Anabaptists, Schwenckefeldians, Antinomians, and I know not how many more of the like stamp, hath been shown by others already, and the manifestation of their errors in the ensuing Treatise will sufficiently declare. I will pass over many things very observable, because I would willingly discourse at large of some later passages, and subtle inventions by which Socinianism was introduced into foreign parts, and in some parts established by the suffrage and subscription of too many eminent wits, and great Scholars. But I must not in my haste forget Abeilardus, or as Platina calls him, Baliardus, as Bernard, Abailardus, his name in our English tongue may be Balard; he flourished about the year 1140. he had a very ready discoursing wit, and is by some voiced to be the first founder of School-divinity; whether he maintained all those heresies which Bernard lays to his charge, I shall not now stand to dispute, there is some cause of doubt; Abeilard lived to make his Apology, and if it was but an honest Recantation, he hath made some amends. Learned M ^r . Gataker in his Post-script to M ^r . Wotton's Defense, pag. 40. & 41. will direct you to Authors, from whom you may receive better satisfaction then I can for the present give, unless I were furnished with a better Library.

I shall not do Postellus so much honor as to take notice of him; as for Servetus, I will not stain my paper with his blasphemies: M ^r . Gataker hath shown his chief assertions in the book forecited from the 42. to the 47. page; it is much questioned whether the Senate of Geneva did not deal too severely with him. Samosatenus, Arius and Eutyches did all revive in that Cerberus, he was both admonished and refuted by three learned Divines of that age, Oecolampadius, Melanchthon & Calvin; he had time enough given him to recant, he did stubbornly maintain his cursed blasphemies for thirty years together, as Beza shows; Ob triginta annorum blasphemias execrabiles & indomitam pervicaciam ex Senatus Genevensis sententiâ justissimo supplici • affectum, quis non tandem nisi plane furiosus & excors abominetur?

The Senate of Geneva were in good hope by this exemplary punishment upon Servetus to crush this Cockatrices egg, and kill the Viper; but for all this some under hand, and others more boldly and impudently did seduce the people. Bernardine Ochin seemed to be an Academik, a mere Sceptik in Religion, he questioned all things, and determined nothing; Lalius Socinus carried the matter with such a cleanly conveyance, that he was scarce taken notice of, though he received some checks and admonitions, yet most men thought charitably of him during his life; his black designs were not fully discovered till after his death; this is the Grandfather of the Socinians; but I will say no more of him yet, till I have shown what pra • kes were played by those bold fellows, who acted those tragedies openly upon the Stage, which Lelius composed behind the Curtain, Valentinus Gentilis practiced at Geneva, George Blandrate a Physician in Poland, and Transylvania. Give me leave to make but two or three observations by the way, and I shall open the practices of these impudent Heretics more fully to you.

First, the Devil hath done more mischief in the Church by counterfeit Protestants, false brethren, then by professed Papists, open enemies.

Secondly, observe that vain curiosity did betray the Churches, and make them a mere prey to these subtle Heretics; most men have an itching desire to be acquainted with novelties, and at that time the Churches were very inquisitive after a more Rationall way of Divinity, they began to examine the Articles of faith, especially the Article of the Trinity, by some received Axioms of Philosophy, and by that curiosity puzzled their reason, and lost their faith.

Thirdly, though Poland and Transylvania were grievously infected, yet the mischief came from Italy, as reverend Beza observes, and therefore cries out, Sa • e fatalis esse videtur P • lonis Italia. Besides the flame brake out first in the Italian Church at Geneva, though the coals were dispersed and blown too in other places. The Italian Church had some warning given by the execution of Michael Servetus in the year 1553. but that Church was too indulgent for four or five years, yet at last the Elders of the Italian Church, perceiving that some of their flock began to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity, they thought fit to set forth some form of Confession, unto which they required all to subscribe, upon the eighteenth day of May, 1558. They all protested by that Faith whereby they were obliged to God, that they would never purposely and maliciously directly or obliquely oppose that Confession, or favor any Form, or Sect which did make the least appearance of dissenting from it; and whosoever did violate this Protestation, should be held a perjured and perfidious man. Valentinus Gentilis made no great haste to subscribe, but being called upon, he testified his consent with his own hand. Yet not long after, he said he was pricked in conscience for subscribing to this Form, and therefore contemned his Protestation, and endeavored to seduce the simple people; whereupon he was convented before the Senate of Geneva, the points in Controversy being rationally discussed, and Valentinus nonplust, he had nothing to say, but that he was not well versed in the art of disputing, which was notoriously false, for he was an acute subtle man, as appears by his Confessions, Epistles, Replies; his sublime notions about the Essence, and Subsistences of the Trinity and Quaternity; that one question did sufficiently discover his subtlety, An Essentia divina ex Semetipsa absque ullâ consideratione Personarum sit verus Deus; and that Thesis of his, Deus Pater solus verus Deus est Essentiator, hoc est Informator individuorum, nempe Filii Spiritusque. The God of Israel (saith Valentine) is the only true God the Father of Jesus Christ; and so by opposing the Father to the Son, and affirming that the Father only was the true God, he did clearly deny the Son to be the true God. Clare apparet (saith the Senate) quum Patrem opponis Filio & uni duntaxat veram Deitatem tribuis, te excludere alterum, quem cum illo confers—Facessat antithesis inter Patrem & Filium ubi fit Deitatis mentio—In comparatione fingis duo Antitheta, Patrem opponis Filio ac si in solo Patre esset Dei Essentia—Filium essentiatū à Patre dicis, à Seipso esse neg as—Jamsi Essentia divina sit in solo Patre, vel eripies eam filio, vel partibilem finges, utcunque n • nc centies concedas Filium esse verum Deum, spoliatus tamen suâ essentiâ titularis solùm erit Deus.—Individua tibi somnias quorum singula partem Essentiae obtineant—Deus Indefinite est ingenitus, & Pater etiam Personae respectu ingenitus, filius autem respectu Personae à Patre est genitus—Non abstrahimus personas ab Essentia, sed quamvis in ea resideant, distinctionem interponimus. Hoc sensu Individuos Tertullianus vocat Patrem & Filium, non autem (ut tu stul • e imaginaris) Individua, quae sub Specie comprehendantur. To this effect the Senate answered Valentines subtleties; I have put it close together, that I might not be tedious, and yet manifest upon what grounds this great wit was condemned by that grave judicious Senate.

He had one question more, which he took much pride in, namely, Utrum Essentia concurrat in Trinitatem? to which the Senate answered, Essentia non concurrit ad distinguendas personas, nec tamen personae sine essentiâ sunt—Veteres ad Personas tantum nomen Trinitatis retulerunt—Quarum rerum dices esse Trinitatem? Respondes, tria concurrere, Essentiam, Filium, & Spiritum. Hinc vero plane perspicitur te essentiam Filii & Spiritus exinanire. This conceit of Valentinus, that the Essence, Son, and Spirit, make the Trinity, did at once deny the Person of the Father, and the divine Essence of the Son and Spirit; for, observe how he puts in the Essence to make up the Trinity, and so left out the Person of the Father, and by opposing the other two Persons to the Divine Essence, he did imply, that they had an Essence different from the Divine Essence.

Valentine having received this full answer from the Senate, was much enraged, but upon second thoughts, he fell to his devotions, made some show of repentance, and seemed to be satisfied; nay, he proceeded so far as to write to the Senate, and acknowledge that he was fully convinced by the clear and solid reasons laid down by the Consistory, in their answer to his objections: Nay, farther yet, he descended to particulars, and confessed that they had manifestly proved, that those three grounds upon which all his fancies were built, were all most false and absurd.

First, saith he, I have offended in that whilst I affirmed, The only God of Israel to be the Father of Jesus Christ, I considered not that by opposing the only God to Christ, I denied Christ to be God.

Secondly, I was too rash in considering the Divine Essence out of the three Persons, and concluding from thence, that the Essence and the Trinity of Persons made a Quaternity: for now I perceive that the Divine Essence cannot be considered anywhere, but in the three Persons.

Thirdly, I have offended, in that I said the Person of the Father was Sophisticall.

Upon these rotten ruins (saith Valentine) did I build many false consequences, which now I do abhor and detest, and profess that I believe the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense of your Consistory; O my conscience hath been wounded for my inconsiderate answers to that excellent Divine and servant of God John Calvin! but I have acknowledged my fault with hearty sorrow, and I make no question but the searcher of hearts hath forgiven me; I beseech you likewise to forgive me, for I believe that the trouble of my mind will bring forth such fruits of repentance in my future conversation, as will wipe off this offensive blot wherewith now I am bespotted and stained, I hope the clemency of the holy Ministers is such, that they will receive such a miserable stray beast as I am into their fold again, and triumph at my conversion. He proceeded farther yet, made a solemn and orthodox confession of his faith, and a Recantation of his errors on the 29. of August 1558. At last having abjured his errors under his hand, the Senate in hope that his repentance was cordial and sincere, they commanded him to walk bare-headed, bare-legged and bare-foot thorough every street in the City, with a Trumpet blown before him, and a light in his hand, then to kneel down, ask pardon of the Senate, and burn all his heretical Doctrines with his own hand, all which he did upon the second of September following. Behold the mercy of Geneva to one that was but hopeful, though he had been an Heretic, a Schismatic, a Seducer, they forgave him, and gave him leave to come forth of prison, without taking any Sureties, because he pleaded that he was a stranger, and poor, only they took an oath of him, that he should not depart the City without their license: but he soon brake his oath, and fled not far off to Gribaldus and Alciatus, two of his own stamp, and faction; but he met there with a Governor of a resolute spirit, who began to inquire into his dangerous opinions, and being fully informed of their desperate malignancy, he committed him to prison for a while, but not long after released him, and gave him a fair warning, but no sooner he enjoyed his liberty, but he presently published his opinions in print, and abused the Governor with a dedication, as if the book had been published by the Governors consent and Authority. Not long after he travails to Lions where he was imprisoned for the space of 50. days, but he pretended that he did only oppose Calvin in the carriage of some controversies, and by that means the Antichristian spirit, which reigns in the bosom of Papists, did incline them to forgive and release him; it seems the Papists cares not what Article of faith be denied, nor how much Jesus Christ be dishonored, so Calvin be opposed, for by this silly shift he got o • t twice from the Papists. Confessionem it a potuit attemper are ut à Papist is admitteretur, solùm Evangelicas Ecclesias, & nominatim Calvinum perstringens, &c. and by that means he made his first escape; his second escape was obtained by the self same shift. Libellum Antidotorum & confessionem sic potuit attemperare ut judicaretur solum Calvinum impugnare, non ipsam Trinit atem ideo{que} solutus carceribus dimissus est; as Aretius relates in his History of Valentine. But he was not satisfied yet, unless he could beguile Protestants as well as Papists, he went therefore over into Poland, and joined with Alciat, and Blandrate, in seducing the Polonian Churches, he confirmed his Doctrines by Sophistry, some fragments out of the Fathers, and some pieces of the Alcor •• , to show that he intended to please the Turks, as well as the Papists, and to quarrel only with the Protestants; his friend Alciat turned direct Mahometist being led to it by his principles; but Valentine expressed himself in a more reserved and cunning way then Alciat or Blandrate, whereupon there fell out some difference between them, and so by God's providence they did the less hurt in Poland, but there they continued above two years, but at last the King of Poland took notice of them, and intended to have published an edict against their heretical blasphemies, but then the Antichristian spirit stirred up Cardinal Hosius, to suggest another course to his Majesty: but God moved the King to banish all strangers, Innovatours in Doctrine, and Perturbers of the Peace, out of his kingdom, upon the 5. of March, in the year 1566. Being banished out of Poland, and knowing that Calvin was dead, he thought fit to return into the old quarters, never dreaming that he should have fallen into the hands of the old Governor, whom he had formerly a bused in so high a nature; but by divine providence the same person though it was not his turn, was governor of that province, (vide supra, p. 10.) as Aretius declares, Gaium ipsum accedens, cui idē adhuc praefectus (prorogat â forte ipsi extra ordinem ejus provinciae administratione) praeerat. Valentine thought it his best course, to put a good face upon the matter, and challenge any man to dispute with him, but the Governor well knowing, that he had been often disputed with, and fairly admonished, cried, Fiat quod justum est, and clapt him up close prisoner, upon the 11. day of June, 1566. The province being under the jurisdictiō of the Senate of Bern, Valentine appealed from the Governor of Gaium to the Senate of Bern, & he was brought thither upon the 19. day of July. When he was examined, the Senate charged him with heresy, Perjury, blasphemy, Schism; and over and above that, he had joined with Alciat and Blandrate, in seducing the simple people. To which he answered, that he had nothing to do with either of thē, for Alciat, saith he, is a Mohammedan, and Blandrate is a Sabellian and Samosatenian; he complained that those Churches which were called Evangelical, or Reformed Churches, were still too much enslaved to the Pope; and yet when he was among the Papists he saw his own confession, of that which he called his Faith, passed currant enough. Nostras ecclesias damnari quasi adhuc Papatui servientes, quum interim ipse inter Papist as constitutus posset confessionibus editis elabi. He was questioned for a book which he dedicated to the King of Poland, in which he repeated the confession of his faith, which was confuted at Geneva, and subjoined his book of Antidotes, in which he endeavors to refute certain Theses collected out of Augustine's 15. books, de Trinitate, and the 13. chapter of Calvin's first book of Institutions, which treats likewise of the Trinity. Finally, he made some sharp Annotations upon Athanasius, and confirmed his own opinion out of the Alcoran. The Senate picked out all his Calumnies, Impostures, blasphemies, heresies old and new. Wherein Valentine agreed with Arius, is shown by Aretius, in the 8. chapter of his History; if any man desire to peruse the determinations of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Tertullian, Augustine in this great article of the Trinity, he may read them at large in the same History, from the 13. to the 17. chapter. I must hasten to bring Valentine to his deserved punishment; the Senate had treated with him, from the 5. of August to the 9. of September, and he remained still stubborn, and pertinacious in his blasphemies, and therefore the Senate pronounced sentence of death upon him, which was accordingly executed; for he could not by prayers, tears, arguments, entreaties, be wrought upon to change his mind: he had a fair warning given him before, by the Senate of Geneva, if he had had the grace to have taken it, their Charge ran high, and their Admonition was Prophetical. Filium Dei quem praedicamus, in Diabolum transfiguras. Deum quem colimus, vocas Deum Turcarum, multa{que} ejus generis, sed vide miser ne te praecipitaverit tuus furor ut voces emitteres quae per jugulum redeant.

It is now time to draw the curtain and look for Socinus who most of this while, played least in sight, till he went quite out of sight, in the year 1562. Laelius Socinus was the tutor and unckle, Faustus Socinus was the Nephew and disciple; Laelius did contribute materials, Faustus added Form and method to that monstrous body of errors and blasphemies which we call Socinianism. Laelius Socinus was borne in the year, 1525. his parents were of good rank and quality, his Father was styled, IC. torum Princeps. The life of Socinus is written by a Polonian Knight, who was tender of his honor, who hath also set forth a dissertation, which he desires may be prefixed before the works of Faustus, or rather the notions of Laelius digested into order by Faustus; and out of those two treatises we may pick something to give light to the original of Socinianism; but we are most beholding to D. Calovius, who hath handled this argument more distinctly, then any man that I have met with, and he saith that about four years after Servetus his death in the year 1557. Laelius Socinus did underhand encourage them who had raked in Servetus ashes, and blowed some coals that were yet alive, and from thence raised a blacker flame. Laelius then, no doubt, favored Valentine, for about the year 1558. Valentine began to show himself, and in that year, the Italian Church put forth their orthodox confession about the Trinity at Geneva, as hath been already shown. Moreover the Polonian Knight saith, that Laelius did take special care of his country-men, quod{que} praecipue suos erudierit Italos: and though Laelius did keep his most usual residence amongst the Helvetians, yet his letters travelled up and down the world, and he now and then visited his countrymen in person, who were banished into Poland, and Germany; he went twice on pilgrimage, to gain some Proselytes in Poland, first in the year, 1551. and afterwards in the year, 1557. and there he infected many of the Nobles with his pestilent heresies, which have found such good entertainment ever since, that Poland doth to this very day (the Lord of heaven be merciful to them) labor under that deadly disease. But it was Laelius his chief desire to instruct his three brethren, Celsus, Cornelius, and Camillus, in that which he called his religion; and though they lived far asunder, (Celsus enim Bononiae, reliqui Senis agebant) yet they held such intimate correspondence, that the seeds of this heresy were mutually cherished by their frequent letters. But his nephew Faustus was his best Scholar, and therefore by divers hints and intimations best acquainted with the secrets of his art. Ingenio Nepotis confisum plura divinanti innuisse, quàm discenti tradidisse; (saith the Polonian Knight) non dissimulato inter amicos praesagio pleniùs haec at{que} foelicius à Fausto orbi prodenda; and Faustus Socinus doth acknowledge that he did owe all his mysterious knowledge to his Unckle only, (for he was never taught of God) Praeter unum Laelium patruummeum—vel potius praeter paucula quaedam ab ipso conscripta & multa annotata, nullum prorsus magistrum me habere contigit. Epist. ad Maro. Sq. You may read particulars in D Calovius (pag. 2. & sequ.) I need not therefore descend to particulars since the confession is so general; only be pleased to observe that the heresy doth directly strike at the Nature, Person, Offices, Satisfaction, Sacraments of Christ. And as the Arminians are much offended with the ninth chapter to the Romans, so the Socinians are as much offended with the first chap. of the Gospel according to Saint John; it was therefore Laelius one of his master-pieces to pervert that Scripture by a devilish gloss. I dare not give a more gentle Epithet: Faustus doth confess that his Unckle Laelius did contribute all the stuff out of which he framed his exposition upon the first part of the first Chapter of Saint John; Illam verborum Johannes expositionem, & quae ad eandem adserendam produxit, sese magnâ ex parte e Laelii sermonibus, dum adhuc viveret, & post ejus mortem ex aliquibus ipsius scriptis sumpsisse & deprompsisse. V. Frag. duor. script. Socin. & Epist. 1. ad Dudith. pag. 13. But though Laelius Soci • us carried matters thus closely, and did all by sleight of wit and hand, yet about 3. years before his death he was shrewdly suspected for a Seducer, his brother Cornelius was apprehended, the rest fled for fear, Faustus his Nephew and disciple, fled quite out of Italy, to Lions in France, Laelius in the mean time died in the year 1562. and the 37. year of his age, as Calovius assures me: Cum Faustus aliquandiu Lugduni in Gaul viveret, Laelius interi • s Tiguri extinctus est anno 1562. Aetatis ejus septimo supra trigesimum. All Laelius his notes were I believe committed to Faustus, qui patruo suo Laelio emortualis extitit, as the same Author, de origin Theol. Soc. §. 25. and therefore certainly most of his opinions would have died with him, had not this unlucky Faustus poisoned the world with them. For Faustus himself acknowledges that Laelius was very sparing in opening himself, except it were in some lighter controversies. Nolebat ill sententiam suamnisi in levioribus quibusdam controversies omnibus aperire, ne turbarentur Ecclesiae, & infirmi quorum maximam semper habuit rationem offenderentur, & à vero Dei cultu ad Idola fortasse iterum adducerentur. Frag. F. Socini Disp. de Christi naturâ p. 5. Observe by the way that the Socinians do not much differ from the Papists in any point in controversy between the Papists and Reformed Churches, unless it be in the point of Idolatry. But indeed there was one reason more why Laelius was so wary, he knew how it fared with Michael Serv • tus in the year 1553. & that severe example might well keep him in awe for 8. or 9. years after, about which time he died: and indeed Faustus seems to glance at some such reason, for he saith Laelius had observed that there was a custom which grew in request in some Churches, ut Execrabiles haberentur quicun{que} adversus receptas sententias vel mutire quidē ausi essent, in the place forecited. Nay I can easily guess at a third reason yet, because Laelius had in former time before he was poisoned with Servetus his doctrines taught the same truths which are generally received in the Reformed Churches, and if he should have retracted so many opinions, the people would not have believed him in anything he had taught, but would have quite fallen off to Popery again, as he conceived: for the people had a great opinion of his doctrine, though he was neither Doctor nor Pastor in the Church. Neve tandem divina veritas ab eo praedicata (quine{que} Pastoris ne{que} Doctoris officio in Ecclesia fungeretur) ob auctoris non parvam (I believe it should be, though 'tis printed magnā) authoritatē magna Christiani orbis detrimento passim rejiceretur. Faustus Disp▪ de Christi natura, pag. 6. It was therefore Laelius his master-plot to propound doubts & questions to such famous men as Calvin, & others in the Reformed Churches, as if he intended to gain some farther light (when indeed he sought for further advantage) by their determinations. Quod tamen ut omnem offensionem vitaret addiscendi tantum studio a se fieri dicebat: qua tamen ration ab initio idem vere ab eo factum fuisse verisimile est, quare etiam Discipulum semper se, nunquam autem Doctorem profitebatur. Faustus ubi supra. Master Calvin did easily perceive his subtlety, and therefore gave him a fair but sharp admonition about the Calends of January, 1552. as the Polonian Knight doth confess: Si tibi per aereas illas speculationes (saith Calvin) volitare libet, sine me quae so humilem Christi Discipulum ea meditari quae ad fidei meae aedificationem faciunt—Quod pridem testatus sum, serio iterum moneo, nisi hunc quaerendi Pruritum mature corrigas, metuendum esse ne tibi gravia tormenta accersas. Faustus saith that his Uncle was snatched away by an untimely death, non sine Dei consilio, that so those great mysteries which God had revealed to none but Laelius, might be made known unto the world. Cùm statim fere post mortem ejus, eorum quae ipse palam docere non audebat pars aliqua & literis consignari, & passim divulgari est coepta; id quod eo vivente nunquam fortasse contigisset, amicis ex iis quae ipse scripserat non adhuc plene edoctis, & adversus praeceptoris voluntatem aliquid eorum quae ab ipso didicerant in vulgus prodere minime audentibus. Hac scilicet ration Deus quae illi uni patefecerat omnibus manifesta esse voluit. Faustus ubi supra, pag. 6. & 7. I am at this great pains of transcribing, because Socinian books are so dear, every man will not pay a groat a sheet, the price that I am forced to, only that I may declare the truth; so much for Laelius.

Faustus Socinus the Nephew of Laelius was borne in the year 1539, two hours and three quarters before Sun-rising on the fifth of December; so scrupulous are some in calculating the nativity of this monster; and he himself took notice of it in his Epistle Ad excellentissimum quendam virum; He was of no mean parentage, his father was by name Alexander Socinus, and for his Policy, Subtilitatum princeps, as he was deservedly styled; his mother was nobly descended, the Polonian Knight hath shown her descent, Matrem habuit Agnetem Burgesii Petruccii Senenfis quondam Reipub. Principis ac Victoriae Piccolomineae filiam. He studied the Laws till he was about three and twenty years of age, and then he betook himself to the great Duke of Hetruria his Court, where he spent twelve years, only he had so much leisure at Court, as to write a book about the authority of the Scripture, in which he doth slily pervert the Scriptures, and lay a ground for all his heretical blasphemies. This is all the account that can be given of him for 35. years. I do not hear of any great brags (though the Socinians do make loud brags of him) of his Logic, Philosophy, School-divinity, the learned tongues, only he spent some two or three years in digesting his Uncles Notes, and then thought he had learning enough to contradict all the Fathers and Councils, and undertook to censure all the Reformed Churches, and to dispute with the greatest Scholars in the world: the presumption of his wit, besides the badness of his cause, did betray him to his adversaries, especially in the first prizes he played, and he was so subtle as to seem ingenuous in acknowledging such oversights as he could not possibly conceal: Quod vero ais (saith Faustus to Puccius) supellectilem meam Hebraeam & Graeeam—teipsum latere non potest ejusmodi meam supellectilem non valde curtam modo, sed propemodum nullum esse; Graecos enim fontes, ut egomet omnibus dico, leviter admodum degus • avi, Hebraeos vix dum attigi, &c. Socin. Resp. ad Def. Puccii, pag. 49. And he confesses that he made a great flourish in the world before he had any Logic, he had vapoured against Puccius, Palaeologus, Volanus, and divers others, he had composed a Commentary on the first part of the first Chapter of S. John, and on the seventh to the Romans, his Animadversions in Theses Posn. de Trino & uno Deo, & alia quaedam Imperfecta, as he saith, cum nondum Dialecticae ullam operam dedissem, ut post hac non mireris si in meis scriptis multa deprehenderis minus recte tradita ac conclusa. Epist. ad excellentissimum quendam virum. It was no wonder indeed if a man that understood neither Greek nor Hebrew, nor Logic, should give many interpretations, and draw many Conclusions which will not hold. Now whether after the delicacies of the Court, and 35. years of his age mis-spent, he was so apt to mould his stiff brains, and new-cast them into a Logical form, let the world judge. Socinus then was not the greatest Scholar in the world, though he thought himself able to teach all the Church, and all the world. The Polonian Knight acknowledges that he was of an hasty cholerique disposition, praecipitem ad Bilem natura formaverat; but it seems his heat did evaporate at Court, In vita a • licâ deferbuisse juvenilem illum Socini astum, qui plerumque magna in magnos lapsus pr • cipitat ingenia; and yet Marcellus Squarcialupus Socinus his good friend doth often complain of him for his rashness, &c. as Calovius shows at large: you may read plentiful testimonies cited at length, Consid. Th. Socin. pag. 13. & 15. to him therefore I refer you.

Faustus then had more subtlety then learning; when he was not able to prove his opinions, he told his Auditors, Haec si vera non sint, verisimilia saltem & probabilia deprehendetis. He was of a ma • ignant wit, he knew how to disgrace truth by scoffs and slanders, he thought to affright weak spirited men from the Protestant Religion, by telling them that they held opinions (in particular that Christ is God) which made Christian Religion ridiculous to Jews and Turks, Et exteris denique omnibus, but names none else. Haecque & hujusmodi alia quaedam, quorum ansam illis dedit graeca vox 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ingeniose quidem (ut illis videtur) & foeliciter comminiscuntur quae omnia—cùm ridicula magna ex parte appareant efficitur (proh dolor!) ut Jesu Christi religio—& Judaeis & Turcis & exteris denique omnibus maxim sit ludibrio. Explicat. cap. prim. John. pag. 9. Our superstitious men of late pressed us to comply with them, in hope of converting Papists from their superstition, by conforming ourselves to the self same superstition, and now the Socinians would have us to deny Christ to be God, that we may convert Turks and Jews to the Christian faith: as if the best way to convert men to the Christian faith, were to deny a prime Article of our Christian faith; or as if Jews and Turks would have a better opinion of Christ, if the Christians should deny him to be God, and so harden them in their beloved blasphemies; and yet Faustus Socinus saith his friends did encourage him to write against that inveterate figment of the divine nature of Christ, Hac enim ration—& Iudaeos & Turcas ad Christianam religionem allici posse, qui portentosis istis opinionibus quae Christianae fidei Axiomata esse creduntur ab eâ amplectenda semper sunt deterriti. Faustus, ubi supra, pag. 2.

I should tire out my Reader, if I should but reckon up the tricks and devices of this Faustus; for he pretended just as our Translator here, to be a Reformer of the Reformers, nay of the Reformation it self; he makes many glorious pretences in his book called Solutio Scrupulorum. God (saith he) in this last Age intends to make many new discoveries, and to Reforme his Church more thoroughly then ever. Luther he confesses hath discovered truths enough to carry us to Heaven; Zwingli and Oecolampadius reformed the Church in matters of great weight and moment; they are justly to be extolled, because they have purged the Church from superstition and Idolatry, and caused all false worships to be abhorred; but he doth very slily intimate, that it was now left to him to confute all errors which Luther, Zwingli and Oecolampadius had not observed in the Church; for saith he, though the Idols Temple is laid level with the ground, no man hath as yet set up the Temple of Christ: nay he goes farther, Nec caementa & lapides ad illud extruendum parari; and we may truly say, Socinus lapides loquitur, as the Comedian said; and he knows full well how to daube with untempered mortar. He hath written two other pestilent Books, in which he hath most cunningly vented his poison, one is a book which I never saw, De SS. Scripturae authoritate, which Calovius tells is one of his most subtle pieces, and seems to be one of his first Essays: Dominicus Lopez a Jesuit was so taken (or mistaken) with it, as to print it in the year, 1588. The other Pamphlet is a brief discourse, De causâ ob quam creditor aut non creditor Evangelio Jesus Christi. In this second he speaks plainer then in the former, as they say who have read both, and they conceive that it was purposely put forth as a Commentary upon the other; for Socinus did speak more freely still every year then other, accordingly as he saw his Discourses entertained and applauded by potent Abettours; he did not put his name to his Commentary upon John, till he saw how it would take; Libuit antequam nomen nostrum prodamus aliorum exigui hujus laboris nostri judicius cognoscere. Explic. John. p. 4. And Calovius saith, he did not put his name to it till whole Churches (Congregations I suppose he means) had subscribed to Socinus his Tenets, Calovius de Origin Theol. Soc. p. 19. He gained very much by his feigned modesty, he saith it was his hearty desire to bring all men to his opinion, yet such was his charity and modesty, that he would account them brethren, who counted him an Heretic, and held his opinions to be pernicious, upon condition they did their best, to live in obedience to Christ's precepts, and sought in a fair way to convince him by Scripture, Explic. cap. prim. John. pag. 4. But though he pretended to be ruled by Scripture, it is most evident that all his Art was to withdraw men from hearkening to the plainest Texts of Scripture which do contradict blind carnal reason. He taught the world a new way of disputing in Divinity; we were wont to argue thus, Whatsoever God saith is true: but God saith thus and thus; ergo: but he taught us to prove, That such and such a proposition is true by the causes and proper effects first, or else saith he, it is absurd to think that God said anything but truth, and therefore unless it can appear by some demonstrative argument, that such a proposition is true, we must not pitch upon that proposition, as the mind of the holy Ghost in any Text of Scripture; what ever the words of the Text seem to hold forth unto us, we must go look out for some other sense which is agreeable to right Reason. Rationis lumen quo Deus nos donavit aperte ostendit non debere nec posse corporalem poenam quam unus debeat ab alio persolvi, idque etiam omnium gentium ac seculorum legibus ac consuetudinibus perpetuo & maximo consensu comprobatum sit, as Socinus in his Tract Deservatore; Behold how the light of Reason, the Laws, nay the Customs (and perchance some of them unreasonable) of Nations must over-rule God, so that God himself shall not be believed, if he do not speak consonantly to my corrurpt reason, and our vain Customs. It is clear and evident, that whatsoever Socinus produces against Christ's satisfaction, or our Justification, is a mere figment of his own brain, for he only urges some colorable arguments, which have but a show or shadow of reason. But I shall not instance in more particulars now, because I desire to pass on and discover Socinus his subtlety, in scattering his errors abroad in Sarmatia, Transylvania, &c. and therefore this shall suffice for the Rise of Socinianism.

CHAP. II. The Growth of Socinianism.

ILL weeds thrive apace; Laelius had sown his errors, as hath been already shown, in some five or six years, within ten years space there were whole Congregations submitted themselves to the Socinian yoke in Sarmatia as Doctor Calovius assures me, Intra decennium integra Ecclesiae accesserunt heresy ejusdem in Sarmatia, Consid, Th. Soc. Prooemial. pag. 65. And this Heresy did spread so fast in Transylvania, that within twenty years after there were some hundreds of Congregations infected, Ut vix triginta elapsis annis aliquot Centuriae Coetuum talium ibidem numeratae fuerint. Ibid. What they maintained upon their first Apostasy, may be seen in a Book, De falsa & vera unius Dei, Patris, Filii, & S. Sti. cognition. It pleased God that Franciscus Davidis the Superintendent of those new perverted Proselytes in Transylvania, did lay some rubs in the way of Faustus Socinus; for this Franciscus desired to know why Christ should be worshipped or prayed unto any longer, if he were not God? Blandrate and Faustus did lay their heads together to answer this Quere; but this same Franciscus Davidis maintained stoutly that Invocation and Adoration were parts of divine honor due to God alone; This happened about the year, 1578. some twenty years after the stirs which were in the Italian Church at Geneva, ut supra. But Faustus and Blandrate could not compose the tumults (or answer the objections) which Franciscus had raised in Transylvania, and so Faustus Socinus was forced to return with shame enough into Poland: But when Faustus could not do what he would, he seemed to be content to join with the Davidians, as they were called from Franciscus Davidis, as far as they would go hand in hand with him in opposing the Reformed Churches, and he did prevail very much in a Synod about the year, 1588. in other points also which he did cunningly wind in, and they greedily swallow; and he prevailed very far the next year in another Synod, and within a matter of four years, as Calovius saith, he brought over all (them whom he had wrought upon, to deny the Godhead of Christ) to subscribe to the whole body of Socinianism: and no marvel, for though there are many parts of Socinianism which have no rational dependence upon the denial of the Godhead of Christ; yet when once men come to be sofar blinded as to deny that glorious truth which shines so clearly in the Gospel, it is no wonder if they see nothing at all. Besides he was so wise as to strike in with the Nobles, and the Courtiers, with the most youthful and sharp witted Pastors, and not only with subtle disputants, but smooth Popular Orators, men more able to corrupt the people, witness Petrus Steinius; or Statorius, by whose unhappy eloquence the sublimest subtleties of Socinus which transcended vulgar capacities, were so explained and smoothed in a popular, but plausible way, that the most refined notions were made familiar to the common people; Infoelici Steinii suadâ subtiles & à rudiorum captu remotiores Socini sensus populari ration tradere & flexanimae orationis genio cunctis probare poterat, &c. This blasphemous wretch did travail, ab extremâ Silesiae or a in intimam Lithuaniam, that he might spread his errors, though he did thereby often endanger his life: he lived a long time, he was about 66. years of age when he died; though it was long ere he began to seduce as hath been shewn, yet he had 30. years time to infect a people that were too willing to be infected; he died, as Calovius informs me, in the year 1604. Tandem anno etatis quinto ultra sexagesimum blasphemam exhalat animam, Aerae Christianae 1604.

CHAP. III. The Danger of Socinianism.

LEarned Grotius may remember that there was a time when he himself thought Socini • nisme to be very dangerous, Cum haeresis sit venenum ecclesiae, & quidem praesentissimum, sed tamen haereseos aliqui sint gradus, ut sit hac illâ nocentior priorem aliam non reperiri haresi Socini, ad cujus etiam mentionem pii omnes exhorreant, in his speech to the States called H. G. Pietas. Certain all pious men may well tremble at the very mention of Socinianism, at the very repeating of their basphemies. For my part I dare not call them Christians, because they deny the Godhead and satisfaction of Christ, they will not be baptized in the name of the Trinity, they labor to pluck up Christianity by the roots, and to overthrow the very foundation of Religion. I cannot but blot out Smalcius his name out of the white roll of Christians, if it were but for that one blasphemy, Christianus esse potest qui divinam Christi essentiam negat. Smal, contr. nova monstra. An error that takes away all Prayer to Christ, and worship of him, doth utterly destroy Christian religion: but the denial of the Godhead of Christ doth take away all prayer to Christ and worship of him, ergo. This argument was urged by Franciscus Davidis and Simon Budnaeus, but Fanstus Socinus (ut supra) was not able to give any satisfying answer to this triumphing Reason. The Socinians are mad with reason, if they conceive it reasonable to give Divine honor to any save God alone. None pretend to be greater enemies to Idolatry, then the Socinians, and yet they do clearly maintain this Idolatrous principle, namely that divine Honor may be given to one whom they conceive to be a mere man, Christ blessed forever.

The Socinian Error is Fundamental, they deny Christ's satisfaction, and so overthrow the foundation of our faith, the foundation of our Justification; they deny the Holy Trinity, and so take away the very Object of our Faith; they deny the Resurrection of these Bodies, and so take away the foundation of our hope; they deny original sin, and so take away the ground of our Humiliation, and indeed the necessity of regeneration; they advance the power of Nature, and destroy the efficacy of Grace. It is an Antichristian error, because it takes away the very Essence and Person of Jesus Christ, for they deny him to be God, and so take away his Essence; they deny him to be the second Person in the Trinity, and so destroy his very person also. They do in effect rob him of all his offices, for if Christ be not God, he is not that great Prophet foretold by Moses, who is Prince and Author of life, Act. 3. 15. 22. ad finem, Act. 7. 37, 38. Nor can he be a Priest able to save by the offering of himself, because the merit of his sacrifice depends upon the dignity of his person: the offering of a mere man cannot satisfy for so many thousands of men: and therefore the Socinians having denied the Godhead of Christ, deny that he hath given God full satisfaction. Nor can Christ be a King, who hath an heavenly and eternal kingdom by nature, if he be not God.

It is an Anti-spiritual error, for they deny the Nature and Person of the holy Ghost, the special grace and saving efficacy of the holy Ghost; they say, we can understand the deepest mysteries of faith, and believe in Christ without the special assistance of the holy Ghost.

They overthrow the very nature of Faith, for they confound faith and works; Obedience to God's commands is faith it self, or the very substance and Form of faith. Fides (quâ justificamur) obedientiam pr • ceptorum Dei non quidem ut effectum, sed ut suam substantiam & formam continet. Socin. Miscl. p. 162.

They destroy the Moral Law which was delivered by Moses, by saying that is imperfect. Christ came to fulfill (that is, say they) to make the Law perfect; and they overthrow the Gospel, by saying that we are justified by the works of the Law, and by their confounding of the Law of Faith, and the Law of works; they say as the Jews say, that the great work of the Messiah is to proclaim and confirm the Law, only they add that it w •• his in • ent, legem Mosaicam ceu minus perfectam perficere & locupletare, and therefore they say, Christ and his Apostles did so often press obedience to the Law, to show that we are to be justified by the works of the Law: and hence it is that they call our blessed Savior, Mosen Mosissimum, as if Christ had not preached the Gospel, the Law of Faith, as the Apostle calls it, Rom. 3. 27. And by this means the Law of Justification by faith alone without the works of the Law, which is the scope of the Gospel, is quite overthrown.

They set open a wide gap to Atheism, by denying that the soul of man can possibly so subsist by it self after this life, as to be capable of joy or torment, of reward or punishment; they may when they please speak plain English, and say, that there is neither Heaven nor Hell. Animadvertendum est (say they) Christum & Apostolos coactos fuisse quodammodo hominum opinionibus, quae tunc plerun{que} vigebant, se accommodare, quemadmodum satis aperte docet parabola Divitis & Lazari. Nam aliquem in inferno fuisse & ibi torqueri, in sinu Abrahae decumbere, sunt plane fictitia, & similia illis, quae Poetae de Ixione, Sisypho, Tantalo scribunt: hâc etiam prudentiâ hodie apud vulgus Christianorum in hac materiâ utendum, &c. I have transcribed this out of Doctor Joshua Stegman the Reverend Superintendent of Scawenburg, and when ever I cite Stegman briefly in the margin, I intend that learned Author, and not Ioachimus Stegman the grand Socinian.

The Socinians desire to take us off from giving any heed to the received interpretations of Fathers or Councils, that so they may obtrude their own fancies and conceits upon us as solid, and Rationall, most accurate, but very moderate Interpretations, vide Brev. Disq. p. 7. They of all men do most affect the conduct of their own private spirit, which they call Right Reason; and though they pretend that we are more busy in enquiring after the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councils, then the true sense of the Scriptures, yet they do not endeavor by this out-cry to extol and enthrone the Scriptures, but to set their own private spirit or judgment in the chair, which is indeed to make every man a Pope. This conceit of theirs cannot but take well with the multitude, for every man (as Luther saith) is born with a Pope in his belly; and with a Pope in his brain too, for everyone would fain have his reason, his fancy to sit Judge in all controversies, every man is apt to think himself infallible, and that his Private Judgment ought to be the Public Standard. Finally, everyone desires to give a Toleration or a Dispensation to himself, that he may be allowed to maintain such opinions and go on in such courses as are generally condemned by the judgment of Learned and Pious men. There is another quarrel that they pick with the Reformed Churches, and that is for extolling their Doctors too highly, such as Luther, Brenz, Melancthon, Bucer, Chemnitz, Calvin, Beza, Zwingli and the rest, but they would pardon this error, if they did not oblige other men to stand to the Judgment of these and such like Reverend Authors; if they might have but their liberty of prophesying according to their own private spirit or judgment they would be content, but that the Churches pass their censures upon such as dissent from the most received interpretations of Fathers, Councils and the Reformed Divines, though such interpretations seem unreasonable to the Private Judgment of our acute Socinians.

But there is a third fault greater then any of the former, & that is, that the Reformed Divines make the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures (and shining into the hearts and minds of men by a glorious light to enable them to understand the Scriptures) the Judge of controversies, for by this means say they, the judgment of sound Reason is made useless and of none effect or Authority before the illumination of the Holy Ghost: this is an high fault indeed; we are it seems in great danger of being seduced from the dictates of blind carnal reason to follow the light and voice of the Scriptures, & the Holy Spirit. Besides, there is another greater danger, if we follow the Spirit so much, we shall not be able to answer that Seraphique Doctor, Valerianus Magnus, his book, de Acatholicorum credendi Regulâ Iudicio, set forth at Prague, 1628. but it may be the book needs no answer, or they that follow the Spirit and the Scriptures are not at leisure, they have better employment.

But let the Socinians speak their mind clearly, then what is it they would have? why, they would throw the Pope out of his chair, and they would sit there themselves by turns, that so they may be Popes round; for every man say they hath reason enough before he is enlightened by the Holy Ghost to judge of the authority of Scriptures by Histories, and other principles, and to collect out of the Scriptures compared, and the foresaid principles, not only all things necessary to salvation, but many profitable truths besides, though not so necessary. I should be very glad to learn what those other Principles are besides the Scripture out of which we may collect truths necessary to salvation; for this you must look into the seventh Chapter of this Brevis disquisitio, Caterùm ad sacrarum literarum anctoritatem & genuinam mentem dignoscendam principia etiam illa quae Philosophica appellant advocanda esse. But if a man be no Scholar, why, then those principles which are known to him by nature, and his own observation, are the Rules whereby he must examine; first, whether the Scriptures be the word of God, and then, what is the true sense and meaning of them; if such a man have but a good wit, a little experience (saith he) will serve the turn. Nay, he affirms that it will serve the turn, if by the help of those good principles, his own good wit, and conference with others, he do but hear the sum of those few things which the Socinians conceive necessary to salvation, though he never hear or know, that there is any such book as the book of God. M ^r . Chillingworth comes very near this Disquisition-monger in his accurate Treatise, for he saith, The Scripture is not to be believed finally for it self, but for the matter contained in it, so that if men did believe the doctrine contained in the Scripture, it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no, chap. 2. pag. 65, 66. I thought it had been necessary to have received those material objects or Articles of our Faith, upon the authority of God speaking in the Scriptures; I thought it had been Anabaptistical to have expected any Revelation but in the Word of God; for a Revelation, nay a supernatural revelation is necessary to help natural reason, as the same M ^r . Chillingworth acknowledges. Knot had very unhappily branded M ^r . Chillingworth for a Socinian, because he maintaineth, That nothing ought or can be certainly believed, farther then it may be proved by evidence of natural reason, (where I conceive, saith M ^r . Chillingworth, natural reason is opposed to supernatural revelation) and whosoever holds so let him be Anathema. Sect. 28. in his Answer to Knots Direction to N. N. Now let M ^r . Chillingworth say that either there is a Revelation to be expected out of the Word, as the Enthyfiasts do, or else let him acknowledge, that God hath ordained the Scriptures as the means and instruments to reveal saving truths, and let him teach men to depend upon the Ordinances of God, and not make men stand at a gaze to expect a Revelation in an extraordinary way. Or else let him speak plain, and say there is truth enough written in the hearts of every man by nature to save him, or that it may be learnt from Philosophers writings; let him say as Socinus doth, that the substance of the promises is eternal life, that the main thing God looks after is practice, that Heathens and Christians have the same practical rules written in their heart, and so if a man do but hope for eternal life by observing these practical rules (as many Heathens did, witness that verse of Phocylides,

and the Discourses of Socrates, Plato, Hermes, &c.) he may be eternally saved; and then we shall know how free he is from Socinidnisme. Or else let him confess, that natural Reason being helped by a supernatural Revelation in the Word, is not able to discern saving truths, so as to believe them after a saving manner, without the special assistance of the holy Ghost, such assistance as is vouchsafed to none but the Elect of God, and then I will acknowledge that he is no Socinian. But otherwise, if either he think as he seems to think, that all the material objects which are necessary to salvation, may be known out of some other book then Scripture, or by some other means; and that if a man believe them merely as truths probable by reason, and do not receive those truths as the Oracles of God, but dictates of Reason, then sure he may be a Socinian still; nay, if he hold a supernatural Revelation by the Word to be necessary, it being the means which God hath ordained, and so is made necessary to us by God's ordinance; yet if he think this outward revelation to be sufficient, without the inward and special revelation of the Spirit, he may be a Socinian still.

But this by the way, I shall say the less of M ^r . Chillingworth, when I come to touch upon his Book; sure I am, such dangerous principles as these, will beat green heads from the study of the Scriptures, if they be not censured upon every occasion. I know Master Chillingworth protests that he is willing to stand to the judgment of the Catholic Church, of this and former ages, to the consent of Protestants, the Church of England; but if he put in the Papists into the Catholic Church, as I believe he will; then he will say the Papists do not agree, and therefore the Catholic Church of this age is not against the Socinians; nay the Fathers do not all agree, and so there is not a Catholic consent of the Ancients, as M ^r . Chillingworth I beeleeve did purposely show at large in the eighteenth Section of his Answer to N. N. that so he might wind himself out the better in this 28. Section: Nay, peradventure he will put the Socinians in for to give a vote, if you ask for the consent of the Catholic Church of this Age, for he calls them a company of Christians in the 29. Section; and though he saith, They are erroneous in explicating (he doth not say in denying) the mysteries of Religion, & allowing greater liberty in speculative matters, (so the Socinians call the Articles of the Christian faith) then any other company of Christians doth, or they should do, yet for their honor he saith, they explicate the Laws of Christ with more rigor and less indulgence to the flesh then the Papists do, and that is true, but not much for their commendation, because they thereby disgrace the Moral Law of God, and say it was imperfect, till Christ gave new Laws; but M ^r . Chillingworth was willing to take any occasion to commend them. Moreover if M ^r . Chillingworth by the Church of England, mean the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his faction, then indeed there will not be a general consent of the Church of England against the Socinians. Once more, if he take in all the Arminians, and some Jesuited Papists, that (as Vertumnus Romanus prescribes) come to Church and hear our Common prayers, and receive the Sacrament in some Congregations in this Kingdom, though they be of M ^r . Fisher, or M ^r . Flued his mind, and rank all these amongst Protestants (for we have had strange kind of Protestants for these twelve years last past,) then I believe there will not be a general consent of such Protestants against the Socinians; and so M ^r . Chillingworth may oppose Socinianism, when all these agree together to oppose it. But indeed he hath one Argument which makes me believe that he and more of that faction who countenance many Socinian errors, do not agree with the Socinians in all points, because Socinianism if it be taken in all its dimensions, is such a Doctrine by which no man in his right mind can hope for any honor or preferment either in this Church or State, or in any other. Many men do indeed adventure as far as they dare this way, only they are afraid of thwarting the great Design, as I shall hereafter show. I dare not excuse M ^r . Chillingworths dangerous principles, though I account him a very rational man, yet I believe him to be the more dangerous, I dare not therefore give him that liberty which he gives others, and cry, Quisque abundet in sensusuo, because they are not the words of S. Paul, though M ^r . Chillingworth father them upon him, chap. 2. pag. 92. the words of the Apostle are, Let every man be fully persuaded, or assured in his own mind, Rom. 14. 5. I go on to show the danger of Socinianism. It is an Hotch-potch of Gentilism, Turkism, Judaism, and I know not what, they have put in some scruples of Christianity to make up the mess. The Centuriatours say, that Mahomet did compose his Alcoran by the help of the Jews, and Johannes Antiochenus an Arian: and truly Turkism doth much savor of Judaism and Arianism. Now Socinianism is compounded of the self same ingredients, Socinus borrowed very much from Servetus, and Servetus from the Alcoran, as Wajekus proves, and Socinus doth acknowledge, vide Antiwajek. Soc. pag. 33. They say we hinder the conversion of the Turks, by departing so far from them; whereas they agree with Turks in denying the Godhead, eternal generation, meritorious satisfaction of Christ, in blaspheming the Trinity: Paul Alciat, and Adam Neuser, two Socinians turned Turks; nay the Turks discourse more solidly about the Prescience of God, then the Socinians, or Arminians do.

The Resurrection of these very bodies was believed by none but Jews and Turks at first, (as the Socinians would make us believe) and the Protestants have received it from them.

They open a gap to an Atheistical Libertinism, by promising salvation to all Heretics, ignorant persons, if they live but chaste, sober, just lives, and expect eternal life, for that is the sum of the promises, and they need not know or believe more: all the mysteries of faith are by them counted but mere notions, speculations at best, and it is no great matter if men have diverse and contrary opinions about them they may all fare well enough; truly I think one as well as another, if there be neither heaven nor hell.

Socinians are not to be permitted in any Church, for they deny that there is as yet any Triumphant Church above, nor is it necessary that there should be any Militant Church here below. The Arminians jump with them in the same conceit, they say, Christ may be a King without a kingdom, an Head without a body: Neque vero necesse esse credimus ad hoc ut Christus rex & caput maneat in terris Ecclesiam veram semper esse. Their reasons are, because Christ's kingdom doth rather consist in his own Sovereign Authority, then in the obedience and subjection of any people. Besides, if there were a necessity of it that there must be a Church on earth, then Christ's people would not be a free willing people, and so there would be no spiritual Church, if they are not left at liberty, to accept or refuse Christ; sure that is a rebellious Liberty, for a liberty to reject Christ, is a liberty to rebel.

No man they say need inquire after the true Church, much less is it necessary that he should be a member of the true Church, Ubinam quaeso est scriptum Christum praecepisse ut unusquisque inquirat, & norit quaenam sit vera Ecclesia? Socinus de Eccles. Thes.

They would not have any marks given of a true Church, I suppose for fear theirs should be discovered to be a false; but especially they deny, that the pure preaching of the word is a note of the true Church, for with jesting Pilate they ask, What is Truth? How shall it appear, say they, that any Church preaches the saving Truth? Nay Arminians and Socinians both tell us, that there is no need of preaching: saving Truths are sufficiently manifested they say, and yet it seems it is not sufficiently manifested to them, for they cannot tell what it is. They do not see any great use of the Sacraments, they cannot believe that the sprinkling of water upon the body, should have any spiritual effects upon the soul; they cannot believe that our faith can be strengthened, our pardon sealed, Christ and his benefits imparted to us by eating of Bread, and drinking Wine. Now sure a Church that is without Ministers, Sacraments, marks or signs of a true Church, would be but an empty Titular Church, and to such a Church only should Socinians be admitted.

Socinians are not to be suffered in any State, for they will not show any obedience or respect to Magistrates; they say, they have no power to punish heinous offenders in time of peace, nor have they power to defend themselves or the people by the Sword, in time of War. But especially, they charge the Magistrates to beware how they meddle with good honest Heretics, for all Heretics in the opinion of Arminians and Socinians (who speak favourably in their own cause) are good pious men. What they say of the Law of Nations, or of a particular State, I had rather you should read in their Writings then in mine.

I believe your patience is already tired with this brief narration, if any desire to be farther satisfied in particulars let them read this book.

CHAP. IV. Whether England hath been, or still is in danger to be farther infected with Socinianism.

FArther infected I say, for it is too evident that it hath been in some measure already infected with this pestilent heresy. I know the Archbishop of Canterbury did pretend to crush this cockatrice of Socinianism, but all things being considered, it is to be feared that his Canon was ordained for concealing, rather then suppressing of Socinianism; for he desired that none but his own party should be admitted to the reading of Socinian books, it was made almost impossible for any that were not of his party, to take the degree of Bachelor of Divinity (I can say more in that point then another) or at least improbable they should have means to pay a groat a sheet for Socinian books.

It is well known that the Arch-Bishop did highly favor, and frequently employ men shrewdly suspected for Socinianism. Master Chillingworth, to speak modestly, hath been too patient, being so deeply charged by Knot for his inclining towards some Socinian Tenets: no man in Saint Jerome's opinion ought to be patient in such a a case, and sure no innocent man would be patient. Mr. Chillingworth hath not yet answered— Christianity maintained. The Protestants do not own many of those principles which are scattered in Master Chillingworths book, and Knot could observe that he proceeded in a destructive way, just as the Socinians do. The Reformed Churches abroad wonder that we could find no better a Champion amongst all our Worthies; they who travailed hither out of foreign parts blessed themselves when they saw so much froath and grounds; so much Arminianism and vanity in Master Chillingworths admired piece: What doth it advantage the Protestant cause, if the Pope be deposed from his infallible chair, and Reason enthroned that Socinianism may be advanced?

But I am afraid Doctor Potter may take it unkindly that I have named Master Chillingworth before him; for his Grace employed Doctor Potter first, and he was cried up as a Patr • ne of the Protestant Profession, but he soured his Calvinisme with so much Arminian leaven, and sweetened Popery with some such gentle Scruples of Moderate Divinity as they call it, that the Jesuits laughed in their sleeves, and Knot was so pleasant that he could scarce refrain from laughing openly.

That these two great Champions do vent Arminian principles is manifest to any man that hath but peeped into their books. Now that Arminianism is a fair step to Socinianism hath been sufficiently proved by Bodecherus, (though he hath been derided, he hath not been answered) Peltius, Vedelius and others, so that I need say no more in that point.

What Art and care hath been used to propagate the Arminian errors in England, would require a large volume, and I had laid open all their sleights and projects (had not my books and notes been seised on) to the full: God may give me opportunity to say something to that point yet before I finish my course.

The Church of Scotland complains of his Grace, for he first protected Wederburn, when he fled from Scotland for fear of the Church-censures, because this Wederburn had poisoned the young students in Divinity with Arminianism in the new College at Saint Andrew's; his Grace made the same Wederburn Bishop of Dumblane, that so he might be Dean of the Kings Chapel, and vent all his Arminian errors in the Royal Chapel, in despite of all the Presbyteries. Then his Grace chose out 24. Royal Chaplains, such as were most likely to preach the Deans Arminian Tenets to the State when they saw that all preferment did run that way. I will not say anything of Master Sydserf, Doctor Forbes, &c. You may read the complaint at large in a book entitled Ladens. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Canterburian self-conviction.

But that which did most mischief, was a large Declaration procured by his Grace, but sent in the Kings name into Scotland, in which their general Assembly was much condemned for passing any censure upon Arminians. Besides, his Grace had two Scouts in Ireland, the Bishop of Derry, and Doctor Chapel: Behold three Kingdoms infected at once with this deadly disease, by the pestilent subtlety of one Arch-Bishop.

But I shall make it appear that we have gone nearer to Socinianism yet. Acontius was (as learned Peltius calls him) clandestinus Socinianorum assecla; now I have wondered often what was the reason that Acontius was new printed in Oxford by Doctor Potters book-binder. Creature I might say, if I did affect the language of the times. They might as well have Printed Bonfinius, for I find him joined with Acontius, they were both sneaking Socinians, they followed Socinus just as Nicodemus followed Christ, by stealth & in the dark. Jacobus Acontius & Bonfinius Socini clandestini asseclae. Judicious and learned Pareus not long before his death writ a letter on the first of March, 1613. ad N. N. in which he expresseth himself after this manner. Arminium vestrum Sociniani in Polonia express ut Suum nuper nominarunt, unà cum quodam Bonfinio & Acontio clandestinis asseclis, quorum authoritate postularunt àfratribus Orthodoxis fraternitatem, isti vero fortiter recusarunt. Acta ad me misit Synodus Lublinensis, cui nuper postridie Natalis Domini respondi, &c. Pareus was a man of a very peaceable disposition, willing to compose all differences which might fairly and honestly be compounded, as appears by his Irenicum, and therefore his judgment is to be the more valued, but you see he doth not vent his own private opinion, but declares the judgment of the Synod; I believe that every impartial Reader will think this passage very considerable. The Socinians have one Principle which draws a great party after them of all heretics, & sectaries. Nothing (say they) is Fundamentally necessary to salvation but only Faith or obedience to the commands of Christ, for they make faith & obedience all one, ut supra. Now Acontius was a great stickler in this point, and therefore learned Peltius saith, this opinion did open a wide gap to let in all heresies into the Church, and yet Acontius and the Socinians thought nothing else Fundamental but obedience to Christ's precepts; men might deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and almost any Article of the Christian Faith, and yet be Christians good enough in their conceit. Nihil{que} tandem fore Fundamentale praeter istud (scil. Obedientiam mandatorum) ex mente Acontii & Socinianorum positum. See Peltius his Epistle Dedicatory, prefixed before his Harmony. Well might Acontius his book be intitled Stratagemata Satanae: but sorry I am that Doctor Potter should be thought to have such an hand in publishing of it, that it was known in Oxford by the name of Doctor Potters Stratagems. I know Acontius doth in that book mince the matter, but the book is so much the more dangerous, and cannot but poison young students more insensibly and irrecoverably. Besides Acontius his pretence of moderation and charity will work much upon men that understand not his Stratagems, they will conceive that he grew every day more moderate and more Accurate also, and that he complied so far with the Socinians merely out of a desire of peace. But though the book be close and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, yet ever and anon he lets fall some hopes of being saved without the acknowledgement of those mysteries which the Church hath long held for necessary Articles of faith. What did the man that was cured of the palsy believe? why, (saith he) he did believe as it was fit, that that man who is called Jesus was from God, (mark he doth not say that he was God) and in favor with God, and hoped that he should be healed by him, and yet his sins were forgiven. Credebat enim ut par est hominem eum qui Jesus diceretur à Deo esse & apud eum gratiosum, ita{que} sperabat per eum sanitatem se posse adipisci. Illa vero eum cognita etiam habuisse omnia quae diu pro articulis fidei Necessariis habuit Ecclesia quàm sit verisimile, cui{que} judicandum relinquo. Sunt & alia multa loca quae eódem prorsus tendunt. Nay he conceives Abraham the Father of the faithful to have been ignorant of those Heads of Divinity which we count Articles of Faith, Fundamental Articles. Abraham, saith he, believed that he should have offspring, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, that Canaan should be his, Caeterum de Religions apicibus istis ignorare opinantur (scil. Reformati) fas non esse mirum est silentium quin, ipsum etiam Salutis mysterium per ejus semen Tecte admodum obscure{que} promittitur. I put in (scil, Reformati,) for doubtless it is a jerk at the Reformed Churches, and so that passage fore-cited, Ecclesia diu habuit, is certainly a jerk for the Nicene Fathers, Athanasius and those ancients which required such a distinct confession of faith. You see he seems to leave it doubtful whether Abraham did believe in Christ or no; these oblique passages and many such in his third book especially, do show what a good mind he had to favor them, who at that time about the year 1565. did call the Articles of the Christian faith into question. No marvel if he wrote so warily when Servetus had been made such an example, in the year 1553. Besides Laelius Socinus was now dead, and Faustus not grown up to his maturity. Sabellius he saith was an Heretike for saying that the Father did not differ from the Son, but he is not so forward to call them heretics who deny that the Son hath the same nature with the Father; he tells us that * we must believe Christ to be the Son of God, and to be made man, but he doth not press us to believe that Christ is God. We need not wonder at his moderation, when he is very tender even about Transubstantiation, and unwilling to appear on either side. Magna jamdudum fuit & vere tragica controversia de Interpretatione verborum corum, Accipite, hoc est corpus meum; non necesse est autem me hoc loco utrarum sim partium aperire, tantum catenus quidem utrarum{que} esse me profiteor, quod utros{que} adveram Dei ecclesiam pertinere nihil prorsus dubitem, lib. 3.—. and a little after, De verborum sententiâ lis est, non de veritate: this is an excellent device indeed to help off the grossest Heretics, and say that they only differ from us about the meaning of some places of Scripture. Christ saith he bids all come unto him that are heavy laden, and what saith he, will you of your own head say to any man that is coming to Christ, Heus tu! frustra accedis qui hoc & illud non credas? But if you reply that Acontius hath not reckoned some points of religion which are of high concernment, and therefore you may safely tell a man unless he believe them he cannot be saved; he hath endeavored to prevent your reply by this excuse; Si miraris inter ea quae recensuimus cognitu necessaria non numerari quosdam summo quamvis loco habitos Religions apices, evolve diligenter, Examine saith he whether those high points could be known under the old Testament to the people of Israel, &c. This is just the Socinian Device, I will not trouble you any longer with the unsavory discourse of that rotten Author, whose main Stratageme was a pretended Moderation and feigned Charity.

Let us now pass on to some later Authors; Doctor Francis White was a man countenanced by the Arch-Bishop to write against the Sabbath, and in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Arch-Bishop, well knowing what would please his Graces tooth, he saith that we are beholding to the Testimony of the Bishops, for the weightiest matters in religion, and amongst the rest he saith for the eternal Deity of the blessed Savior; It seems if the Christian world had not given credit to the testimony of Bishops, the eternal Deity of Christ had not been acknowledged by Christians; what if Bishops had lost their Votes, and credit some ages since, must Christ have lost his Deity, or at least the honor of it? Is there nothing written in Scripture concerning the eternal Deity of Christ? this is just indeed as Tertullian saith, Nisi Deus homini placuerit, Deus non erit. This book was printed in the year 1635. I need say nothing of that little Pamphlet about Schism, printed not long since, because other men have said so much of it, I am credibly informed that when the Author of it was asked by a great person in this Kingdom, what he thought of the Socinians, he answered, If you could secure my life I would tell you what I think; and truly he hath told us what he thinks in this little tract, viz. that Arianism was but a Rent in the Church upon matter of opinion; p. 9. that those passages in our public forms which offend the Arians, are but private fancies, and therefore he desires there may be such a Liturgy as the Arians may not dislike. p. 10. and then the Socinians and Protestants might join in one congregation. But must we not say that Christ is very God of very God that he is the great God, the true God, God blessed forever, for fear we offend the Arians, Socinians, &c. must we not worship the Trinity of persons, in the unity of the Godhead?

His Grace will peradventure think it long till he hear what I have to say to his own learned book. I must confess there is good learning in that book of his, which was printed 1624. I should do him wrong if I should deny it; and though there are some passages which sound ill, yet I have charity enough to put a good construction upon most of them; but if a prudent Reader will but compare that book and the enlargement of it together, which was printed in the year 1639. he will find a great deal of alteration in that second Edition, or rather second book, for it is indeed another book. I shall give you a taste of some passages in the latter book which are not in the former, that you may see how much his Grace had altered his Religion in those 15. years.

In the 76. Page he saith, the Mysteries of Faith do not contradict Reason, for Reason by her own light can discover how firmly the principles of Religion are true. He doth not say reason by the light of Scripture, or by the light of the Spirit, but reason by her own light can discover how firmly the Principles of Religion are true. The Socinians lay this principle as their foundation, and keep so close to it that they reject the weightiest Articles of the Christian faith; because Reason cannot discover them to be true by her own light, that is reason (ante Spiritus sancti illustrationem) before the illumination of the Holy Ghost, as they explain themselves in their Brevis Disquisitio, cap. 3. de Spiritu Sancto. And upon the same ground they do reject the Received interpretations of Scripture, because Reason cannot discover how firmly they are true. Can the Arch-Bishop make it appear by the light of Reason, that there shall be a Resurrection of these self same bodies; that there are three persons and one God: that the Word was made flesh; that God was made man; that Christ was born of a Virgin; that God justifies many thousands of the ungodly by the obedience and satisfaction of one man; must we not believe these Articles till Reason by her own light, without the illumination of the Holy Ghost, doth discover them to be true, and how firmly they are to be believed because true? for that I suppose the Arch-Bishop means, when he saith, Reason can discover how firmly these principles of Religion are true: Why do the Socinians so often challenge us to be tried by reason, by common sense, by the Judgment of all men, but because they conceive, Reason by her own light can discover how firmly the principles of religion are true? I know the Socinians do talk much of the offices of Christ, but they receive nothing from the Scripture, concerning Christ's offices, but what is as they say agreeable to Reason. They say likewise that it is necessary to salvation to know the promises of God, but they affirm that it will suffice, if a man be but acquainted with the substance of them, if he doth but hope for a better life after this, which even some Heathens did without the knowledge of Christ or his Gospel. Reason by its own light did discover unto them that the good and great God had prepared eternal happiness for our immortal souls: if this then be enough (as the Socinians say it is) to receive all things as Principles of Religion which Reason by her own light can discover to be true, (and how near the Arch-Bishop comes to them, let the Reader judge) then the Philosophers, especially the Platonists, were in an happy condition, & it will be lawful for a man to cry out aloud, Sit anima mea cum Philosophis, and he shall never be thought an Atheist, nay shall pass for a good Christian. There was a Sermon preached to Sir John Byron when he was in Oxford, which favored strong of this Heathenish Divinity, and Sir John gave the Preacher solemn thanks for his pains. Let us then Canonize the Heathens for Saints, and put Hermes, Phocylides, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Cicero, Zoroaster, Iamblichus, Epictetus, Simplicius, into our Rubrike, and let not Aristotle, Alexander or Averroes be left out. The Heathens did endeavor to keep God's commands in hope of a better life. What do the Socinians, or indeed Arminians require more? Now Reason by her own light can discover that I ought to love God, better then the world or myself, because he is the chiefest good; Reason tells me that I must do as I would be done to; the Law of nature is written in the hearts of Heathens, the writings of Philosophers do abound with principles of morality and good life, and Socinus saith, it is sufficient for a man's salvation to know what God hath commanded and forbidden; and if he err in other points, he shall not be shut out of Heaven, for such errors as reason cannot by her own light discover to be errors. In like manner the Arch-Bishop, if he will be true to this Principle he hath laid down, must affirm that no man shall be damned for rejecting any Articles of the Christian Faith, which reason by her own light cannot discover to be true, and so manifestly true that they ought to be firmly believed. If this be not Socinianism in the highest, let the impartial Reader judge. That the Arch-Bishop hath added this passage to his old book (perchance upon Master Chillingworths weighty inducements) will appear if the Reader be pleased to compare the 76. page of his new Book with the 21 page of his old Book.

There is another suspicious passage in the 25. section of the Arch-Bishops Relation, he descants upon a place of Epiphanius, pag. 185. and 186. Epiphanius said, that in Peter were found even 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The very Niceties, and exactness of the Christian faith, saith the Arch-Bishop, and presently gives this reason. For he professed the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pag. 186. How will the Socinians triumph when they hear the Primate of all England discoursing of the Godhead of Christ and the Holy Ghost as Niceties? I grant the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is most commonly used in an ill sense, but certainly Epiphanius used it here in a good sense, which the Arch-Bishop could not but see, and therefore used the word exactness, but to gratify the Socinians he puts in niceties, as if he had said, If you will be exact, you may say that Christ is God, but that's but a nicety, somewhat more then needs, a man may be saved without it; for the Arminians say Athanasius was too bold to prefix that Proud Preface before his Creed, Whosoever will be saved, &c. and I make no doubt but his Grace was led much by them, he had such high thoughts of the Arminian conceits. The Arch-Bishop doth acknowledge that in the old Latin Edition at Paris, pag. 497. it is thus translated, In hoc omnes Quaestiones • c Subtilitates Fidei inveniuntur; therefore he might have said that all the mysteries of Faith were maintained by Peter, though by the malice of Anti-spiritual men even the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, and such like Mysteries were made Questions, or at best counted subtleties, and Niceties.

Moreover when the Arch-Bishop comes to speak of the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Son, he persuades the Church of Rome to moderation, and then lets fall a sweet bit for the Socinians to feed upon, pag. 25. And Rome, saith he, in this particular should be more moderate, if it be but because this Article Filiog was added to the Creed by herself; and it is hard to add and Anathematize too. The Socinians are apt enough to say that many of the Articles of our faith were framed at Rome, and it seems his Grace would confirm them in that opinion. This was added also to his new book, as will appear, if you compare the 25. page of the new book and the 6. of the old. It is the common practice of men addicted to the Socinian way to speak very favourably in this point.

These I call very suspicious passages, you must not expect Demonstrations in this point, for I know the Arch-Bishop was too wise to speak plain, though some of these passages are plain enough. And I must profess that I do not believe the Arch-Bishop ever intended to bring in all points of Arminianism, Socinianism, or Popery, but to pick out such points as might stand with the great Desig • e; he was to humor all these three factions, that all three might join with him to suppress Calvinisme, and then admire him as the Astolike Patriarch, Pope of this other world of Britain, for he would not have us ignorant that Pope Urbane the second even in a Council accounted his Graces worthy Predecessour Saint Anselm as his own Compeere, (or fellow-Pope) and said he was as the Apostolic and Patriarch of the other world; so he then termed this Island. pag. 171. of the new book. But I believe his Ecumenical Grace had such a thirst to be a Governor of this little world, and yet such a liking to the Universal Grace of the Arminians, and the Right Reason of the Socinians, that no man that hath one dram of right reason can possibly free his Grace from contradicting himself, and thwarting his own Design, by crying up some opinions which could not stand with his own Principles in his old book, and his Plot which now & then peeps out in his new, and yet he hath jumbled all together for no other reason that can be imagined, unless it were his Master-plot to countenance other men's opinions that they might promote his Design, and for a copy of his countenance adore him as the Primate and Patriarch of the Britain's, whose Judgment is Final, and therefore there lies no appeal from him to Rome or Cracovia, no not to Right Reason assisted by Universal Grace; it seemssuch slaves he had who to satisfy his ambition and their own, would deny both their Principles and his, that the Master-plot might thrive and prosper. For it is observable, that our English Arminians, and Socinians are nothing so true to their own principles, as the Ringleaders of these factions are beyond the Seas. His Grace both in his old book and in his new, saith that Reason and ordinary grace superadded by the help of Tradition, do sufficiently enlighten the soul to discern that the Scriptures are the oracles of God; here is the Socinians sound, or right reason before the illumination of the Spirit, but to please the Arminians; Ordinary or Universal grace comes in also, and the name of Tradition to please the Popish party; and what all these are like to do without the special Grace of the holy Spirit, I leave it to any Protestant to judge.

There is another Rule which his Grace holds fast in both his books, namely, That the Churches Declaration can bind us to peace and external obedience, where there is not express letter of scripture and sense agreed on. What, Sir, must there be no deduction, no consequences allowed? must there be express letter of Scripture? there's one Socinian rule. Secondly, when the letter of the text is express, must not the point contained in the Text, and expressed in the letter, be accounted Fundamental, because the sense is not agreed upon, but the point called into question by some learned Socinian, or bold Arminian? is the sense of that place of Scripture which hath been received by so many Fathers, Councils, Reformed Churches, Martyrs, not true, or the point not necessary, because it is now called into question by some wanton wits that can hardly agree upon any point? Must we then subscribe to that Arminian and Socinian principle, Nullum dogma controversum est fundamentale? When a point begins to be controverted shall it cease to be Fundamental? By this means we may bring in an Atheistical Libertinism into the Church; we shall have no more Articles of our Faith, then the Arminians, or Socinians please to leave us. I believe we shall have a very short Creed one of these days, if this rule be followed: for as fast as they please to question our Articles we must part with them, especially if our great Patriarch interpose his Authority, his Declaration must pass for the Churches Declaration; if he say such a point is controverted and I command you silence, it is not Fundamental now, because controverted, then we must be silent and let the truth fall to the ground. This was the old muzzle which was put upon the Ministers mouths to make them lie still, like dumb dogs, whiles the thieves stole away what they pleased, this and that Commandment, this and the other Article of the Christian faith: we must it seems for Peace sake, part with our religion, and disobey God that we may obey the Church: sure he that hath the head of a Scholar, and the heart of a Christian, will scarce have any inward Peace if he perform external obedience in such a case.

This may suffice for a taste of the Arch-Bishops Divinity: nor the young Students could not but take notice of such passages, and therefore whet their wits to maintain those opinions which his Grace countenanced. There was a great Scholar who asked one of the Canterburian faction, what he thought of the Primate of Ireland's treatise concerning Christ's Incarnation, in which he demonstrates that the Word was made flesh, and that therefore Christ is God and man; the Canterburian answered, that indeed there was as much produced upon that argument as could be said upon it, but under correction (saith he) I conceive the Primate hath not cleared the point which he undertook to prove. The men of this strain when they were at their height, began to vary their expressions, they called Christ their great Master, or our Lord and Master, at the highest, so that you could scarce tell by their prayers whether they did respect Christ or their Patron most, for the Chaplains styled their Patron their very good Lord and Master. D ^r . Taylor in his epistle Dedicatory to the Arch-Bishop, before the sermon on the Gun powder treason, seems to affect that expression of calling Christ our great Master; the Socinians will bear them company in such general expressions, and some have thought of composing such a Liturgy as might give no offense to Arminians or Socinians; that would be an inoffensive Liturgy indeed, and they may do well to enlarge their Charity, and make their Liturgy inoffensive to the Turks and Jews as well as the Socinians; for any Liturgy which will please one that is a thorough Socinian, will please Turks, and Jews also, if it be but warily composed, and they will keep themselves in such general expressions as some do too much affect.

But of all that I have met with, none comes near M ^r Webberly, a Bachelor of Divinity, and fellow of Lincoln College, who hath translated a Socinian book into English, for the benefit of this Nation, and prepared it for the press. Now they think they may own the business, they dare appear in their proper colors, and blaspheme Christ in plain English. But because some parts of Socinianism strike directly at the superstition of Rome so highly extolled in our days, and at the pomp of the Clergy, which must be maintained by the sword (for what care they though England swim in blood, so they swim in wealth and pleasure?) therefore M ^r . Webberly tells us very honestly, that Socinianism was to be corrected and chastised with respect to the nature of our climate; What need I add more? take all in a word.

There are some mysterious parts of Socinianism that se • m Rationall, these I think in good earnest, the men of this age have too much doted on. Secondly, some parts of Socinianism they qualify and chastise a little, because there is a little too much quick-silver in them. Thirdly, some parts they do totally reject, because they thwart the main Design. Fourthly, some parts of Socinianism are instilled into the people, that they might be made a mere prey to their Courts in times of Peace, and to their army in times of war. M ^r . Webberly, for instance, may be so far irrational as to be of the Council of war, which no strict Socinian would allow; but then M ^r . Webberly would teach the people that they must not defend their possessions against invading enemies, by force of Arms, because God hath not given his people any earthly possessions by Covenant under the Gospel, as he did under the Law. Surely they have heard of Julian who boxed the Christians on one ear, and bid them turn the other ear that they might be boxed on both sides in obedience to their Masters command.

CHAP. V. Shewes that the famous Atheists (Anabaptists and Sectaries) so much complained of, have been raised, or encouraged by the doctrines and practices of the Arminian, Socinian, and Popish party.

THere hath been a great complaint of late that men are turned Atheists, and surely not without cause, but let us sadly inquire into the reason. The Socinians do deny Christ to be God to the glory of God the Father, as they use to say, and I believe God the Father hath taken it so unkindly at their hands, that he hath given them over to that cursed Atheism which reigns in the heart of every man by nature, and is much strengthened by the profane wits of this latter age. I remember a story of reverend Amphilochius who had been an importunate suitor to Theodosius the Emperor, that the Arians might not vent their blasphemies so freely against the Son of God, because he was as God, equal to his Father; but he could not obtain his request; at last the good old man pitched upon this course, he comes to the palace of Theodosius the great, and salutes the Emperor with all due acknowledgements and accustomed reverence, but as for Arcadius the son of Theodosius, who was created Co-emperor with his Father, Amphilochius passed him by without any respect or reverence at all, & at last very familiarly strokes the young Emperor upon the head, as if it had been some ordinary boy, and cried, God save thee good child; At which the Emperor was extremely enraged, and commanded them to turn Amphilochius out of doors: but this reverend man replied, I beseech your Majesty to consider that if you are so much incensed against them who do not honor your Son as they honor yourself, what will God the Father think of them who deny equal honor to Jesus Christ his Son, who is equal to his Father in nature and power? The Emperor who was wavering before, was much confirmed in his faith, by this seasonable Admonition, and presently forbad the Arians to dispute anymore against the Godhead of Christ. You may read the story at large in Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History. Now can we imagine that God the Father should take it less unkindly at the hands of the Socinians and all who admire their acute blasphemies, that they deny Jesus Christ to be God? and what punishment is fitter for such blasphemers, then that, Rom. 1. Professing themselves wise, they should become fools, and denying the Godhead of Christ, and the holy Ghost, they should be given over, not only to deny the power of godliness, but to deny that there is any God at all, because they did not like to retain the knowledge of God?

1. The Scriptures do clearly show that God the Father is no more God then Jesus Christ; But (say the Socinians) Jesus Christ is not God. Who sees not what conclusion will follow? ergo, if they said true, there would be no God at all.

2. The Socinians do not worship the same God with the Protestants; for we worship the Trinity in unity, that is, all the three Persons as one God, they say it is repugnant to common sense, to hold that the three Persons are one and the same God, and therefore they may when they please leave it to common sense to determine whether there be any God at all.

3. The Socinians proceed in a destructive way; now destroy all Religion, and Atheism will be embraced instead of Religion. Mr. Chillingworth hath cleared that point sufficiently, that Popery leads men to flat Atheism: and it is plain and evident that if Papists must believe neither more or less then the Pope thinks fit, the Pope may lead them all into Atheism when he pleases. And how pleasing Atheism hath been to some Popes, I need not stand to declare, the Papists themselves have spoke plain enough. The Papists have extolled the Pope above all that is called God, and therefore the dullest Papist that can but see that the Pope is not God, will be ready to question whether there be any God at all. If the Pope have more Authority then God, then the conclusion will be easy: but according to the Romanists the Pope hath more Authority then God, for the Church is above the Scripture, the Pope above the Church, he is the head of it: Let Papists though our enemies, frame the conclusion, They who maintain the Popes infallibility, and yet cannot but see how he takes upon him to correct God's own Institutions, will conclude that it is possible for God to be deceived, and then I am sure he is no God: and whether the Pope be God, let the Papists judge.

What practices there have been by the Popish party for the promoting of the Socinian heresies, I could show at large if it were not too manifest to be proved. Faustus Socinus writ a most pestilent book de SS. Scriptura Authoritate, and this book he did privately send about in writing to his friends; Dominicus Lopez a Jesuit it seems was a great friend of his, and the book coming to his hand he thought fit to publish it for the common good. I need say nothing of Petavius his notes in Epiphan. Haeres. 69. Cardinal Perron his reply to King James, lib. 3. his book of the Eucharist. lib. 2. cap. 7. Mr. Fisher, or Mr. Floyd. How easily the Racovian and Roman Antichrists would be reconciled, at least so far as to join against the Calvinists, is evident to any understanding man. And Mr. Webberly in the Appendix or sixth Book of his Translation, shows that the two great Articles which offend the Romanists and Racovians are, 1. The total exclusion of all kind of good works from justifying a man before God: and 2. The total negation of man's Freewill in doing good. They are enemies to the grace of God, in justifying sinners freely by faith alone in Christ, and to the powerful and efctuall grace of God in converting and sanctifying our souls.

This is the grand quarrel, the Socinians deny Christ to be God, that so they may deny that the blood of Christ did fully satisfy for our sins: these errors strike directly at the Covenant of Grace, which is the foundation of all our comfort, and if once we undermine the foundation, and reject the principles of Christianity, it is then an easy matter to be an Atheist: for if the Protestant religion be deserted, there is nothing in any other religion to keep a man back from being an Atheist; for Popery, to speak strictly, is Antichristianism, and I have said enough of Socinianism; Judaism, and Turkism, are too near of kin to Socinianism: let any man that doubts of this truth, read Doctor Calovius his Decas Dissertationum, Vedelius de Deo Synagogae, and he may receive satisfaction without reading others. And for the Arminian Atheism, I refer you to Vedelius his book, de Arcanis Arminian. Anabaptists are justly complained of, but from whence did they suck their poison (I mean the Anabaptists of the last edition, (the men so much complained of) but from the Arminians, Socinians and Papists? from the Arminians they received their doctrine about the Fall and Free-will of man; are they not pure Armininians in that great point of Predestination? they oppose the Reformed Churches in their doctrine about original sin, the Socinians have taught them to deny that Infants are conceived and born in sin, and this is the true reason why they deny Baptism to infants, though I know they urge many other reasons to color the business: no man need to wonder that Baptism of Infants is neglected by all those who deny original sin, Pelagius of old, about the year 420. said that it was a vain thing to imagine, that the sins of infants were washed away by Baptism, because they have no sin at all, and therefore Heaven was set open to them. The Anabaptists in the conference at Franckendale, maintained that Infants were born without original sin, nay without the least spot of sin, and therefore there was no need of their being washed in the Laver of Regeneration. The Socinians tell us that Original sin is a mere fable, a fancy. They that can go no farther then English, may read a book of Free-will, Predestination, the first transgression; subscribed in the Epistle or Preface after this manner, Your brethren the Anabaptists falsely so called.

But I believe the reason why the Anabaptists are complained of at this time, is because they are disobedient to Magistrates; for it is commonly said that they have lately taken up Arms in rebellion against the King. I must confess I have wondered often when I have heard of this daily complaint, because I know that an Anabaptist doth not think it lawful to be a Cutler, he thinks no sword ought to be made, because he conceives it unlawful to use a sword. It is well known that the Anabaptists go to Sea without any Ordnance in their ships, that they travail without any sword by their side: But if there be any fighting Anabaptist in these days, I suppose the English Socinians have taught the English Anabaptists to deny those principles in practice, which they maintain in dispute. Who are so active in all Counsels of war at Oxford, as men that are shrewdly suspected for Socinianism? If they deny this truth, their letters which are daily intercepted will testify to their faces that they are not true to their own principles. Yet I commend the Chaplains for their Design, they would fain seise upon men's goods without force or violence, and therefore they tell the people that they ought not now under the Gospel to fight for the defense of their goods; and if they could persuade the people to be Anabaptists in this point, then these Reverend Troopers and meek men of war, might seise upon all the people's goods, without force of Arms, and so be as true to their Racovian principles, as the Racovians themselves, they might rob without weapons, a whole parish might be plundered by one Sermon as well as by two troops, if the people were but thoroughly instructed in (or as we say, beaten to) this Conscientious slavery. All the spoil of a whole town would lie no heavier upon the conscience of one of these Chaplains, then a rear egg upon his stomach, for they are not ashamed to affirm that God hath not given his people any earthly goods or possessions under the Gospel, and therefore plundering is not robbing, they do but take that from men which God never gave them Mr. Webberly in the third chapter of his Treatise, tells us that God hath not given his people any earthly possessions now under the New Testament, they must not regard earth but look after heaven; this is they say the Court-Divinity; but sure the Rationall Lord's that have such vast possessions should not be much taken with these raptures; if they be, it were good for the Lord's to turn Chaplains or step into a Cloister, and let their own Chaplains be Lord's in their room. How the Court-Chaplains will maintain this Doctrine, and not be as Anti-Monarchical as the very Anabaptists, I profess I know not, they might have done well to have excepted the Crown-lands; They were wont to preach at the Court, that the Subjects have nothing of their own, but by this doctrine they will leave the King nothing of his own; sure they mean to have all to themselves. They must say that our King lives under the New Testament, they will grant him to be a Christian, and therefore he must not regard earthly possessions, &c. The King may perceive by this, what good friends he hath at Court. Nor do they stick to question the Authority as well as the possessions or Revenues of Kings. The Anabaptists as disobedient to a Parliament as to a King; any person or Court which hath power to fine or imprison, is by them denied to be a godly person or a Christian court. It was one of the Seditious laws enacted by that lawless faction at Munster, Magistratibus ac Principibus nullus subjiciatur. The Socinians and Arminians think themselves as lawless. The Arminians say that they can willingly bear with one that conceives it unlawful for a Magistrate to punish any Delinquent with capital punishment, though he do not embrace this opinion out of tenderness of conscience, but only because he hath been trained up in it from his youth. You see the Arminians give fair quarter to the Papists and Socinians; if any man hath been nursed up in this opinion they will bear with him though his conscience be not tender. They excuse Socinus in the same Chapter, and say that many honest men were of this opinion before Socinus was born. The Arminians and Socinians make a King of clouts, and put a wooden or painted sword into his hand to affright children, for they say that he must not draw blood, no not in a legal way, for capital offenses. The Arminians foresaw this consequence, and are content to let it pass, they will not alter the confession of their faith to avoid this inconvenience. In the confession of our faith say they we use none but this general expression, the power of the sword, and forbear to mention any capital punishment, because say they we do not require all that embrace our confession to maintain that Magistrates have power to inflict capital punishments: whereby it appears that they do plainly equivocate even in the confession of their faith, or rather the declaration of their opinion. Non fidei nostrae confessionem, sed sententiae declarationem exhibemus, they use general and slippery terms and teach all their Sectaries (the Socinians and Anabaptists need no teaching) how to slip their necks out of so wide and loose a collar. Reverend Junius shows that the Arminians teach their Sectaries to blot the name of any Prince or Magistrate out of the number of Christians and make him an Infidel, if he punish the greatest offenders with death in a legal way. Do any Reformed Divines maintain this seditious tenent which will certainly ruin any State where it is generally received? Did Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, ever preach such doctrine? nay did they not constantly oppose the Anabaptists in this very point? Nay was not the faction of Anabaptists raised by the Devil and fomented by Rome, on purpose to hinder the Reformation begun by those worthy Reformers? read that great Counselor Conradus Heresbachius his Epistle to Erasmus, and there you will see the Devil raised them up in opposition to the Reformers. I know one of late preached valiantly against blessed Luther, and said that Luther's book de libertate Christiana gave the first occasion to the giddy Anabaptists to be so extra vagant; Lambertus Hortensius indeed hath a touch upon it, but he adds withal, that though Thomas Muntzer was well read in that book of Luther, yet being an illiterate man he did not well understand, or else did wrest that book to his purpose; now if the book was not well understood, and worse interpreted, sure the Interpreter was in fault, for if he had no learning he might have had some ingenuity, or at least humility, and left the book to more learned Readers, or candid expositors. Thomas Muntzerus Saxo erat homo ut accepi illiteratus, sed ut apparebat, in hoc libello egregie exercita • us, & scripti interpres parum Candidus, We must distinguish between the first tumults of Anabaptistical men, and Deliberate Anabaptism. The first tumults were raised above an hundred years since, by illiterate dreamers, such as Nicholas Stork, Thomas Muncer, Phifer Ringus and the rest; yet Muncer at that time laid a fair foundation for Servetus, Socinus and the rest to build upon; for he denied the satisfaction of Christ; and what Doctrine is Fundamental if the satisfaction of Christ be not? the Socinians make it their grand design to persuade men that Jesus Christ hath not truly and properly satisfied for our sins. The Heresy of the Anabaptists was not backed with any strength of Argument, nor methodically digested till Servetus and Socinus set to work, I must then look upon Servetus and Socinus as the main pillars of Deliberate and Refined Anabaptism. Luther must be excused, for he was not guilty at all, it was an occasion snatched and not given, snatched by Muncer, not given by Luther, when the Anabaptists urged Luther's authority; for Luther did utterly disavow any such sense, as they put upon his book, nay he abhorred their Design and opposed their faction even at their very first rise. When Muncer was stepped aside to Melhusium, Luther wrote against him to the Senate and desired them to beware of the woolf in a Sheeps. skin; this was very early, in the year 1524. and upon the Lord's day as Bullinger assures me. In the year 1525. and the sixth of Novemb. the Anabaptists were so confident of their own strength, that they challenged any Reformed Minister to dispute with them; but when they were ready to dispute, one of the Anabaptists cried out, Zion Zion, rejoice O Jerusalem, they were presently in such a tumult that they were forced to remove to another place; yet the Senate, Zwingli and other learned men were so patient as to argue with them three days together, and when the Anabaptists saw themselves confuted by the evident demonstrations which Zwingli produced out of the word of God, one of them had a design beyond all the rest, he said Zwingli was a learned man and could prove anything, but saith he, O Zwingli I adjure thee by the living God to speak thy conscience, and tell the truth. I will quoth Zwingli, thou art a seditious clown, since milder answers will not serve the turn, I speak plain and home. Upon the 15. day of November, 1525. the Senate made a decree against the Anabaptists, and declared that Zwingli had convinced them, clearly confuted the Anabaptists, and therefore they would proceed severely against all Anabaptists. Now about this time Servetus the great Grand-father of Faustus Socinus, as hath been shown, began to perk up, for Servetus was put to death in the year 1553. because he had been a blasphemer for thirty years together; so it seems he began to vent his blasphemies as soon as Thomas Muncer himself, about the year 1523. Theodorus Strackius (being to set forth the History of the Anabaptists) slides on a sudden into a long story of Servetus that monster of Men, and enemy of God, nay (as he saith) of the whole true Godhead in the sacred Trinity; this Servetus that he might show his good inclination towards the fanatical sects of these times (saith Strackius) hath endeavored to make the Baptism of Infants not neglected only, but abominated; I dare not mention his other blasphemies, at which I think the very Devils tremble. There are so many several sects, both of Socinians and Anabaptists, who have run away with their mouths full of Anabaptistical and Socinian blasphemies, that we must let them all pass for Sectaries of Servetus and Socinus, though some of them are far more dangerous then others. The Anabaptists maintain some opinions which are as welcome to the Papists and Jesuited party in England, as other parts are to the Socinians; the Anabaptists did dream at first of an unwritten Word, and a very subtle one too, such as the Pope and Jesuits dream of, and such visions and Revelations as the Priests boast of. The Design of the Anabaptists pleased the Papists well, because they endeavored to root out Protestant Princes and Ministers, the Papists knew full well that no Church or State could stand without Magistrates and Ministers. There is one Johannes Angelius who commends Servetus and saith he spake nothing but what David George and such like Saints have delivered; this Jesuited Politician you see hath praises to spare for Servetus, one of the most abominable horrible Anabaptists of all others, as reverend Bullinger observes lib. 2. contra Anabaptistas. cap. 12. because there are 12. or 13. sects of Anabaptists in his account, and Servetus was one of the worst sort; but he saith David George went far beyond even Servetus himself. The truth is, these two were guilty of sublimed Anabaptism, deadly Socinianism, though David George differed from Soci • us in a point or two. Now what good friends the Jesuits are to the Socinians hath been already shown, what Patrons the Arminians are of Anabaptism the Professors of Leyden declare. This being premitted, let us sadly inquire whether our late writers do incline to the Anabaptists and Socinians in the great point about the Authority of Princes and Magistrates; For I know it is commonly said that though the first Reformers did oppose the Anabaptists in this point, yet the men that seem to be most zealous for a Reformation in these unhappy days, are arrant Anabaptists in this point.

We live in an angry time, and men will speak passionately when they are provoked, and vexed, I will not therefore take upon me to justify the angry expressions of the most judicious writer, much less can I ever mention those bastard-Pamphlets without indignation, which spring from a Licentious and prostituted Press. Let us single out some that have lately studied this weighty controversy, and it may be it will appear that they who are said to write against the King have settled & established his lawful Authority upon surer grounds and better principles then those very men who pretend to write for the King. Every man is now accounted an Anabaptist if he do not maintain Monarchy to be Iure Divino; hear then what Dr. Ferne saith. We confess that neither Monarchy, nor Aristocracy, or any other form is Iure Divino. Nay he saith that that Power or sufficiency of Authority to govern which is the ordinance of God, is to be found not only in Monarchy, but in Aristocracy, Sect. 3. Moreover if we consider the qualification of this governing power, and the manner ofexecuting it even according to Monarchical government. D ^r . Ferne grants that it is the Invention of man, and hath not so much as God's Permissive approbation till that qualification or Form is orderly agreed upon by Men; in the self same Sec. Be pleased now to hear Mr. Burroughs: However Princes may be exasperated against Puritanical Preachers (sai M. Burroughs) yet they are as much beholding to them as to any people in their kingdoms for bringing people out of conscience to obey Authority; You see here the people are pressed to obey the lawful Authority of the King out of Conscience by such as are counted Puritanical Preachers. In the answer to the observations printed at Oxford by his Majesty's command, I find that Monarchy is not much younger then man himself— that Regal Power sprang first from Paternall, a Regal power belonged to the Paterfamilias, pag. 3. as if he meant only to conclude the subjection of the Kings children and family: the Patriarchs were Patres Patriae without a Metaphor, they begat their own Subjects. But how came divers families to be subjected to one King or common Father? why, reason (saith he) did direct the people to choose one common Father. p. 6. Monarchy then is grounded upon the people's Reason, and yet quite throughout his book he talks as if the people had no Reason, for he tells them that there may be reasonable motives why a people should consent to slavery, as the Turks and French peasants have done: he teaches them how to perish with a great deal of discretion, or else how to be safe by the benefit of slavery. p. 10, 11. The Observatour saith that Regal dignity was erected to preserve the Commonalty; It was so, saith the Answerer, p. 8. and when Routs became Societies they placed an head over them to whom they paid the Tribute of Reverence for the benefit of Protection: What if the people be not, protected must they pay no tribute? God send his Majesty better Protectours then this Champion. Dr. Fern discourses just as wisely when he propounds David's rewarding of false Ziba as a pattern to our King, he would persuade the King to trust Papists as false as Ziba to seise upon the estates of his good Subjects; and bestow their estates upon arrant Ziba's, men that abuse his Majesty and seek their own ends, & when the innocence of the Subject and treachery of these Ziba's, Papists or Pickthankes is discovered, yet the King must not reverse his sentence pronounced in favor of the Papists though to the ruin of good Subjects and their posterity, all this Divinity is closely involved by this conscientious Doctor, in the 7. Section. How far the Divines of this time differ from the doctrine of Papists is clearly shown by Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Bridge, and therefore it is strange the Papists should be counted the better Subjects. Mr. Burroughs doth acknowledge the Kings Supremacy, The King (saith he) is Supreme but not Absolute, because his Authority is limited both by the Law of God and of the Land. For we may and ought (saith Doctor Ferne) to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawful by the Law of God, yea by the established laws of the Land; for in these we have his will and consent given upon good advice, and to obey him against the laws, were to obey him against himself, his sudden will against his deliberate will, Sect. 1. For instance, it is the Kings deliberate will that this Parliament shall not be dissolved, or any forces levied without consent of both houses of Parliament, as appears by two several Acts made this Parliament. If then any take up arms either without consent of Parliament, or on purpose to dissolve this present Parliament, they do certainly take up arms against the King himself, (as Dr. Ferne says) because against the deliberate will of the King. If any Commissions then should be issued out in the Kings name to any persons to encourage them to take up Arms without the consent of the Parliament, or against the Parliament, such Commissions must be interpreted to proceed from the Kings sudden will, which is not to be obeyed, saith Dr. Ferne, against the Kings Deliberate Will. They are not the Kings friends who advise him to send forth any Illegallcommands.

There is another answer to Dr. Ferne intitled a fuller answer, in which there is much Law and Logic (viz that in a Mixt Monarchy there is a Coordinate Supremacy, and Coordinata invicem supplent) and a great many things which the common people understand not. This Respondent saith (as Dr. Fern doth) that Monarchy is not God's ordinance, but then he tells the people their duty in plain English, namely, that it is God's ordinance that men should submit without Resistance, to that kind of government which they have by consent established, and therefore they must submit to this Coordinate Supremacy, though it be the Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, as Saint Peter saith. pag. 17. Here is Submission out of Conscience for the Lord's sake, to all Legal Supremacy; what can be desired more, unless they would make the King an Absolute Monarch? (and so give him an absolute Supremacy) which the King himself doth utterly disclaim in his answer to the 19. Propositions.

The zealous Divines of this very time do abhor the seditious practices and opinions of all Anabaptists, who because the Church had not Christian Kings at first, cry out with open mouth that the Church cannot be safe if there be any King or Magistrate in the Church; nay they add that if a King turn Christian he must cease to be a King, because Christianity it self is repugnant to Magistracy, and no Magistrate ought to look after anything that concerns Religion. They maintain that Christians ought not to have any Judicial trials before Magistrates, that no Christians ought to punish offenders with death or imprisonment, but with Excommunication only. They would not have Heretics punished by the Magistrate, but every man should be left to his liberty to believe what he thinks fit, just as the Arminians and Socinians dream. I would Kings and Princes did seriously consider that the Arminians have taught Heretics to rebel against any Prince or Magistrate who goes about to inflict punishment upon them in a legal way; for, say they, if the Magistrate goes about to punish an Heretike because he thinks the Heretike in an error, the Heretics may all join together and rise up in arms against the Magistrate because they conceive the Magistrate to be in an error; for the Heretics have as much power to kill the Magistrate, as the Magistrate hath to execute such seditious Heretics, Par omnium in omnes jus est, is not that pure Anabaptism in the highest? Nay they add farther, that though the Heretics be seditious, Reipub. Turbones, if they be Apostates, if they turn Jews and blaspheme Christ, yet they would not have them punished by the Magistrates: these Arminian, Socinian, Anabaptistical errors are justly abhorred by the Divines of this very time. There is at this very day a great talk of Tubbe-Preachers; if there be any such, the Arminians and Socinians must defend them as long as they keep in private, but if they preach false doctrine publicly, then indeed the Arminians would have them grievously punished, the Magistrate may if it be needful (say they) make a whip of Cords and drive them out of the Temple, as our Savior did the Hucksters: Thus they abuse our Savior and the Magistrate both in a breath, they will not allow the Magistrate to do anymore. They do not think it necessary that Ministers should expect a Mission in the first constituting of a Church, for then there can be no order, for order is not yet begun, nor must Ministers expect a Mission when a Church is to be reformed, for then they say all order is quite fallen to the ground, and therefore the Word may be lawfully preached by them that are not sent, so the Arminians (Exam. Cens. cap. 21. pag. 228.) state the point. You see if there be any Tubbe-preachers, now our Church is but Reforming, they do punctually observe the Arminians grave instructions. The Arminians allow a liberty of Prophecying, if any man shall persuade himself that he hath received some spiritual interpretations of the Word by the inspiration, suggestion, assistance of the holy Ghost, and any Magistrate shall imprison this man, because the interpretation is contrary to the Spirit of the Reformed Divines, the Magistrate doth imprison the spirit and quench the spirit, and the Church of Rome may as well emprison any Protestant because he brings an interpretation contrary to the Spirit of their Church, which is as the Papists conceive infallibly guided by the Spirit. Here'snothing but Qui sibi persuadet, a strong persuasion required to bear out this Enthysiast, though he seems to the Reformed Divines to preach nothing but his own brain-sick fancies, nay phrensies, Sed hoc ipsum est Spiritum extinguere, authoritatem sibi arrogare, Spiritum qui cum Spiritu nostro (by our Spirit they mean the Spirit which enlightens the Reformed Divines) non convenit, pro insanâ & corrupta mente, libidine contendendi, adeo{que} mali spiritus suggestione, censendi, eo{que} nomine vi armata eum opprimendi—Colloca teipsum coram tribunali Pontificio, Reformationem dogmatum, & Articulorum variorum urgentem & orantem ne spiritum tuum quem divinum esse credis extinguat; quid respondebis si tibi reponat verba tua, an spiritus est quod cui{que} insana & corrupta men's, contendendi libido, adeo{que} malus spiritus suggerit? Exam. Cens. cap. 24. pag. 276. Unless we have that infallible Spirit which the Apostles had to discern spirits, the Arminians tell us we must allow men liberty to prophesy contrary to the Spirit of the Reformed Doctors, or else our censure of these Enthysiasts will be doubtful, uncertain. Finally (for I am weary of this subject) they will admit Anabaptists to be true and lawful Pastors of Christ. cap. 23. Exam. Cens. de Baptismo. pag. 248. in fine. Sure this is liberty enough, the Socinians need not desire more, the Arminians and Socinians then must patronize these Tubbe-preachers.

In the next place there is a complaint of Brownists, to which complaint I shall answer briefly, and yet fully.

First, they are to be blamed who gave the first occasion of this Rent: I know between 40. and 50. years ago, there were some followers of Brown, but in the latter end of King James his reign, the number of Brownists properly so called was much decreased, and it was a rare thing to meet with a Brownist; but when Bishop Land began to sit at stern, (and so he did a while even in Arch-Bishop Abbot his time) then the number of Brownists began to increase; the reason was, because ceremonies began to be urged upon the conscience with so much earnestness as if they had been necessary to salvation: and about 6. or 7. years since when the Arch-Bishop was in his ruffe, and his Priests began to surrogate it, preaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and consequently worshipping God in vain, Math. 15. 9. men of tender consciences (and those no weak ones neither) began to fear, that they should transgress the Commandments of God, by observing Traditions, Math. 15. 3. and conceived it vain, to join with them in worship, who worshipped God in vain.

Many were prevailed with by this reason, but there were some of a moderate temper, who if they might have the liberty of their conscience, and not be forced to the use of any Ceremonies, would, and did, communicate even in Parish-Churches: But the Archbishop of Canterbury began to lay on greater burdens; Crucifixes must be set up at the East-end, that was too plain; next, the Communion-Table, to color the Design, or, at least, to add varnish to it, must be advanced into an Altar, & men must by a Tacit consent, (as we were informed at the Visitation of Merton College) expressesome outward reverence, by bowing towards the East, the Altar, the Crucifix, choose which you please, all if you will; but in no case must we be commanded to bow, & yet we must be censured as disobedient, if we refuse to bow. This was interpreted by Rationall men an asking of our consent to bring in Popery: It was now high time to make Protestations that we would neither bow to East, nor Hoast, nor Altar, for if we held our peace we knew not what might come by Tacite consent. We were sure that our actions would speak aloud, and how tacit soever our consent was, it would be known to God & our conscience. I will not take this fair Hint to tun into a long story of what censures were passed upon myself or others, for our Protestation against this superstitious Innovation, but sure I am that by degrees there were so many Innovations both in point of Doctrine, and external worship, that the Papists themselves thought those of greatest worth, learning and Authority in England, knew not well what Religion to be of, or where to fasten. The Jesuit who wrote the directions to N. N. which Mr. Chillingworth endeavors to answer, began to triumph in our complyances with Rome. Hark what he saith.

Mr. Chillingworth is so vain as to call this painting of Churches the Beauty of Holiness, Sect. 22. But to proceed, If the guides of the Church would not endure so much as a Nominall Inconformity with Rome, if they and their Adherents looked so like, and preached so like them, that the Papists themselves took them for Roman Catholics; no marvel if the poor people cried out that England was turned Babylon, and began to separate; for that is very observable which Judicious Hooker delivers in his Ecclesiastical Politie. The people (saith he) are not accustomed to trouble their wits with nice and subtle differences in the exercises of Religion—and (saith he) in actions of this kind, (he speaks of adoration of the Cross, it may well be applied to adoration towards the East, host, altar, Crucifix) we are more to respect what the greatest part of men is commonly prone to conceive, then what some few men's wits may devise in construction of their own particular meanings. They then are to be blamed who invented a few cogging distinctions to juggle with God and their conscience, and thought to salve up all with some curious subtleties which the people understood not. If they that should be lights of the Church gave no better light then an Ignis fatuns, which doth seduce them into bogges and ditches, if they puzzeld the people and gave them good cause to doubt whether it was safe to communicate or no, must the people communicate when they are perplexed with such doubts that they cannot communicate in faith? He that doubts is damned if he eat, Rom. 14. 23. The poor people could not be resolved, and durst not be damned; sure the Archbishop was rather Schismaticall, in imposing such burdens upon tender Communicants, then the people in separating from external Communion. Let M ^r . Chillingworth be Judge, sure he is no Brownist; In this case the Church for requiring this Condition is Schismaticall, and not I for s • parating from the Church.

Secondly, all Separatists are not Brownists; it is evident from this very place of M ^r . Chillingworth; for a man may have just cause to separate from the external Communion of a Church, though he think that there are all things necessary to salvation in that Church. But no Brownist doth conceive that there are all things necessary to salvation in any of our Parish Churches. They deny that there is any true Church or Ministers of God to be found in any Parish of England; or that all the Parishes taken collectively can make one Church of God; they say our Congregations and Ministers are limbs of Antichrist, Babylonians, Idolaters; this Doctrine I have ever preached against, (I preached against it even at Westminster, where they say there are so many Brownists) and resolve to preach against it still.

3. There are some reverend and learned Ministers in this Kingdom, who are commonly called the Independent Ministers, and these are all put down for Brownists, if not Anabaptists, in the Oxford Catalogue, though the Arminians have no reason to censure any that go from a Congregation that is less pure, to one that is more pure. I will therefore briefly show that these Ministers are neither Anabaptists nor Brownists. They will not say the Magistrate is an Head of the Church, but they say that Every Christian Magistrate is an Head in the Church, which no Anabaptist will say. They say that the Prelates do not hold from the Head, as all Officers of the Church should do, Ephes. 4. 15, 16. and yet they acknowledge that it is possible for a Prelate, and the Diocese under him to hold the Head, as the phrase is, Colos. 2. 19. and this no Anabaptist or Brownist will acknowledge. They will communicate even in a Parish-assembly, where the Minister and people generally desire and labor by all lawful means to procure a Reformation. They protest against Brownism, as a bitter error, and full of cruelty; what can be desired more, to clear them from being Brownists or Anabaptists? I heard the same man preach since with much fervency and earnestness of spirit against the Brownists for this their error, and among other inconveniencies which arise therefrom, he mentioned this, that upon the same ground and reason for which they chiefly make the Churches in England no true Churches, nor the Ministers thereof, true Ministers, they must make all those in Scotland, France, and other Reformed Churches, (whom yet they seem to acknowledge) to be no true Churches; and so no true Churches to have been in Europe since the Reformation but themselves, which were a horrid opinion to enter into a man's heart.

4. Brownists do not, that ever I could learn, differ from Protestants, concerning Civil government, and therefore I do not know why men should cry out, that Brownists are greater enemies to the State then Papists themselves: We have not yet forgot the Powder-treason, and we do still groan under the Irish Rebellion.

5. If the Brownists be as bad as the Donatists of old, if they conceive that there is no true Church but in parte Brownistarum, as they conceived there was none but in parte Donati: if they should deny the Catholic Church (which they do not) and refuse to Communicate with any of the Reformed Churches, or with any Independent Congregation, because they will not communicate with any who are ready to embrace communion with any Parish Church, let their error, schism, pride, uncharitableness, cruelty, and bitterness be aggravated to the highest, yet the Papists have no reason to complain of them; for Papists deny the Catholic Church as directly as the Brownists can be thought to do, they confine it to their own party; the Socinians and Arminians may hold their peace for shame, for they both tell us, that it is possible that Christ may have no Church at all, neither in this part nor that, he may be an Head without a Body, an Husband without a Spouse, a King without Subjects, as hath been shown above, pag. 49. The Socinians say that there is not as yet any triumphant Church above, nor is it necessary there should be any militant Church here below. It was no error in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church might be contracted from a larger extent to a lesser, (as M ^r . Chillingworth observes) but their error was that they held it done de Facto, when they had no just ground or reason to do so; chap. 3. p. 162. But the Author of the Tract concerning Schism doth quite outleape M ^r . Chillingworth. It is (saith he) a thing indifferent, the Church may be in any number more or less, it may be in any place, Country or Nation, it may be in all, and for ought I know it may be in none, pag. 7. Sure the Brownist is more moderate, he saith there must be a Church.

6. But the great quarrel with the Brownist is, that he would have the Common-prayer Book taken away; To which I answer in a word, that they are not all Brownists who desire to have that Law abrogated, by which the Common-prayer Book is established; M ^r . Chillingworth desires that there might be this trial made between us and the Papists, That there might be some Form of Worshipping God propounded which is wholly taken out of the Scripture; and herein saith he to the Papists, if we refuse to join with you, then, and not till then, may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion. Answer to the Preface. Sect. 23. May not some that are not Brownists say the same to us, we keep our distance from you, merely because your Form of worshipping God is not taken wholly out of Scripture, though for the present then we join not with you, yet do not say (till that be done) that we do utterly and absolutely abandon your Communion. The Author of the Tract of Schism would have such a Form of service, as Donatists, Arians, Papists, all that call themselves Christians, might join in; p 9, 10. You see he dislikes the Commonprayer Book, and sure dislikes the best part of it, the Creeds, he is far worse then a Brownist. Be pleased to observe that Liturgies were first composed to expel Socinianism, and now this Author would have a Liturgy composed to let in Arianism, or at least to humor the Arians, and sooth them up in their Heresy, as if the Articles of our Creed were but private fancies, and it concerned us more to please Heretics, then preserve our Creed. But there is a learned man of a more moderate opinion, and sounder judgment then either of the former, though they be both very learned men, it is D ^r . Featley, be pleased to hear him speak. There is nothing (saith he) in the Protestant Liturgy or Service which the Romanists do, or by their own Rules can except at; The Confession, form of Absolution, Prayers, Hymns, Collects, &c. are either such as the Papists themselves use, or at least such as they dislike not; in his Annotations on Vertumnus Romanus, p. 16, 17. Now this is the very reason the Papists brag so much, and why some that are not Brownists take offense at our Liturgy. And this learned Doctor tells us, that all who love the truth in sincerity, should with bended knees humbly desire that his Majesty, and the high Court of Parliament, would make some more certain distinctive sign between Papists and Protestants, then monthly coming to Church, and taking the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. Now how this present Liturgy which the Papists like so well, can make any such distinction, let the prudent judge. I intend not to run out into the large question, about the necessity or Antiquity of Liturgies; but let men that are so violent in this point consider;

1. How corrupt those Liturgies are which are voted for ancient. 2. How much Bishop Hall is forced to grant, when this question was agitated between him and the Smectymn • ans. 3. To pass by what is said about the lawfulness of a Set-form, let them consider what Arguments are produced against the Imposition of a Set-form. 4. If it were granted that a Set-form may be imposed, yet those many cartloads of Arguments which are produced against this Setforme are considerable. 5. It is confessed, that a Minister should be able to pray as well as preach, and should give and even devote himself to prayer, he should meditate and study how to pray. 6. It is granted on all sides that we ought to pray according to the occasion, and how we should foresee all the wants and straits of a Church, and compose a Set-form for them beforehand, it concerns them to declare. When K. James was to advise Prince Henry how to pray, he did not think it sufficient to leave him to the Church-Liturgy, or to any prayers composed by man; the only Rule of Prayer, saith he, is the Lord's Prayer: he advised him to study the Psalms of David, because they being composed by a King, he might collect prayers out of them most suitable to his wants, and so he should be enabled to pray according to the occasion; he dissuaded him from following the common ignorant sort, that prays nothing but out of books, for that would breed an uncouth coldness in him towards God: he bids him take heed that he be not over-homely in his expressions, for that would breed a contempt of God: nay he counsels him farther, to pray as his heart moves him, pro re natâ, Read his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , pag 151. 152. Let these things be well weighed and considered, and then our fierce men will not term every man a Brownist, who desires to have that Law abrogated by which this Common Prayer book is established and enjoined. I need not add what the Arminians and Socinians think of Liturgies, only observe, that though the Arminians beyond Sea were prevailed with to write something for the Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, &c. in England yet they write but faintly, Exam. Censurae. cap. 21. and they could not be prevailed with to write a word in defense of our Liturgy, they will not admit, no not of the most received Creeds; there is (they say) too much majesty in them, they call the Preface to Athanasius his Creed, Whosoever will be saved must hold, &c. a proud Preface, for this is (say they) to give divine Authority to human Forms, and into the assembly of such bold men let not our soul ever enter: you see what they think of human Forms. Exam. Censurae Praef. pag. 6. 7. and lastly, the Brownists had been in the right if the Archbishop of Canterbury could have compassed his Design, for his project was to root out all that would not comply, which if he had effected, he had made good the Brownists opinion for them, for then there would have been no true Church of God in England indeed; not a true governing Church, for his government would have been tyranicall, not a true practicing Church, the practices of his Grace and his adherents are sufficiently known: nor a true teaching Church, as shall evidently be demonstrated in the next Chapter.

CHAP. VI. The Religion so violently contended for by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents, is not the true pure Protestant Religion.

I Intend not to transcribe overmuch out of Bishop Montague, Shelford, Pocklington, D ^r . Potter, M ^r . Chillingworth, D ^r . Dowe, D ^r . Heylin, &c. Their Books are commonly sold, and I have given a taste already in the third and fourth Chapters of some of these Authors; ex ungue leonem, as they say; there are a great many passages collected and published already by several men, so that I am forestalled, and by some happily prevented; there is a Book entitled Ladensium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 closely penned, and never answered, in which their Heresies are filled up by dozens, There will come forth a Book very shortly, in which the Design of Reconciling, or rather uniting Rome and Canterbury, (for there was no great quarrel between them) will be more fully discovered; for these reasons I may well shorten my journey. Let any man that desires satisfaction, but peruse those Books which were Printed in England between 1630. and 1639. and compare them with the Harmony of Confessions of the Reformed Churches, and then he may easily judge. M ^r . Chillingworth proves undeniably that the Church of Rome is not Infallible, but to what end and purpose? why, that Rome and Canterbury may shake hands, the Pope may abate something in point of Supremacy, his Primacy being grounded upon his Infallibility; but if the Pope, Cardinals, &c. the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents were united, the people would be unwilling to part with their Mass: why for that if they will but yield thus far, as to turn their Mass into English, the good men are agreed; for M ^r . Chillingworth tells the Papists, that no Godly Lay man (that is, an ignorant Papist that is well conceited of the Mass) who is verily persuaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of their Latin Service shall be damned as he hopes for being present at it; Excellent Divinity! A strong persuasion will turn superstition and impiety into godliness. Yet he saith there is some danger as long as the Service is in Latin, because the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the offices understood might happily beget in them, the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them, may very probably hinder the salvation of many, which otherwise might have been saved; that is, might have been saved if the Service had been in English; this is plain dealing, the men are likely to agree, the Mass in English may beget such devotion, afford such instruction and edification, as is sufficient for salvation. Can the Papists desire fairer quarter, or a foller acknowledgement? Is not this doctrine sufficient to effect an Accommodation between Rome and Canterbury. I dare say all the Papists in England will fight for such a Protestant Religion. M ^r . Chillingworth in his Epistle Dedicatory gives his Majesty to understand, That the Papists allow Protestants as much charity as Protestants allow them; and therefore such Protestants and true Papists will easily be reconciled, or indeed are already reconciled. I cannot stand to reckon up M ^r . Chillingworths principles, consider these that follow.

1. God is not offended with us for not doing what he knows we cannot do. Whiles we are unregenerate God knows we cannot repent and believe; is not God offended with us even then, for our impenitence and unbelief? besides, he conceives that unaffected ignorance joined with Implicite faith and general repentance is not damnable.

2. Mr. Chillingworth is verily persuaded that God will not impute errors to them as sins, who use such a measure of industry in finding truth, as human prudence and ordinary discretion (their abilities, and opportunities, their distractions and hindrances, and all other things considered) shall advise them unto, in a matter of such consequence. Sure God will judge men with more then ordinary discretion, and therefore though we may justify ourselves when our opinions and practices are scanned by human prudence, yet God may justly condemn us for not attending upon him without distraction; Such loose principles as these will nurse men up in security and ignorance, or else betray them to indifferency in religions, to that Arminian Libertinism, which hath been so much admired of late days, and cried up as the only way to maintain peace. For if a man poisoned with this principle be seduced by a Papist, Arminian, Socinian, he need use but ordinary discretion, and therefore take but ordinary care to resist the seducer: Alas his abilities are not great, his distractions not few, and his hindrances many; besides if he have time to consider the Arguments propounded, yet he wants opportunity, and therefore all things considered he had as good yield as stand out, for it is in the eye of human prudence, a matter of no great consequence: for Mr. Chillingworth saith a Papist may be saved, especially if he have the Mass in English, and Socinians are a company of Christians, which though they are erroneous in explicating mysteries and take too great a liberty in Speculative matters, yet they explicate and maintain the Laws of Christ with less indulgence to the flesh then the Papists.

3. Mr. Chillingworth thinks it sufficient to believe all those books of Scripture (to be God's Word) of whose Authority there was never any doubt made in the Church: he cannot in reason believe the other books so undoubtedly as those books which were never questioned, and he hath the example of Saints in heaven to justify or excuse his doubting, nay his denial. Sect. 38. There is no necessity of conforming ourselves to the judgment of any Church concerning the rest that were never questioned, for that also he urges the Authority of some Saints in Heaven; ancient Fathers, whole Churches by their difference about this point, shown that they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgment of any Church. Sect. 34. and yet of this controversy whether such or such books be Canonical, the Church is to judge. Sect. 35. And the Churches testimony is, though no demonstrative Enforcement, yet an highly probable inducement, and so a sufficient ground of faith. What kind of faith this is like to prove, I know not, which is grounded upon a probable testimony, to which no man need to subseribe or conform.

4. It is enough to believe by a kind of Implicite faith, that the Scripture is true in God's own sense and meaning, though you know not what God meant, if you use such industry as ordinary discretion shall advise for the knowing of God's meaning, of which I have said enough already; this may suffice for a taste. Dr. Potter is very charitable to the Papists, because they receive the Apostles Creed, but whether they receive it in the Apostles sense, is the question. Whether Mr. Rouse or Dr. Potter hath answered that subtle book most like a Protestant, let the learned judge. I have said enough of Dr. Potter already, I refer the Reader to Ladens. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

I am even ashamed to repeat what Dr. Pocklington hath printed in his Sermon, Sunday no Sabbath, See the first edition p. 48. 50. We must have an Altar with a Cross upon it, if we will believe Dr. Pocklington, Altare Christianum. cap. 21. pag. 143. We may comply with the Jews in phrase, and other respects. cap. 22. pag. 147. I hope he doth not mean in Caspar Barlaeus his sense, or as the Socinians mean; he hath a vain conceit that the Christian Church of the Jews had Altars. I hope they did not bow all, to, or towards the Altar when they met. Act. 15. We must if we will believe this Dr. agree with the Jews in external Rites & Ceremonies, p. 147. Give me leave to throw away this book; and Dr. Kellet his Tricenium. When the Arch Bishop of Canterbury was to assign what errors in Doctrine might give just cause of separation, he would not adventure to set them down in particular, lest in these times of discord, he might be thought to open a door for Schism; he knew full well that some who were countenanced by him had brought in errors enough, which gáve just cause of separation. Knot the Jesuit spoke plain English to Mr. Chillingworth, when he told him that the Doctrine of the Church of England began to be altered in many things, for which our Progenitours forsook the Roman Church. For example, it is said that the Pope is not Antichrist, Prayer for the dead is allowed, Limbus Patrum, Pictures; it is maintained that the Church hath Authority in determining controversies of faith, and to interpret Scripture, about Free-will, Predestination, universal grace; that all our works are not sins, Merit of good works Inherent Justice, Faith alone doth not justify, Traditions, Commandments possible to be kept. Your thirty nine Articles are patient, nay ambitious of some sense in which they may seem Catholic. Calvinisme is accounted Heresy, and little less then treason. Men in talk use willingly the once fearful names of Priests and Altars. What saith Mr. Chillingworth to this bold charge? Why, some things he excuses, and grants the rest. As for the Popes not being Antichrist, the lawfulness of some kind of prayers for the dead, the Estate of the Fathers souls before Christ's Ascension, Free-will, Predestination, universal grace, the possibility of keeping God's Commandments, and the use of pictures in the Church; these are not things fit to be stood upon, we must not break charity for such matters, these points have been anciently disputed amongst Protestants, if you will believe an Arch-Priest Brearley; and so he leaves that point; here is a fair compass, a long rope for a Papist, Arminian, &c. to dance in. But Mr. Chillingworth saith the Protestants have constantly maintained, and do still maintain, that good works are not properly meritorious, and that faith alone justifies; but either this is false, or else men that are counted Protestants have changed their Religion. Franciscus de Sancta Clara will inform him of the extravagancies of some in these points, who passed for such Protestants as England hath been guilty of entertaining of late years. I have heard it publicly maintained in Oxford by Mr. Wethereld of Queens College, that Bona opera sunt Causae Physicae Vitae Aeternae, he had said before that they were Moral Causes, by that he meant Meritorious, but that expression would not content him. It is well known what Dr. Duncan maintained at Cambridge; what Shelford printed there, what Dr. Dow and Dr. Heylin have since maintained, and to their power justified; you may read their words at large in Ladensium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the fifth Chapter.

The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath given us the reason why the Jesuits refused to come to our Churches, (it seems he had invited them) since they themselves acknowledge that there is no positive error in our Liturgy, and it is briefly this. Because though our Liturgy had in it nothing ill, yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good, and was in their Service. I can now give at least a probable conjecture why his Grace altered the Service-book which he sent into Scotland: why, surely to please the Jesuits, for he put in something which the Jesuits counted good, and so in his apprehension made up the defect.

Mr. Newcomen in his learned Sermon hath shown at large how punctual his Grace was in observing the Jesuits instructions for the alteration of our Religion. How truth hath been sold at a low rate, by the highest Priests, is clearly discovered by Mr. Hill in his accurate Sermon. Revend Dr. Hakewill hath set forth Dr. Heylin to the life, and therefore I will not presume to add anything to his happy observations. The Ministers Remonstrance will give sufficient light to this point, I hope it will be published ere long. There is a Book which passeth from hand to hand as a precious manuscript called Romano-Catholicus Pacificus, in which there are many fair offers made for a Reconciliation between Rome and Canterbury, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall enjoy the Cyprian privilege and be subject to no Patriarch, of which you may read at large in the supplement of the Canterburian self-conviction, a passage well worthy the serious consideration of all Statesmen. I might make my book swell if I should but reckon up the tithe of Bishop Montague his Popish expressions, and therefore I leave men to peruse his writings, there are few points of Popery which you may not find in his books or in his Articles at visitation; It seems our guides were gone so far that the Papists thought they might accept of all Propositions of Accommodation which were tendered to them by our gentle Reconcilers.

Dr. Featley hath excellently discovered what a good opinion the Romanists conceive of some who profess themselves members of the Church of England; Protestants are now counted Heretics no longer, if you will speak properly and strictly, saith that Popish Priest, and therefore sure Protestantisme is waxed weary of it self, as Knot speaks; you may well know what Protestants this Vertumnus means, such as have been cited in this sixth Chapter: Concerning the book called Jesuitica Negotiatio, the Ministers have said enough already. I admire at the impudence of divers men who have thus freely expressed themselves for the encouragement of the Arminian, Socinian and Popish party, and yet are not ashamed to say that they stand for the Protestant religion. I have seen a letter under Mr. Chillingworths own hand in which he doth excite Dr. Sheldon of All-souls, and Dean Potter, &c. to stand in defiance of the Parliament, and advises them to stir up the youth (the young laddes of the University as he calls them) to oppose the Parliament; Now can I or any man believe that Mr. Chillingworth doth intend to maintain Calvinisme, I mean pure Protestant Religion? I appeal to the conscience of* Dr. Sheldon whether he hath not reserved more charity for an Infidel then a Calvinist? he hath expressed himself very slily in his Sermons, and yet plainly enough to intelligent Auditors, but I will take the counsel of his Text, and judge nothing before the time. I remember his observations upon that Text, Good Master what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? it is not, saith he, what shall I believe, as the Calvinists would have it, (or to that effect) but what shall I do? Sure the good Dr. forgot the Jaylours cuestion, What shall I do to be saved? and the Apostles answer, Believe, &c. Is this the Calvinisme he jerkes at? Knot I believe had some ground to say that the infection was so general that it had overspread All Souls. I would there had been no need of such discoveries, but since things are grown to this pass, it is folly to complement, we are compelled to speak Plain English in Sober Sadness. If our faith will be lost except it be kept by a controversy, it is an act both of faith and love for Orthodox men to undertake the controversy.

Dr. Potter doth acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member of the Church universal, and saith the Church of England hath a true and real union still with that Church in Faith and Charity: nay pag. 76. We do not forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome anymore then we forsake the Body of Christ, whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member though corrupted. But it seems in 8. or 9. years Dr. Potter had altered his opinion, for in his Sermon preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Carlslie, in the year 1628. I find these words; [I am confident were the Fathers now alive they would all side with us in our necessary separation from the abominations, idolatry and tyranny of the papacy, with which no good Christian can hold any union in faith, any communion in Charity.] p. 64, 65. The learned and reverend Bishop Davenant did maintain that the Church of Rome was Apostaticall in his sad determinations; if it be Apostatized from faith as Bishop Davenant saith, and hath no more charity then Dean Potter saith it hath, how can we (especially since our separation from Rome) be said to have a true and real union with it still in Faith and Charity? It is in vain for him now to distinguish between the Church of Rome, and the Court of Rome, though there was once ground for that distinction, for Rome is all Court now; if he will have me use Charrons similitude, the Church is the apple, and the C • ur the worm, the worm hath eaten up the apple, the Court hath devoured the Church; we distinguish between Fundamentalls and superstructions, and some talk as if the Papists were sound in Fundamentalls, but the case is clear that they have overthrown the old foundation, and all their superstructions are upon a new foundation, or upon no foundation at all. For if their Churches authority be the foundation of all their faith, and their Churches Authority be built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall motives; as Mr. Chillingworth shows, cap. 2. pag. 64. Sect. 35. then sure here is a new Foundation, or else their Church is a Castle in the air, a Church without foundations. I dare appeal to Master Chillingworth whether the Papists do not err grossly (and therefore Fundamentally) in those things which belong to the covenant between God and man in Christ? See whether my inference be not grounded on his Assertion. pag. 17. the answer to the Preface, Sect. 26. Dr. Potter tells us that their errors and practices for which they have been forsaken of Protestants are not damnable in themselves to men who believe as they profess; but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is more Orthodox, or else the man that gave him this note was more Orthodox, (for doubtless the materials of that fair fabric were brought in by men of different religions, the principles are so cross) he saith that error in points not Fundamental may be damnable to some men, though they hold it not against their conscience. Sect. 37. Numb. 6. pag. 320. Dr. Potter and some others have a fancy of resting in the profession of such truths as all Christians in the whole world agree upon. Master Chillingworth will put in the Socinians for a company of Christians; I hope Dr. Potter will not join with him; but the Arch-Bishop dislikes this plot, as it comes from A. C. or at least shows the danger of it, and would be better advised in this point. He saith he doth not think it safest in a controverted point of faith to believe that only which the dissenting parties agree upon, or which the adverse party confesses; the Arch-Bishop instances in the Doctrine between the Orthodox and the Arian; if that rule be true which was mentioned before, then saith he 'tis safest for a Christian to believe that Christ is of like nature with God the Father, and be free from belief, that he is Consubstantial with him, &c. His second instance is about the Resurrection. His third about the unity of the Godhead; if we will rest in the acknowledgement of one God (he means, and not confess the Trinity of Persons in the unity of the Godhead, for his Grace hath not framed his argument right) then Jews, Turks and Socinians will be as good Christians as we are. The fourth instance is about the verity of Christ's Godhead. The Arch-bishops Relat. p. 309, 310, &c. You see whither this charitable principle would lead us, we must take in the Socinian first, as a Christian, and then we may turn Turks with credit. I will conclude all with a part of Dr. Potters prayer; The Lord take out of his Church all dissention and discord, all Heresies, and Schisms, all Abuses and false doctrines, all Idolatry, Superstition and tyranny, and unite all Christians in one holy band of truth and Peace, that so with one mind and one mouth we may all join in his service, and forever glorify the holy name of the most holy and glorious Trinity.

The Printer to the Reader.

The Author being called from London to a business of higher conc • rnment could not oversee the Press, but some few sheets being sent to him, he returned some brief Corrections which he hath desired me to communicate that the Reader might blot out those things which are redundant, and rectify such mistakes as alter the sense of the Author. Be pleased to take special notice of these that follow.

Errata.

In Pag. 2. lin. 6. r. he will not confess that they pag. 3. l. 19. dele (if Smalcius be Judge) in pag. 3. l. 6. marg. dele [Sociniani] in pag. 6. l. 18. r. [with him] but consider that Samosatenus p. 10. l. 20. dele [they] p. 27. l. 7. r. but the cause of the quarrel is that the Churches p. 28. l. penult. r. without the word. p. 33. l. ult. r. let them read my answer to Mr. webberley. p. 37. l. 7. dele therefore. p. 38. l. 10. r. ist is quos ignorare.