THe Socinians have raked many sinkes, and Scribant [...] laute & accurate qui ad hoc munus ingenii fi­ductâ vel officii ra­tione ducuntur; me verò sublevanda re­cordationu, vel poti­us oblivionu mea gratiâ, Commoni­terium mihimet parasse suffecerit. Vinc. Li [...]in. adv. Har. dunghils for those ragges and that filth, wherewith they have patched up and de­filed that leprous body which they account a compleat body of pure Religion. Ever since the world was possessed with the spirit of Antichrist some Malignant He­retikes 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 Vide Calovium consid. Theol. Socin. pag. 105. 106. & sequ. Vide Stegman Pho­tin. Disp. 1 pag. 1. & 3. Hebionei Christun [...] tantummodo homi­nem dicunt. Vti Augustinus de Ha­resibus. Euseb. Pamph. Hist. lib. 3. cap. Gr. [...]. Lat. 24. rest; yet it will not be amisse to shew 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 Hebraicé egenum significat, Praef. Iust. pag. 10. 11. it seemes they would not be counted mean conditioned men: and there are some indeed and those no beggers (unlesse 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 beggerly 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 Ecclesiasticall history, lib. 3. cap. 24. or Epi­phanius [Page 2] Haeres. 33. he might have seen another reason why Epihanius Hares. 30. those heretikes were called Ebionites.

The Socinians take it no lesse unkindly that they are called Arians. Ex consensu tantùm in principalibus cum Ario de Jesu Ariani Patrem & Filium & Spiritū Sanctum nolunt esse uniui ejusdemque naturae at que sub­stantiae, aut ut ex­pressius dicatur, es­sentia. August. de Haeresibus. 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 maine, I deny that the Arians had higher thoughts of Jesus Christ, then the Socinians. The Arians were termed [...], because they maintained that Christ was created [...]. Some Arians did acknowledge that Ariani omnes dicti antiquitus era [...]t, licet sententiis in­ter se discordes, qui in pr [...]c [...]puum erro­tem cum Ario con­spirabant; nempe Filium Dei Patri consubstantialem esse negantes [...]ti Smiglecius Probat. Christ was equall to the Father in essence and nature, though they denyed 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 [...]; yet these also were cōdemned because neither of these sects would acknow­ledge the Son to be consubstantiall 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 equall, but rather that their persons were equall, and their essence the same; for equality is ever between two at the least: therefore by saying that their nature was equall, they implyed 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 selfe: 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 D Bez [...], Prasatio prafixa Explicat. Val Gentilis Per­fidi [...] & Perjurii. Sociniani cum Ae­tionis Filiū nō modo [...], sed etia [...] di [...]unt. Stegman. Phot. Disp. 1. pag. 7, 8. Beza hath set this forth to the life, in his preface to the description of the Heresy and Perjury of that Arch-he­retike, Valentinus Gentilis, Ariomanitae—in duas minimùm fa­ctiones divisi sunt, nempe in [...] & [...]. He disputes the the point, whether [...] did not imply as much as [...]— nisi voxilla [...] (sicut de Dionysio Corinthio, Basilius ad fratrem scribit) commodâ quadam interpretatione (sed plane ut mihi videtur violentâ) leniatur, Nam certè 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 [Page 3] in essentiâ spectare aequalitatē necesse est. [...]— 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 appeare that if the Arians were not more Rationall, yet they were more devout then the Socinians, they had a a more honourable and reverent opinion of Christ. For the Socinians will not acknowledge that God and Christ are e­quall, or like in nature. The Socinians make Christ, [...], 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, Disput. 1. pag. 3. Finally the A­rians Sociniani insuper Filium De [...] post munds occasum prorsus non regna­turum cum Ario s [...]mniant Sociniani. vide Calov. de di. stinct. Theol. S [...]cin. a priscis haresibus. pag. 116. Noc est ut Photini­anum nomen su [...]ter­fugiant cum in principalibus se c [...] Photino convenir [...] fateantur. D Steg­man Photin. Disp. 1. pag 3. and Socinians agree in this, that both deny Christ to be consubstantiall with the Father, and therefore though they differ in telling their tale, in explaining their errour, yet both agree in the maine, and that's ground enough to call them Arians, if Smalcius may be Judge.

Doctour Stegman usually cals the Socinians, Photinians, and therefore entitles his own book Photinianismus; and the Socinians doe acknowledge that they agree with Photinus in the maine, 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 Iacobus ad Portum Professor of Divinity in Academia Lau­sannenfi, Iacobus ad Portum Orthod Fid Defen. advers [...] Ostorradi­um. in its Epistle Dedicatory, Doc [...]erunt Christum Iesum naturâ esse [...], 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 [...] aut [...] unitum fuisse, sed tantum gratiâ & efficaciâ ipsi assedisse: ipsum [Page 4] deni (que) esse [...], sed [...] & [...], non autens [...] Martin. Thalyaus Anatom. Samosat. Glossema Samosa­teniorum est ejusdē [...]oloris cū Turcismo ac Iudaismo—cum Turcis quidem plus habent affini tatu quàm cum Iu­dae [...]—Turcis­mus en [...]m ut ex a­lijs errorum cento nibus, sic ex Samosatenia nismo a Mahume te est conftatus. Pauliani a Paulo Samosateno Christū non semper suisse dicunt sed ej us in­itiū ex quo de Ma. ria natus est asse verant, nec eum ali quid amplius quā hominem putant. Ista haeresis aliquā ­ao cujusdā Arte­monii fuit sed cum defecisset [...]staurata est a Paulo, & po­stea sic a Photino confirmata &c. Aug de Hares. Execrandus ille Samosatenus ejus Ecolesiae conspurca­tor in quâ primi sunt Christiani no­minati. D. Beza ubi supra. August de Hares. Haresis Samosaten; postea sic a Photi­no confirmata ut Photiniani quàm P [...]ultani celebriús nuncupentur—Philaster continu­atim ponit ambos (Samosatenū scil. & Photinum) sub singulis & propriis numeris quasi hae­reses duas, cum di­cat Photinum in omnibus Pauli se­cutum fuisse doctri­nam. ut loquuntur, ex quâ infoelici haeresi postmodum Mahume­tismus ortus esse perhibetur.

Others call the Socinians Samosatenians, and therefore Thalyaeus calles his booke in which he answers the argu­ments of Socinus, Eniedinus, Ostorodius, and Smalcius, Ana­tome Samosatenianismi, in which he shews that the Socinian glosses are of the same colour with Turkish and Iewish blasphe­mies; the four Professors of the Theologicall 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 Socinianisme 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 & solide &c. The Samosatenians did borrow their name from Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of the Church of Antioch, and therefore his practises were the more abo­minable, because he poysoned that Church, in which Disci­ples were first called Christians, with Hereticall 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 heresie 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 it self, & Photinus his heresie by it self, yet to shew that they were not different heresies, he saith Photinus did in all things follow Paulus Samosatenus. I do not reckon up all the disorderly Heretikes in order, take them as it happens. Nesto­rius denyed 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 effectuall Presence) which was taken of the substance of the Virgin, Affirmabat e­nim [Page 5] [...] illi carni ex Mariâ prognatae nonnisi [...] 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 reade S. Cyril, and peruse the famous and Orthodoxe (not the spurious and surreptitious) Ephesine Councell, and he may receive full satisfaction. The Socini­ans are farre worse then Nestorius, for they do not onely de­ny, that the selfe 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 Consubstantiall 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 vainely 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 faile me, or at least the Readers patience, should I shew 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 deniall of the Image of God in Adam before his Fall, and their maintaining of Free­will, and denyall of originall sinne 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 stampe, hath beene shewen by others already, and the manifestation of their errors in the ensuing Treatise will sufficiently declare. I will passe over many things very observable, because I would willingly discourse at large of some later passages, and subtile inventions by which Socinianisme was introduced in­to forraine 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 cals him, Baliardus, as Bernard, Abailardus, his [Page 6] name in our English tongue may be Balard; he flourished Vide D. Stegman Disp. 1. pag. 4. about the yeare 1140. he had a very ready discoursing wit, and is by some voiced to be the first founder of Schoole-di­vinity; whether he maintained all those heresies which Ber­nard layes 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 Learned Mr. Ga­taker his Post­script to Mr. Wotto [...]s De­fence, pag. 40. 41. Calov. Considerat. Theol. Socinian. Prooemial. p. 120. to M ^r. Wottons Defence, pag. 40. & 41. will direct you to Authors, from whom you may receive better satisfaction then I can for the present give, unlesse I were furnished with a better Library.

I shall not doe Postellus so much honour as to take notice of him; as for Servetus, I will not staine my paper with his blasphemies: M ^r. Gataker hath shewen his chiefe assertions in the booke forecited from the 42. to the 47. page; it is much questioned whether the Senate of Geneva did not deale 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, hee did stubbornely maintaine his cursed blasphemies for thirty yeares together, as Beza shewes; Ob Beza Prafat. pra. fix. explicat. H [...] ­res. Valent. Gen [...]. Calovins Consid. Theol. Soc. Prooe­ [...]ial. pag. 6. Mi­chael, Servetus p [...]nas luens, An­no 1553. triginta annorum blasphemias execrabiles & indomitam pervica­ciam ex Senatus Genevensis sententiâ justissimo supplici [...] affe­ctum, quis non tandem nisi planè furiosus & excors abominetur?

The Senate of Geneva were in good hope by this exem­plary punishment upon Servetus to crush this Cockatrices egge, 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 meere Sceptik in Religion, he questioned all things, and determined nothing; Lalius Socinus carried the matter with such a clean­ly Nonnulli Geneva iterum è favillis Serveti flammas quasdam hareseos ipsius excitare, tum illis quoque inter alios favit Lalius Socinus. Calov. Decas Dis. pag. 7. conveyance, that he was scarse taken notice of, though he received some checks and admonitions, yet most men thought charitably of him during his life; his black designes were not fully discovered till after his death; this is the Grandfather of the Socinians; but I will say no more of him [Page 7] yet, till I have shewen what pra [...]kes were played by those bold fellowes, who acted those tragedies openly upon the Stage, which Lelius composed behinde the Curtaine, Va­lentinus Impictas Val. Gent. b [...]evi script [...] detecta per D. 1. Calvinum vide Va­lentint Gent. Pro. theses. Confession [...]. Libellum Antid [...] ­torum. Responsum D. Calvini ad Question. Georg Elandratae. Eiusdem Brev. Admonit ad fratres Polonas, nee non confirmat. istius Admonit. Simleri Epistolam Ministris in Polonia & Russia. Theses 1. Hyperii in Acad Marpurg Assert. Doct. Cath. de Trinitate per Alexand. Ale [...]um Theses D. Beza in Pra [...]ect de Trinitate. B. A [...]etis Histor. Val. Gent. Gentilis practised at Geneva, George Blandrate a Phy­sitian in Poland, and Transylvania. Give mee leave to make but two or three observations by the way, and I shall open the practises of these impudent Hereticks more fully to you.

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

Secondly, observe that vaine curiosity did betray the Churches, and make them a meere prey to these subtile He­reticks; 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 Axiomes of Philosophy, and by that curiosity puzled their reason, and lost their faith.

Thirdly, though Poland and Transylvania were grievously infected, yet the mischiefe came from Italy, as reverend Beza observes, and therefore cryes out, Sa [...]è fatalis esse videtur P [...] ­lonis Vide Beza Pr [...]. Italia. Besides the flame brake out first in the Italian Church at Geneva, though the coales were dispersed and blowne too in other places. The Italian Church had some warning given by the execution of Michael Servetus in the yeare 1553. but that Church was too indulgent for foure or five yeares, 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 forme 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 oblieged to God, that they would never purposely and malitiously directly or obliquely oppose that Confession, or favour any Forme, or Sect which [Page 8] did make the least appearance of dissenting from it; and who­soever Confessi [...] fidei edi­ta in Italica Ec­clesia Genevae ha­betur in Explicat. perfidia Val. Gen­tilis pag. 1. 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 owne hand. Yet not long after, he said he was pricked in conscience for subscribing to this Forme, and Ibid. pag 3. therefore contemned his Protestation, and endeavoured to seduce the simple people; whereupon he was convented be­fore the Senate of Geneva, the points in Controversie 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 subtile man, as appeares 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 subtilty, 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 onely 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 Vide Explicat. Prafidia Valent. Gentilis, p. 14, 15, 16. 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. [Page 9] To this effect the Senate answered Valentines subtilties; 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 tooke 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 Ubisupra pag. 17. Trinitatem? Respondes, tria concurrere, Essentiam, Filium, & Spi­ritum. Hinc verò plane perspicitur te essentiam Filii & Spiritus exinanire. This conceit of Valentinus, that the Essence, Sonne, and Spirit, make the Trinity, did at once deny the Person of the Father, and the divine Essence of the Sonne 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 shew of repentance, and seemed to be satisfied; nay, hee proceeded so far as to write to the Senate, and acknowledge that he was fully convinced by Epistola Valentini Gentilis ad Senatū Genevensem habe­tur in Explicat. Perfidia Val. Gent. p. 27. the cleare and solid reasons laid downe 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 whilest I affirmed, The onely God of Israel to be the Father of Iesus Christ, I considered not that by opposing the onely 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 any where, but in the three Persons.

[Page 10] Thirdly, I have offended, in that I said the Person of the Fa­ther was Sophisticall.

Upon these rotten ruines (saith Valentine) did I build many false consequences, which now I doe abhor and detest, and professe that I beleeve the doctrine of the Trinity in the sense of your Con­sistory; O my conscience hath beene 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 beleeve that the trouble of my minde 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 againe, and triumph at my conversion. Hee procee­ded farther yet, made a solemne and orthodoxe confession of Abjuratio Val. Gentilis ipsius ma­nu sponte scripta, et ad Senatum Gene­vensem missa. vide explicat. perfidia Val. Gentilis p. 28. 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 cordiall and sin­cere, they commanded him to walke bare-headed, bare-legged and bare-foote thorow every street in the City, with a Trum­pet blown before him, and a light in his hand, then to kneele downe, aske pardon of the Senate, and burne all his heretical Doctrines with his owne hand, all which he did upon the se­cond of September following. Behold the mercy of Geneva to one that was but hopefull, though he had beene an Here­tick, a Schismatick, 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 poore, onely they tooke an oath of him, that he should not depart Er [...]t in confinio pagus Fargiarum ubi habitabat Gri­baldus—aderant ibidem Alciatus—in praefecturâ Gaiensi ditionis mag. Dom. Bernē ­sium Aretius Hi­stor. Val. Gent. the City without their licence: but he soone brake his oath, and fled not far off to Gribaldus and Alciatus, two of his owne stampe, and faction; but he met there with a Gover­nour of a resolute spirit, who began to enquire 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 faire warning, but no sooner he enjoyed his liberty, but he presently pub­lished [Page 11] his opinions in print, and abused the Governour with a dedication, as if the book had been published by the Go­vernors consent and Authority. Not long after he travails to Lyons 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 meanes the Antichristian spirit, which reignes in the bosome of Papists, did in­cline them to forgive and release him; it seems the Papists cares not what Article of faith be denyed, nor how much Jesus Christ be dishonoured, 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 Gratianopoli. Ecclesias, & nominatim Calvinum perstringens, &c. and by that means he made his first escape; his second escape was obtained by the selfe same shift. Libellum Antidotorum & confessionem sic potuit attemperare ut judicaretur solum Cal­vinum Lugduni. impugnare, non ipsam Trinit atem ideo (que) solutus carceribus dimissus est; as Aretius relates in his History of Valentine. But hee was not satisfied yet, unlesse he could beguile Protestants as well as Papists, he went therefore over into Poland, and joyned 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 shew that he intended to please the Turks, as well as the Papists, and to quarrell only with the Pro­testants; his friend Alciat turned direct Mahometist being Quid interea bonus ille Hosius Cardina­lis cum suis Catho­lieis? nempe ridere suaviter nostros un­dique ad extinguē ­dum hoc incendtum accurrētes probrosis libellu lacessere, Regiam denique Majestatē de coer­cendis istis blasphe­miis cogitantem a­rectis consiliis pro­virtbus avoeare; as merito quidem: Quorsu enim Satan­adversus seipsum depugnaret? Beza Prafat. ubi supra. 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 Gods providence they did the lesse 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 hereticall 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 kingdome, upon the 5. of March, in the yeare 1566. Being banished out of Poland, [Page 12] and knowing that Calvin was dead, he thought fit to return in­to the old quarters, never dreaming that he should have faln into the hands of the old Governour, whom he had formerly a bused in so high a nature; but by divine providence the same person though it was not his turne, was governour 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 Governour well knowing, that he had been often disputed with, and fairly ad­monished, cryed, 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, Neglecta juramŭti religione ad errores abjuratos postlimi­ni [...] redibat. Schism; and over and above that, he had joyned 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 Mahumetan, and Blandrate is a Sabellian and Samosatenian; he complained that those Churches which were called Evangelicall, 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 Aretii Hist. Val. Gent. cap. 2. p 11. 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 subjoyned his book of Antidotes, in which he indeavours to refute certain Theses collected out of Augustines 15. bookes, de Trinitate, and the 13. chapter of Calvins 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 [Page 13] Valentine agreed with Arius, is shewen 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, August. 1566: 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, teares, arguments, entreaties, be wrought upon to change his mind: he had a faire warning given him before, by the Senate of Geneva, if he had had the grace to have taken it, their Charge ranne high, and their Admonition was Pro­pheticall. Filium Dei quem praedicamus, in Diabolum trans­figuras. Rescript. Senat. Genev. habetur in Explicat persidiae Val, Gent. p. 20. 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 yeare 1562. Laelius Socinus was the tutor Ortgo Socinianisma a Lalto fuit ratione Inventiones, a Fau­sto ratione Disposi­tionis. and unckle, Faustus Socinus was the Nephew and disciple; Laelius did contribute materials, Faustus added Form and method to that monstrous body of errours and blasphemies which we call Socinianisme. Laelius Socinus was borne in the Eques Polonus in vitâ F Socini. Dissortatio quam eques Polonus F. Socini ope [...]bus pramitti voluit. Abraham Calov. Decas Dissertat. yeare, 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 honour, 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 o­riginall of Socinianisme; 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 yeares after Servetus his death in the year 1557. Laelius Soci­nus did underhand encourage them who had raked in Serve­tus [Page 14] ashes, and blowed some coales that were yet alive, and from thence raised a blacker flame. Laelius then, no doubt, favoured Valentine, for about the year 1558. Valentine began to shew himself, and in that year, the Italian Church put forth their orthodox confession about the Trinity at Geneva, as hath been already shewed. Moreover the Polonian Knight saith, that Laelius did take speciall care of his country-men, quod (que) praecipue suos erudierit Italos: and though Laelius did I icet Tiguri apud Helvetios sedem fixisses, ad alias tamen Europa re­gto [...]es non semelex [...]urrebat. keep his most usuall 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 gaine some Proselytes in Poland, first in the year, 1551. and afterwards in the yeare, 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 mercifull to them) labour 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 farre 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 generall; only be pleased to observe that the heresy doth directly strike at the Nature, Person, Offices, Satisfaction, Sacraments of Christ. And as [Page 15] the Arminians are much offended with the ninth chapter to Veruntamen ut u­nicuique sua constet laus—Me & sententiam illam in Iohannis Evangel. Verbis explicandis, & quae ad eam asserendam vel jam dixi vel posthac dicturus sū magna▪ ex parte ex Laelii Socini Senen­sis sermonibus dum adhuc viveret, & post ejus mortē ex aliquibus ipsius scriptis quae in ma­nus meas non abs (que) mirabili Dei opera atque consilio per­vonerun [...] & hau­sisse & desumpsisse non minus libenter quam ingenue fate [...] or. Frag. 4. duorum S [...]ript. F. Socini pag. 4. & 5. the Romanes, so the Socinians are as much offended with the first chap. of the Gospel according to Saint Iohn; 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 confesse that his Unckle Laelius did contribute all the stuffe out of which he framed his exposition upon the first part of the first Chapter of Saint John; Illam verborum Jo­hannis expositionem, & quae ad eandem adserendam produxit, sese magnâ ex parte è 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. yeares 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 Lyons in France, Laelius in the mean time died in the yeare 1562. and the 37. yeare of his age, as Calovius assures me: Cum Fau­stus aliquandiu Lugduni in Gallia viveret, Laelius interi [...]s Tiguri extinctus est anno 1562. Aetatis ejus septimo supra trigesimum. All Laelius his notes were I beleeve committed to Faustus, qui patruo suo Laelio emortualis extitit, as the same Author, de origine Theol. Soc. §. 25. and therefore certainly most of his opinions would have died with him, had not this un­lucky Faustus poysoned the world with them. For Faustus himself acknowledges that Laelius was very sparing in ope­ning himself, except it were in some lighter controversies. Nolebat ille sententiam suamnisi in levioribus quibusdam con­troversiis 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 doe not much differ from the Papists in any point in controversie between the Papists and Reformed Churches, unlesse 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 [Page 16] 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 custome 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 guesse at a third reason yet, because Laelius had in former time before he was poysoned 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 beleeved him in any thing he had taught, but would have quite faln off to Popery againe, as he conceived: for the people had a great opinion of his doctrine, though he was neither Doctour 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 beleeve it should be, though 'tis printed magnā) auctoritatē 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 ratione 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 subtilty, and there­fore gave him a faire but sharp admonition about the Ca­lends Vide Calovium de origine Theol. Soci. pag. 6 sect. 16. of January, 1552. as the Polonian Knight doth confesse: 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 [Page 17] 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 ratione Deus quae illi uni patefecerat omnibus manifesta esse voluit. Fau­stus ubi supra, pag. 6. & 7. I am at this great paines of tran­scribing, because Socinian bookes are so deare, every man will not pay a groat a sheete, the price that I am forced to, onely that I may declare the truth; so much for Laelius.

Faustus Socinus the Nephew of Laelius was borne in the yeare 1539, two houres and three quarters before Sun-rising on the fift of December; so scrupulous are some in calcula­ting the nativity of this monster; and he himselfe tooke no­tice of it in his Epistle Ad excellentissimum quendam virum; He was of no meane parentage, his father was by name A­lexander Socinus, and for his Policie, Subtilitatum princeps, as he was deservedly stiled; his mother was nobly descended, the Polonian Knight hath shewen her descent, Matrem ha­buit Agnetem Burgesii Petruccii Senenfis quondam Reipub. Prin­cipis ac Victoriae Piccolomineae filiam. He studied the Lawes till he was about three and twenty yeares of age, and then hee betooke himselfe to the great Duke of Hetruria his Court, where he spent twelve yeares, onely he had so much leisure at Court, as to write a booke about the authority of the Scripture, in which he doth slily pervert the Scriptures, and lay a ground for all his hereticall blasphemies. This is all the account that can be given of him for 35. yeares. I doe not heare of any great brags (though the Socinians doe make loud brags of him) of his Logique, Philosophy, Schoole-di­vinity, the learned tongues, onely he spent some two or three yeares in digesting his Uncles Notes, and then thought he had learning enough to contradict all the Fathers and Councels, and undertooke to censure all the Reformed Churches, and to dispute with the greatest Scholars in the world: the pre­sumption of his wit, besides the badnesse of his cause, did betray him to his adversaries, especially in the first prizes he [Page 18] played, and he was so subtile as to seeme ingenuous in ac­knowledging such oversights as he could not possibly con­ceale: Quod vero ais (saith Faustus to Puccius) supellectilem meam Hebraeam & Graeeam—teipsum latere non potest ejusmodi meam supellectilem non valde curtam modò, 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 Logick, hee had vapou­red against Puccius, Palaeologus, Volanus, and divers others, he had composed a Commentary on the first part of the first Chapter of S. Iohn, 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 rectè tradita ac conclusa. Epist. ad excellentissi­mum quendam virum. It was no wonder indeed if a man that understood neither Greek nor Hebrew, nor Logick, should give many interpretations, and draw many Conclusions which will not hold. Now whether after the delicacies of the Court, and 35. yeares of his age mis-spent, he was so apt to mould his stiffe braines, and new-cast them into a Logi­call forme, let the world judge. Socinus then was not the greatest Scholar in the world, though hee thought himselfe 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 seemes 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 complaine of him for his rash­nesse, &c. as Calovius shewes at large: you may reade plenti­full testimonies cited at length, Consid. Th. Socin. pag. 13. & 15. to him therefore I referre you.

Faustus then had more subtilty then learning; when he was not able to prove his opinions, he told his Auditours, Haec si vera non sint, verisimilia saltem & probabilia deprehendetis. He was of a ma [...]ignant wit, hee knew how to disgrace truth by [Page 19] scoffes and slanders, he thought to affright weake 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 Iewes and Turkes, Et exte­ris denique omnibus, but names none else. Haecque & hujusmodi alia quaedam, quorum ansam illis dedit graeca vox Haer [...]tici Alogi sive Alogiani dict [...] quia [...] à Iohanne descriptum & proindeipsum etiam Evangeliū, secundum Iohanuē rejiciebant. Vide Aug. de Hares. 30. Vide Petrum Ca­rolinum in Expli­cat. doctr. de uno vere Deo. p. 16. Nec non Eniedinū Explic. loc. V. & N. T. pag. 136. [...], 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 maximè sit ludibrio. Explicat. cap. prim. Ioh. pag. 9. Our superstitious men of late pressed us to comply with them, in hope of converting Papists from their superstition, by conforming our selves to the selfe same superstition, and now the Socinians would have us to deny Christ to be God, that we may convert Turkes and Iewes 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 ratione—& 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 tyre 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 selfe; he makes many glorious pretences in his booke called Solutio Scrupulorum. God (saith he) in this last Age intends to make many new discoveries, and to Reforme his Church more thorowly then ever. Lu­ther he confesses hath discovered truths enough to carry us to Heaven; Zuinglius 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 [Page 20] to be abhorred; but he doth very slily intimate, that it was now left to him to confute all errors which Luther, Zuinglius and Oecolampadius had not observed in the Church; for saith he, though the Idols Temple is laid levell with the ground, Viderem Romani quidem Antichri­sti regnū ab omni­bus dirui atque va­stari, Idolorumque templ [...] everti, in­terim tamen Chri­sti regnum non re­surgere, e [...]usque templum nedum à quoquam extrui, sed ne Caementa quidem & lapides ad illud extruendū ab aliquo parari. Socin. Explicat. Pri [...]n. ca. Ioh. p. 2. 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 morter. He hath written two other pestilent Books, in which he hath most cunningly vented his poyson, one is a booke which I never saw, De SS. Scripturae authoritate, which Calovius tels is one of his most subtile pieces, and seemes to be one of his first Essayes: Dominicus Lopez a Jesuit was so taken (or mistaken) with it, as to print it in the yeare, 1588. The other Pamphlet is a briefe discourse, De causâ ob quam creditur aut non creditur Evangelio Iesu Christi. In this second he speakes 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 speake more freely still every yeare then other, accordingly as hee saw his Discourses entertained and applauded by potent A­bettours; he did not put his name to his Commentary upon Iohn, till he saw how it would take; Libuit antequam nomen nostrum prodamus aliorum exigui hujus laboris nostri judicius cognoscere. Explic. Ioh. p. 4. And Calovius saith, he did not put his name to it till whole Churches (Congregations I suppose he meanes) had subscribed to Socinus his Tenets, Calovius de Origine 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 Hereticke, and held his opinions to be pernici­ous, upon condition they did their best, to live in obedience to Christs precepts, and sought in a faire way to convince him by Scripture, Explic. cap. prim. Ioh. pag. 4. But though he pretended to be ruled by Scripture, it is most evident that all his Art was to withdraw men from hearkning to the plainest Texts of Scripture which doe contradict blinde car­nall [Page 21] 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 thinke that God said any thing but truth, and therefore un­lesse it can appeare by some demonstrative argument, that such a proposition is true, we must not pitch upon that pro­position, as the minde of the holy Ghost in any Text of Scripture; what ever the words of the Text seeme to hold forth unto us, wee must goe looke 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 Customes (and perchance some of them unreasonable) of Nations must over-rule God, so that God himselfe shall not be believed, if he doe not speake consonantly to my corrurpt reason, and our vaine Customes. It is cleare and evident, that whatsoe­ver Socinus produces against Christs satisfaction, or our Ju­stification, is a meere figment of his owne braine, for he one­ly urges some colourable arguments, which have but a shew or shadow of reason. But I shall not instance in more parti­culars now, because I desire to passe on and discover Socinus his subtilty, in scattering his errors abroad in Sarmatia, Tran­sylvania, &c. and therefore this shall suffice for the Rise of So­cinianisme.

ILL weeds thrive apace; Laelius had sowne his errors, as hath beene already shewen, in some five or sixe yeares, within ten yeares space there were whole Congregations [Page 22] submitted themselves to the Socinian yoake in Sarmatia as Doctor Calovius assures mee, Intra decennium integra Ecclesiae accesserunt haeresi ejusdem in Sarmatia, Consid, Th. Soc. Prooemial. pag. 65. And this Heresie did spread so fast in Transylvania, that within twenty yeares after there were some hundreds of Congregations infected, Ut vix Vide libellum Mi­nistr. Sarmat. & Transyl. Alba Iu­lia edit, de falsa et vera, &c. D. Wi­gandi Servetia­nismum. triginta elapsis annis aliquot Centuriae Coetuum talium ibidem numeratae fuerint. Ibid. What they maintained upon their first Apostasie, may bee seene in a Booke, De falsa & vera unius Dei, Patris, Filii, & S. Sti. cognitione. 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 bee worshipped or pray­ed unto any longer, if hee 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 ho­nour due to God alone; This hapned about the yeare, 1578. some twenty yeares after the stirres 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 returne with shame enough into Poland: But when Faustus could not doe what he would, he seemed to be content to joyne with the Da­vidians, In Brestensi Syno­do in sinibus Li­thuania. as they were called from Franciscus Davidis, as farre as they would goe hand in hand with him in opposing the Reformed Churches, and he did prevaile very much in a Synod about the yeare, 1588. in other points also which hee did cunningly winde in, and they greedily swal­low; and he prevailed very farre the next yeare in another An. 1589. in Sy­nodo Lublinensi. Synod, and within a matter of foure yeares, 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 Socinianisme: and no marvaile, for though there are many parts of Socinianisme which have no rationall depen­dance upon the deniall of the Godhead of Christ; yet when [Page 23] once men come to be sofar blinded as to deny that glorious truth which shines so clearly in the Gospell, it is no wonder if they see nothing at all. Besides he was so wise as to strike Non exigua indiet facta est accesis [...], pracipue inobilib [...] & in aula educatis—ut & [...] luni­erum Pastorum or­dine, quippe qui propensiores in no­va dogmata, n [...]c a­deo in veritate con­firmati fuerant, Ca­lov. de Orig Soc. pag. 70. in with the Nobles, and the Courtiers, with the most youth­full and sharp witted Pastors, and not only with subtile dis­putants, but smooth Popular Oratours, men more able to corrupt the people, witnesse Petrus Steinius; or Statorius, by whose unhappy eloquence the sublimest subtilties 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 ratione tradere & flexanimae orationis genio cunctis probare poterat, &c. This blasphemous wretch did travaile, 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 yeare 1604. Tandem anno etatis D. calovde dist. Theol. Soc à Theol. SS [...]i. pag. 73. quinto ultra sexagesimum blasphemam exhalat animam, Aerae Christianae 1604.

LEarned Grotius may remember that there was a time when he himselfe 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 H. Grotit Pietas, ad ord. Hollande. the very mention of Socinianisme, at the very repeating of [Page 24] their basphemies. For my part I dare not call them Christians, Error Christi Essen­tiam & personam negaus fidem de­struit, & Christia­nismum tollit. D. Stegm. Photin p 6. because they deny the Godhead and satisfaction of Christ, they will not be baptized in the name of the Trinity, they labour 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 Vide Smalci [...] con­tra nova monstra. Deum invocamus tanquam omnium bonorum solam ac primariam causam, Christum ver [...] tan­quam secundariam Causam a primaria illâ plane penden­tem—à Deo quacunque bona pe­timus à Christe ea solum qua ad Ec­clesiam Christi spe­ctant: Deus enim Christo ea largiendi potestatē concessit, non alia, inquit So­cinus, Disp. de A­dorat. Christi cum Chr, Frank. essentiam negat. Smal, contr. nova monstra. An errour that takes away all Prayer to Christ, and worship of him, doth utterly destroy Christian religion: but the denyall 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 honour to any save God alone. None pretend to be greater enemies to Idolatry, then the Socinians, and yet they doe clearly maintain this Idola­trous principle, namely that divine Honour may be given to one whom they conceive to be a meer man, Christ bles­sed for ever.

The Socinian Errour is Fundamentall, they deny Christs satisfaction, and so overthrow the foundation of our faith, Vide D. Stegman. Photin. Disp. 1. pag. 6. Socinianismū Bar­laus Pestem & [...] ­verr [...]culū esse Chri­stiana fidei dudum cred [...]d [...]t, vianoque sternere ad [...] ejus reli­gionis quam precio­so suo sāguine asper­sit ater [...]us aterni Dei silius. Vindis. C. Barlai pag. 8. 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 originall sinne, 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 er­rour, because it takes away the very Essence and Person of Iesus 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 doe 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 Ea quae negantur a Socintanu ad duo capita revocari possunt, [...] seu articulum de SS. Trinitate, & [...] seu Articulum de humani geueru Salute. vide Cal [...]v. Dist. Th. Socin, a priscis hares. p. 111. [Page 25] 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 meer man cannot satisfy for so many thou­sands of men: and therefore the Socinians having denyed the Godhead of Christ, deny that he hath given God full satisfaction. Nor can Christ be a King, who hath an heaven­ly and eternall kingdome by nature, if he be not God.

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

They overthrow the very nature of Faith, for they con­found faith and workes; Obedience to Gods commands is faith it selfe, or the very substance and Forme 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 Morall 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 justifyed by the workes of the Law, and by their confounding of the Law of Faith, and the Law of workes; they say as the Jewes say, that the great work of the Messiah is to proclaime and confirme the Law, only they adde that it w [...] his in [...]ent, le­gem Mosaicam ceu minus perfectam perficere & locupletare, and therefore they say, Christ and his Apostles did so often presse obedience to the Law, to shew that we are to be ju­stifyed by the works of the Law: and hence it is that they call our blessed Saviour, 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 meanes 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 Atheisme, by denying that the soule of man can possibly so subsist by it selfe after this [Page 26] 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 Vide Stegman. Di­sput. 56. p. 656. 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 Josuah 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 Neque Patres propterea recipiūt, quia cum Scripturâ consentiunt; sed scri­pturam [...]o mode in intelligendā censen [...] quia Patres ita ex plicarunt. Ideoque pri [...]s de unanimi Patrū Conciliorū ­que consensu, quàm de vero Scriptura sensu sunt solliciti. Brev. Disq p. 7. Fathers or Councells, 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 doe most affect the conduct of their own private spirit, which they call Right Reason; and though they pretend that we are more busie in enquiring after the unanimous consent of Fathers and Councels, then the true sense of the Scriptures, yet they doe not endeavour by this out-cry to extoll and enthrone the Scriptures, but to set their own private spirit or Malle se Patri­bus istis, Conciliis (que) adh [...]rere, quàm Privatum, ubi v [...] ­cant, Suum de scri­ptur [...] sequi iudi­cium. I [...] pag. 7. judgement in the chaire, 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 braine too, for every one would faine have his reason, his fancy to sit Judge in all controversies, every man is apt to think himself infallible, and that his Private Iudgement ought to be the Publike Stan­dard. Finally, every one desires to give a Toleration or a Dis­pensation to himselfe, that he may be allowed to maintain such opinions and goe on in such courses as are generally con­demned by the judgement of Learned and Pious men. There is another quarrell that they pick with the Reformed Churches, and that is for extolling their Doctours too high­ly, [Page 27] such as Luther, Brentius, Melancthon, Bucer, Chemnitius, Calvin, Beza, Zuinglius and the rest, but they would pardon this errour, if they did not oblige other men to stand to the Judgement of these and such like Reverend Authours; if they might have but their liberty of prophecying according to their own private spirit or judgement they would be con­tent, Hoe aut [...]m ann [...] est Ecclesi [...] ejusque Doctoribus contr [...] ­versias cum aliorū obligatione judicā ­di Potestatem ad­scribere? Brev. Disq. cap. 2. pag. 8, 9. but that the Churches passe their censures upon such as dissent from the most received interpretations of Fathers, Councels and the Reformed Divines, though such interpre­tations seem unreasonable to the Private Judgement 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 Nimirum iudicem ipsi Spiritū Sanctū statnunt: Saltem fine eo nullum cut­quam de sacr [...] ju­dicium concedere volunt. Quo ipso Rationis Sanae judicium ante Spi­ritus sancti illustra­tionem plane tolli­tur. Disq br. cap. 30. pag. 9. 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 judgement of sound Reason is made use­lesse and of none effect or Authority before the illumination of the Holy Ghost: this is an high fault indeed; we are it seemes 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 shal not be able to an­swer that Seraphique Doctour, Valerianus Magnus, his book, de Acatholicorum credendi Regulâ Iudicio, set forth at Prague, Brev. Disq cap. 4. Vera de judice sen­tentia. Itaque neg andum est nullum c [...]rto as­sequi verum. 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 imployment.

But let the Socinians speak their minde clearely, then what is it they would have? why, they would throw the Pope out of his chaire, and they would sit there themselves by turnes, that so they may be Popes round; for every man say they hath reason enough before he is inlightned 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 onely all things necessary to salvation, but many profitable truths besides, though not so necessary. I should be very glad to [Page 28] learne 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 knowne to him by nature, Quare qui istis sive naturali ingenii b [...] ­nitate, sive experi­entiâ vel mediocri­ter instructus est, is & [...]psas Scripturas sacras esse cognoscet &c. Brev. Disq. p. 35. and his owne observation, are the Rules whereby hee 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 hee) will serve the turne. Nay, he affirmes that it will serve the turne, if by the helpe of those good principles, his owne good wit, and conference with others, he do but heare the summe of those few things which the Socinians conceive necessary to Quid quod princi­p [...]orum [...]storum ope etiam is qui s [...]cras literas vel legere non potest, vel nun­quam vidit, vel ex­stare [...]scit, &c. lb. cap. 7. p. 35. salvation, though he never heare or know, that there is any such booke as the booke of God. M ^r. Chillingworth comes very neere this Disquisition-monger in his accurate Treatise, for he saith, The Scripture is not to be believed finally for it selfe, but for the matter contained in it, so that if men did believe the doctrin 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 beene necessary to have recei­ved those materiall objects or Articles of our Faith, upon the authority of God speaking in the Scriptures; I thought it had beene Anabaptisticall to have expected any Revelation but in the Word of God; for a Revelation, nay a supernaturall revelation is necessary to help naturall 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 bee certainly believed, farther then it may be proved by evidence of naturall rea­son, (where I conceive, saith M ^r. Chillingworth, naturall rea­son Reason is in some sort Gods word saith M ^r. Chil­lingworth. An­swer to the Pre­face, p. 20. is opposed to supernaturall 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 [Page 29] hath ordained the Scriptures as the meanes and instruments to reveale 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 speake plaine, 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 e­ternall life, that the maine thing God lookes after is pra­ctise, that Heathens and Christians have the same practicall rules written in their heart, and so if a man doe but hope for eternall life by observing these practicall rules (as many Heathens did, witnesse that verse of Phocylides, ‘ [...],’ and the Discourses of Socrates, Plato, Hermes, &c.) hee may be eternally saved; and then we shall know how free he is from Socinidnisme. Or else let him confesse, that natu­rall Reason being helped by a supernaturall Revelation in the Word, is not able to discerne saving truths, so as to be­leeve them after a saving manner, without the speciall 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 thinke as he seemes to thinke, that all the materiall objects which are necessary to salvation, may be knowne out of some other booke then Scripture, or by some other meanes; and that if a man beleeve them meerely as truths probable by reason, and doe 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 supernaturall Revelation by the Word to be ne­cessary, it being the meanes which God hath ordained, and so is made necessary to us by Gods ordinance; yet if hee thinke this outward revelation to be sufficient, without the inward and speciall revelation of the Spirit, he may be a So­cinian still.

But this by the way, I shall say the lesse of M ^r. Chilling­worth, when I come to touch upon his Booke; sure I am, such dangerous principles as these, will beate greene heads [Page 30] 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 judgement of the Catholique Church, of this and former ages, to the consent of Protestants, the Church of England; but if he put in the Papists into the Catholicke Church, as I beleeve he will; then he will say the Papists doe not agree, and therefore the Catholick Arch-Bishop of Cant. his Re­lation. pag.—150. The Church of Rome did promulgate an Orthodoxe truth, which was not then Catholickely admitted in the Church, namely the Processi­on of the Holy Ghost from the Son: if she erred in this fact, confesse her error. The generall Councell held at Ariminum, did deny the Sonnes equality with the Fa­ther; the Councell at Ephesus did confound the two natures in Christ. Vide Calovium de Consensu Patrum ante Concilium Nicenum. Sociniani Trinitatem Cerberum, Christum Spurium, Incarnationē Christi monstrum absurditatis, Satisfactionem commentum ap­pellitant. D. Stegman. pag. 22. En Christianos Chillingworthia­nos. Church of this age is not against the Socinians; nay the Fathers doe not all agree, and so there is not a Catholick consent of the Ancients, as M ^r. Chilling­worth I beeleeve did purposely shew at large in the eighteenth Section of his Answer to N. N. that so he might winde himselfe out the better in this 28. Section: Nay, peradventure he will put the Socini­ans in for to give a vote, if you aske for the consent of the Catholique Church of this Age, for hee cals 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 doe, yet for their honour he saith, they explicate the Lawes of Christ with more rigour and lesse indulgence to the flesh then the Papists doe, and that is true, but not much for their commendation, because they thereby disgrace the Morall Law of God, and say it was imperfect, till Christ gave new Lawes; but M ^r. Chillingworth was willing to take any occa­sion to commend them. Moreover if M ^r. Chillingworth by the Church of England, meane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his faction, then indeed there will not be a generall con­sent of the Church of England against the Socinians. Once more, if he take in all the Arminians, and some Iesuited Pa­pists, that (as Vertumnus Romanus prescribes) come to Church and heare our Common prayers, and receive the Sacrament in some Congregations in this Kingdome, though they bee of M ^r. Fisher, or M ^r. Flued his minde, and ranke all these a­mongst Protestants (for we have had strange kinde of Pro­testants [Page 31] for these twelve yeares last past,) then I beleeve there will not be a generall consent of such Protestants against the Socinians; and so M ^r. Chillingworth may oppose Socinianisme, when all these agree together to oppose it. But indeed hee hath one Argument which makes me beleeve that he and more of that faction who countenance many Socinian errors, doe not agree with the Socinians in all points, because Socinia­nisme if it be taken in all its demensions, is such a Doctrine by which no man in his right minde can hope for any ho­nour or preferment either in this Church or State, or in any other. Many men do indeed adventure as farre as they dare this way, onely they are afraid of thwarting the great De­signe, as I shall hereafter shew. I dare not excuse M ^r. Chil­lingworths dangerous principles, though I account him a very rationall man, yet I beleeve 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 perswaded, or assured in his own minde, Rom. 14. 5. I goe on to shew the danger of Socinianisme. It is an Hotch-potch of Gentilisme, Turcisme, Judaisme, and I know not what, they have put in some scruples of Christia­nity to make up the messe. The Centuriatours say, that Ma­homet did compose his Alcoran by the helpe of the Iewes, and Iohannes Antiochenus an Arian: and truly Turcisme doth much savour of Iudaisme and Arianisme. Now Socinia­nisme is compounded of the selfe 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, eternall 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 doe.

[Page 32] The Resurrection of these very bodies was believed by Criminantur Resur­rectionem ejusdem carnis esse prorsus Mahometanam & Iudaicam, Calov. Dist. Theol. Soc. à pris. hares. p. 104. none but Iewes and Turkes at first, (as the Socinians would make us believe) and the Protestants have received it from them.

They open a gap to an Atheisticall Libertinisme, by promising salvation to all Hereticks, ignorant persons, if they live but chast, sober, just lives, and expect eternall life, for that is the summe of the promises, and they need not know or beleeve more: all the mysteries of faith are by them counted but meere 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 thinke 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 jumpe with them in the same Regem' sine regn [...], Caput sine mem­oris, vitem sine ra­nis, Christum sine Ecclesiâ somniant: [...]idei articulum de Catholicâ Ecclesia [...]sque ad finem [...]nundi evertunt. conceit, they say, Christ may bee a King without a kingdome, an Head without a body: Neque verò necesse esse credimus ad hoc ut Christus rex & caput maneat in terris Ecclesiam veram semper esse. Their reasons are, because Christs kingdome doth rather consist in his owne Soveraigne 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 Christs people would not be a free willing peo­ple, and so there would be no spirituall 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 rebell.

No man they say need inquire after the true Church, much lesse 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 [Page 33] note of the true Church, for with jeasting Pilate they aske, What is Truth? How shall it appeare, 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 seemes it is not sufficiently manifested to them, for they cannot tell what it is. They doe not see any great use of the Sacraments, they cannot believe that the sprinkling of water upon the body, should have any spirituall effects upon the soule; they cannot believe that our faith can bee 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, markes or signes of a true Church, would be but an empty Titular Church, and to such a Church onely should Socinians be ad­mitted.

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

I beleeve your patience is already tyred with this briefe narration, if any desire to be farther satisfied in particulars let them reade this book.

FArther infected I say, for it is too evident that it hath been in some measure already infected with this pestilent heresie. I know the Archbishop of Canterbury did pretend to crush this cockatrice of Socinianisme, but all things being considered, it is to be feared that his Canon was ordained for concealing, rather then suppressing of Socinianisme; 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 Batchelour 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 favour, and frequently employ men shrewdly suspected for Socinia­nisme. Master Chillingworth, to speak modestly, hath been too patient, being so deeply charged by Knot for his in­clining Spreta haud exolesce [...] ejusmodi calumnia. sed agnita videbitur a­pud nimis malos, aut nimis cre­dulos, aut minùs ami [...]os. Vind. C. Barlas p. 7. Naturall Reason (saith Mr. Chilling.) then built on principles common to all men is the last resolution un­to which the Churches Au­thority is but the first Induce­ment; in the margin. pag. 65. Mr. Chill. counts himselfe no Socinian because he holds Supernaturall Revelation re­quisite to help naturall Rea­son. Preface sect. 28. Yet he saith Scripture is not belee­ved Finally for it self. pag. 65. that a man may be saved who knowes not whether there be any Scripture or no. pag. 66. towards some Socinian Tenets: no man in Saint Ieromes 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 doe 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 doe. The Reformed Churches abroad wonder that we could finde no better a Champion amongst all our Worthies; they who travailed hither out of forrain parts blessed themselves when they saw so much froath and grounds; so much Arminianisme and va­nity in Master Chillingworths admired peece: What doth it advantage the Protestant cause, if the Pope be [Page 35] deposed from his infallible chair, and Reason enthroned that It may be hu­mane prudence and ordinary dis­cretion did ad­vise Mr. Chillingworth to use no more industry in finding out the truth; or he hath not been at leisure because of some hindrances and [...] distraction; and then he hopes that none of his errours will be imputed to him. p. 19. Answer to the Preface. Socinianisme may be advanced?

But I am afraid Doctor Potter may take it unkind­ly that I have named Master Chillingworth before I would willingly know whe­ther D. Potter doth not take in the Socinians into his chri­stian world. p. 255. Why he makes the Church of England to take part with the Jesuites against Piscator and Calvin, & implies that Calvinisme is, as the black-mouthed Sorbonist called it, Bestiarum Religio. p. 256, 257, 258. Edit. 2. Mangones haresium sub praetex­tu moderatioris Theologia [...] n [...] ­stris ecclesiis verè Reformat [...]s exierunt. Ioh. Peltius. him; for his Grace employed Doctour Potter first, and he was cryed up as a Patr [...]ne of the Protestant Profession, but he sowred his Calvinisme with so much Arminian leaven, and sweetned Popery with some such gentle Scruples of Moderate Divinity as they call it, that the Jesuites laughed in their sleeves, and Knot was so pleasant that he could scarce refrain from laughing openly.

That these two great Champions doe vent Armi­nian principles is manifest to any man that hath but Remonstrantes aiunt sese cum omnibus aliis sectis, imoue Soci­nianis exceptis fraternitatem posse colere, excepta Reformata Ecclesiâ. Apolog. ad Censur. Prof. Leid. peeped into their books. Now that Arminianisme is a fair step to Socinianisme hath been sufficiently proved by Bodecherus, (though he hath been de­rided, he hath not been answered) Peltius, Vedelius Arminian [...]s & Socinianes in viginti & ultra articulis per va­ri [...]s paragraphos distinctis con­venire probatumdedit 1. Peltius. and others, so that I need say no more in that point.

What Art and care hath been used to propagate the Ar­minian errours in England, would require a large volume, and I had laid open all their sleights and projects (had not my bookes 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 poy­soned the young students in Divinity with Arminianisme in the new Colledge at Saint Andrews; his Grace made the same Wederburn Bishop of Dumblane, that so he might be Dean of the Kings Chappell, and vent all his Arminian er­rours in the Royall Chappell, in despight of all the Presbyteries. [Page 36] Then his Grace chose out 24. Royall Chaplaines, such as were most likely to preach the Deanes Arminian Tenets to the State when they saw that all preferment did run that way. I will not say any thing of Master Sydserf, Doctor Forbes, &c. You may read the complaint at large in a book en­titled Ladens. [...], or the Canterburian self-convi­ction.

But that which did most mischiefe, 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 Doctour Chappell: Behold three Kingdomes infected at once with this deadly disease, by the pestilent subtilty of one Arch-Bishop.

But I shall make it appear that we have gone nearer to Socinianisme yet. Acontius was (as learned Peltius calls him) clandestinus Socinianorum assecla; now I have wondred often what was the reason that Acontius was new printed in Ox­ford by Doctour 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 finde him joyned with Acontius, they were both sneaking Socinians, they followed Socinus just as Nicodemus followed Christ, by stealth & in the dark. Iacobus 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 himselfe after this manner. Arminium vestrum Sociniani in Polonia expresse ut Suum nuper nominarunt, unà cum quodam Bonfinio & Acontio clandestinis asseclis, quorum authorita­te postularunt àfratribus Orthodoxis fraternitatem, isti verò 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 fairely and honestly be compounded, as appeares by his Irenicum, and therfore his judgement is to be the more valued, but you see he doth not vent his own private opinion, but declares the judgement of the [Page 37] Synod; I beleeve that every impartiall Reader will think Non n [...]gamus (in­quiunt Remonstrā ­tes) esse nonnulla ad salutem creditu ne­cessaria pracise, sed ea pauca esse arbi­tramur. Et hic etiā (inquiunt Profess. Leyd) gentum & spiritū Socinianum animadvertimus—Paucissima ad sal [...] ­tem prorsus necessa­rta sunt (inquit So­cinus) nempe ut Deus & Iesus Chri­stus divino honore colatur, praesertim verò Chartt as erga proximum exerce­atur. Quam fidē & charitatem putant in eo subsistere qui neget Christum esse eund [...]m cum Patre Deum & Spiritum Sanctum esse perso­nam, &c. vide Pr [...] ­fess. Leyd. Censurā Praefationu Re monstr. prefix. Con­fess. sect. 22. this passage very considerable. The Socinians have one Princi­ple which draws a great party after them of all heretikes, & 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 Fundamentall but obedience to Christs 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 Doctour Potter should be thought to have such an hand in publishing of it, that it was known in Oxford by the name of Doctour Potters Stratagems. I know Acontius doth in that book mince the matter, but the book is so much the more dangerous, and cannot but poyson 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 Caspar Barlaeus Iud [...]os Deum A­braham [...] colcre (quāv [...] constet eos Iesum Christū blas­phemare) pios esse posse, Deoque ac­ceptos, itemque Dei amicos secundum Accuratioré The­ologiam dici posse statuit, uti Vedellus de Deo Synagogae. Accu­rate also, and that he complyed so far with the Socinians meerly 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 beleeve? why, (saith he) he did beleeve as it was fit, that that man who is called Iesus was from God, (mark he doth not say that he was God) and in favour 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 Iesus dicere­tur à Deo esse & apud eum gratiosum, ita (que) sperabat per eum sa­nitatem [Page 38] se posse adipisci. Illa verò 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 faithfull to have been ignorant of those Heads of Divinity which we count Articles of Faith, Fundamen­tall Articles. Abraham, saith he, beleeved that he should have off-spring, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, that Canaan should be his, Caeterum de Religionis 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 doubtlesse 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 doubtfull whether Abraham did beleeve in Christ or no; these oblique passages and many such in his third book especially, doe shew what a good mind he had to favour them, who at that time about the yeare 1565. did call the Articles of the Christian faith into question. No mar­vaile if he wrote so warily when Servetus had been made such an example, in the yeare 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 heretikes who deny that the Son hath the same na­ture with the Father; he tells us that * we must beleeve Dr Po [...]ter recites some such passa­ges p. 117. of his own book, but will not take any notice of Acon­tius. Christ to be the Sonne of God, and to be made man, but he doth not presse us to beleeve 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: [Page 39] this is an excellent device indeed to help off the grossest He­retikes, 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 comming 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 unlesse he beleeve them he cannot be saved; he hath endeavoured to prevent your reply by this excuse; Si miraris inter ea quae recensuimus cognitu necessaria non Dr. Potter might have corrected these passages out of his own princi­ples, because for want of clear Re­velation he frees the Church before Christ, and the di­sciples of Christ from damnable er­rour though they beleeved not those things which he who should now deny were no Christian, read from p. 245. to 250. of Dr. Pot­ters book of Cha­rity, &c. numerari quosdam summo quamvis loco habitos Religionis 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 passe on to some later Authours; 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 eternall Deity of the blessed Saviour; It seemes if the Christian world had not given credit to the testimony of Bishops, the eternall 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 honour of it? Is there nothing written in Scripture concerning the eternall Deity of Christ? this is just indeed as Tertullian saith, Nisi Deus homini placuerit, Deus non erit. This book was printed See Dr. Page his answer to that Treatise; and a little box of Anti­dotes against some infectious passages in a Tract concerning Schisme. in the year 1635. I need say nothing of that little Pamphlet about Schisme, 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 King­dome, what he thought of the Socinians, he answered, If you [Page 40] could secure my life I would tell you what I think; and truly he hath told us what he thinkes in this little tract, viz. that Arianisme was but a Rent in the Church upon matter of opinion; p. 9. that those passages in our publique formes which offend the A­rians, are but private fancies, and therefore he desires there may be such a Leiturgy as the Arians may not dislike. p. 10. and then the Socinians and Protestants might joyn 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 for ever, 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 thinke it long till he heare what I have to say to his own learned book. I must con­fesse there is good learning in that book of his, which was printed 1624. I should doe 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 yeare 1639. he will find a great deale 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. yeares.

In the 76. Page he saith, the Mysteries of Faith doe 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 doe re­ject the Received interpretations of Scripture, because Reason [Page 41] cannot discover how firmly they are true. Can the Arch-Bishop make it appeare by the light of Reason, that there shall be a Resurrection of these selfe 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 be­leeve 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 beleeved 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 doe the Socinians so often challenge us to be tryed by reason, by common sense, by the Judgement 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 doe talk much of the offices of Christ, but they receive nothing from the Scripture, concerning Christs 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 affirme 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 Gospell. Reason by its own light did discover unto them that the good and great God had prepared eternall happinesse for our immortall soules: 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 neer the Arch-Bishop comes to them, let the Reader judge) then the Philosophers, especially the Platonists, were in an hap­py condition, & it will be lawfull for a man to cry out aloud, Sit anima mea cum Philosophis, and he shall never be thought an Atheist, nay shall passe for a good Christian. There was a Sermon preached to Sir Iohn Byron when he was in Oxford, which favoured strong of this Heathenish Divinity, and Sir John gave the Preacher solemne thanks for his paines. Let us then Canonize the Heathens for Saints, and put [Page 42] 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 Sum [...] Religion is Socinian [...] h [...]c es [...], sub spe alterius vi­t [...] observare Man­data Dei, uti Calo­vi [...]s consid. Th So­ [...]in Prooem p. 86. Heathens did endeavour to keep Gods commands in hope of a better life. What doe 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 my selfe, because he is the chiefest good; Reason tells me that I must doe as I would be done to; the Law of nature is written in the hearts of Heathens, the writings of Philosophers doe abound with principles of morality and good life, and Soci­nus Sufficit ut s [...]iamus quae reverae praeci­piantur vel veten­tur à Deo, adeo ut si in reliquu error oc­currat nemo ob eun dē calo excludatur. Socin, Epist. 2. ad Dudithium. saith, it is sufficient for a mans salvation to know what God hath commanded and forbidden; and if he erre in other points, he shall not be shut out of Heaven, for such errours 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 shal be dāned 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 beleeved. If this be not Socinianisme in the highest, let the impartiall 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 [...], The very Niceties, and exa­ctnesse of the Christian faith, saith the Arch-Bishop, and pre­sently gives this reason. For he professed the Godhead of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost, pag. 186. How will the Soci­nians triumph when they heare the Primate of all England discoursing of the Godhead of Christ and the Holy Ghost as Niceties? I grant the word [...], 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 exactnesse, but to gratify the Soci­nians [Page 43] 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 prefixe 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 Latine Edition at Paris, pag. 497. it is thus translated, In hoc omnes Quaestiones [...]c Subtilitates Fidei inveniuntur; therefore hee might have said that all the mysteries of Faith were main­tained by Peter, though by the malice of Anti-spirituall men even the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, and such like Myste­ries were made Questions, or at best counted subtilties, and Niceties.

Moreover when the Arch-Bishop comes to speak of the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne, he perswades 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 her self; and it is hard to adde and Anathematize too. The Socinians are apt enough to say that many of the Articles of our faith were framed at Rome, and it seemes his Grace would con­firme them in that opinion. This was added also to his new book, as will appeare, 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 suspitious 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 Arch-Bishops re­latiion see pag. 309, 310, 311. are plain enough. And I must professe that I doe not beleeve the Arch-Bishop ever intended to bring in all points of Ar­minianisme, Socinianisme, or Popery, but to pick out such points as might stand with the great Desig [...]e; he was to hu­mour all these three factions, that all three might joyn with him to suppresse Calvinisme, and then admire him as the A­stolike [Page 44] Patriarch, Pope of this other world of Britaine, for he would not have us ignorant that Pope Urbane the second e­ven in a Councel accounted his Graces worthy Predecessour Saint Anselme as his own Compeere, (or fellow-Pope) and said The Arch B [...] ­shops Relation. pag. 171. he was as the Apostolike and Patriarch of the other world; so he then termed this Iland. pag. 171. of the new book. But I beleeve his Oecumenicall Grace had such a thirst to be a Go­vernour of this little world, and yet such a liking to the Universall 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 him­selfe, and thwarting his own Designe, by crying up some The Arch-Bishop calls Socinia­nisme an hor [...]id monster of al He­ [...]ies, pag. 310. Talis non paucis De­clarantium esset Theologia Sociniana in pluribus Articu­li [...], quam tamen hacten [...] publiee el [...]gere non ausi funt propter scandalum, ide [...] ab [...]is qua mi­nus i [...]vtdtosa puta­runt insidiose in in­cipientes, viam illā t [...]tissimam tenta­runt. Prefess. Leyd. Censur. Praefat. Rem. Sect. 23. 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, unlesse it were his Master-plot to countenance other mens opinions that they might promote his Designe, and for a copy of his countenance adore him as the Primate and Patriarch of the Britaines, whose Judgement is Finall, and therefore there lies no appeale 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 The old Book. p. [...]4. new. 121. 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, doe 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 Universall grace comes in also, and the name of Tradition to please the Popish party; and what all these are like to doe without the speciall 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 bookes, namely, That the Churches Declaration can bind us to peace and externall obedience, where there is not expresse let­ter The old book. p. 9. The new. p. 31. [Page 45] of scripture and sense agreed on. What, Sir, must there be no deduction, no consequences allowed? must there be expresse letter of Scripture? there's one Socinian rule. Secondly, when the letter of the text is expresse, must not the point contai­ned in the Text, and expressed in the letter, be accounted Fundamentall, 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, Councels, 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 Fundamentall? By this meanes we may bring in an Atheisticall Libertinisme into the Church; we shall have no more Articles of our Faith, then the Arminians, or Socinians please to leave us. I beleeve we shall have a very short Creed one of these dayes, 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 passe for the Churches Declaration; if he say such a point is controverted and I command you silence, it is not Fundamentall now, because controverted, then we must be silent and let the truth fall to the ground. This was the old muzle which was put upon the Ministers mouthes to make them lie still, like dumbe dogs, whiles the theeves stole away what they plea­sed, this and that Commandement, this and the other Arti­cle of the Christian faith: we must it seemes 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 externall 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 [Page 46] who asked one of the Canterburian faction, what he thought of the Primate of Irelands treatise concerning Christs 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 Patrone most, for the Chaplaines styled their Patrone their very good Lord and Master. D ^r. Taylour 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 beare them company in such generall ex­pressions, and some have thought of composing such a Liturgy as might give no offence to Arminians or Socini­ans; that would be an inoffensive Liturgy indeed, and they may doe well to enlarge their Charity, and make their Liturgy inoffensive to the Turkes and Jewes as well as the Socinians; for any Liturgy which will please one that is a thorow Socinian, will please Turkes, and Jewes also, if it be but warily composed, and they will keep themselves in such generall expressions as some doe too much affect.

But of all that I have met with, none comes neer M ^r Webberly, a Batchelour of Divinity, and fellow of Lincolne Colledge, who hath translated a Socinian book into English, for the benefit of this Nation, and prepared it for the presse. Now they think they may own the businesse, they dare ap­peare in their proper colours, and blaspheme Christ in plaine English. But because some parts of Socinianisme strike directly at the superstition of Rome so highly extolled in our dayes, and at the pompe of the Clergy, which must be maintained by the sword (for what care they though England swimme in bloud, so they swimme in wealth and pleasure?) therefore M ^r. Webberly tells us very honestly, that Socinianisme was to be [Page 47] corrected and chastised with respect to the nature of our cli­mate; What need I adde more? take all in a word.

There are some mysterious parts of Socinianisme that se [...]m Ab iis quae minus invidiosa putarunt insidiose incip [...]entes viam illam suam tutissimā tentarūt, ultertus Progressu [...] si pro vot [...] succesis­s [...]t—non dubiū est quin Remonstr. Soc. & in unam & eandem sectam coa­luerint, etsi non in omnibus alits plane conveniant—publice docent unū ­quem (que) in sua fide salvari posse, &c. Profess. Leyd. Cens. Prafat. Sect. 23. Rationall, these I think in good earnest, the men of this age have too much doted on. Secondly, some parts of Socinianisme they qualify and chastise a little, because there is a little too much quick-silver in them. Thirdly, some parts they doe to­tally reject, because they thwart the maine Designe. Fourth­ly, some parts of Socinianisme are instilled into the people, that they might be made a meer prey to their Courts in times of Peace, and to their army in times of warre. M ^r. Webberly, for instance, may be so farre irrationall as to be of the Councell of warre, 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 Armes, because God hath not given his people any earthly possessions by Covenant under the Gospell, as he did under the Law. Surely they have heard of Iulian who boxed the Christians on one eare, and bid them turn the other eare that they might be boxed on both sides in obedience to their Masters command.

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 doe deny Christ to be God to the glory of God the Father, as they use to say, and I beleeve God the Father hath taken it so unkindly at their hands, that he hath given them over to that cursed Atheisme which reignes in the heart of every man by na­ture, [Page 48] and is much strengthened by the profane wits of this latter age. I remember a story of reverend Amphilochius who had been an importunate suter to Theodosius the Em­perour, that the Arians might not vent their blasphemies so freely against the Son of God, because he was as God, equall to his Father; but he could not obtaine his request; at last the good old man pitched upon this course, he comes to the palace of Theodosius the great, and salutes the Empe­rour with all due acknowledgements and accustomed reve­rence, but as for Arcadius the son of Theodosius, who was created Co-emperour with his Father, Amphilochius passed him by without any respect or reverence at all, & at last very familiarly stroakes the young Emperour upon the head, as if it had been some ordinary boy, and cryed, God save thee good child; At which the Emperour was extreamly enraged, and commanded them to turne Amphilochius out of doores: but this reverend man replyed, I beseech your Majesty to con­sider that if you are so much incensed against them who doe not honour your Son as they honour your self, what wil God the Father think of them who deny equall honour to Iesus Christ his Son, who is equall to his Father in nature and power? The Emperour who was wavering before, was much confirmed in his faith, by this seasonable Admonition, and presently forbad the Arians to dispute any more against the Godhead of Christ. You may read the story at large in Sozo­men's Ecclesiasticall History. Now can we imagine that God the Father should take it lesse 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 fooles, and denying the Godhead of Christ, and the holy Ghost, they should be given over, not only to de­ny the power of godlinesse, but to deny that there is any God at all, because they did not like to retaine the knowledge of God?

1. The Scriptures doe clearly shew 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.

[Page 49] 2. The Socinians doe 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 Atheisme will be embraced in stead of Religion. Mr. Chillingworth hath cleared that point sufficiently, that Popery leads men to flat The Preface to the Author, &c. Sect. 7, 8. 11. This is the mother, give her the childe, &c. c. 2. p. 50. The doctrine of Indulgences takes away the fear of Purgatory, the doctrine of Putgatory, the fear of Hell; the love of God will not be kindled in the hearts of ignorāt mē by Latine service, nor by the masse if it were in English: because some sins are made veniall, the people may well doubt whether there be any mortall; because the Pope hath struck out the second Commande­ment, the people may think he hath Authority to strike out the first. The foundation of all the Papists faith, the Churches Authority, is built lastly and wholly upon Pru­dentiall motives; Ac de Atheis quidem non it a fis­issem crediturus unquam nisi me te­nellum adhue ipsorum agmina, summo discrimine salutu mea s [...]l [...]citavissent ante triginta annos, quum li [...]ris hu­manioribus operam in Gallia darem [...] Iunii sac. parallela praefat. Atheisme: and it is plaine and evident that if Papists must beleeve neither more or lesse then the Pope thinkes fit, the Pope may lead them all into Atheisme when he pleases. And how plea­sing Atheisme hath been to some Popes, I need not stand to declare, the Papists themselves have spoke plaine 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 easie: 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 maintaine the Popes infallibility, and yet cannot but see how he takes upon him to correct Gods 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 practises there have been by the Popish party for the promoting of the Socinian heresies, I could shew at large Libellum de SS. Scriptura Autho­ritate Dominicus Lopez Societ. Iesu anno 1588. Hispali edidit D [...]Calovius de orig. Theol. Soc. pag. 22. 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 privatly send about in writing to his friends; Do­minicus Lopez a Jesuite it seemes was a great friend of his, [Page 50] and the book comming 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. Cardinall Perron his reply to King James, lib. 3. his book of the Eucharist. lib. 2. cap. 7. Mr. Fi­sher, Mr. Chilling. An­swer to Knots-di­rectio [...]s to N. N. sect. 18. or Mr. Floyd. How easily the Racovian and Romane Antichrists would be reconciled, at least so far as to joyn a­gainst the Calvinists, is evident to any understanding man. And Mr. Webberly in the Appendix or sixth Book of his Translation, shews that the two great Articles which offend the Romanists and Racovians are, 1. The totall exclusion of all kinde of good workes from justifying a man before God: and 2. The totall negation of mans Freewill in doing good. They are enemies to the grace of God, in justifying sinners freely by faith alone in Christ, and to the powerfull and ef­ctuall grace of God in converting and sanctifying our souls.

This is the grand quarrell, the Socinians deny Christ to be God, that so they may deny that the bloud of Christ did fully satisfy for our sins: these errours 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 easie 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 Anti­christianisme, Ideo di [...]unt Re [...]ō ­strantes se nolle ha­reses aut Athelsmū introducere quia nō habent pro hare si id quod revera heresis & Atheismus est, & abomns ecclesia qua Deum in tri­bus personis adorat pro heresi & A­theismo habetur. Uedel. de Arean. Arminianismi lib. 1. cap 1 lib. 2 c. 10. pag. 86, 87. and I have said enough of Socinianisme; Iudaisme, and Turcisme, are too neer of kin to Socinianisme: let any man that doubts of this truth, read Doctour Calo­vius his Decas Dissertationum, Vedelius de Deo Synagogae, and he may receive satisfaction without reading others. And for the Arminian Atheisme, I referre you to Vedelius his book, de Arcanis Arminian. Anabaptists are justly com­plained of, but from whence did they suck their poyson (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 [Page 51] Reformed Churches in their doctrine about originall 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 Baptisme to infants, though I know they urge many Vide Brochmand. de Peccato. c 6. 9. 1. Pelagio auxilia­res m [...]nus prabe [...]t Anabaptistae &c. Colloqu. Frank [...]a [...]t. 4 p. 230, 231. Peccatum morte Christi it a expiatū & ablatum esse ut infantes naseantur omnis lab [...] expertes, ac eapr [...]pter lava­cro Regeneration [...] nonindigeant. Smalcius disp. 2. contr. Francium peccatum originis commentum est & fabula. other reasons to colour the businesse: no man need to won­der that Baptisme of Infants is neglected by all those who deny originall sinne, Pelagius of old, about the yeare 420. said that it was a vaine thing to imagine, that the sinnes of infants were washed away by Baptisme, 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 originall sinne, nay without the least spot of sinne, and therefore there was no need of their being washed in the Laver of Regeneration. The Socinians tell us that Originall sinne is a meere fable, a fancy. They that can goe 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 falsly so called.

But I beleeve 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 Armes in rebellion against the King. I must confesse I have wondred often when I have heard of this dayly complaint, because I know that an Anabaptist doth not think it lawfull to be a Cutler, he thinks no sword ought to be made, because he conceives it unlawfull to use a sword. It is well known that the Anabaptists goe to Sea without a­ny Ordnance in their ships, that they travaile 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 practise, which they maintain in dispute. Who are so active in all Counsells of warre at Oxford, as men that are shrewdly suspected for Socinianisme? If they deny this truth, their letters which are dayly intercepted will testify to their faces that they are not true to their own principles. Yet I commend the Chaplaines for their Designe, they would fain seise upon mens goods [Page 52] without force or violence, and therefore they tell the people that they ought not now under the Gospell to fight for the de­fence of their goods; and if they could perswade the people to be Anabaptists in this point, then these Reverend Troopers and meek men of warre, might seise upon all the peoples goods, without force of Armes, and so be as true to their Racovian principles, as the Racovians themselves, they might robbe without weapons, a whole parish might be plundered by one Sermon as well as by two troopes, if the people were but throughly instructed in (or as we say, beaten to) this Conscientious slavery. All the spoile of a whole towne would lye no heavier upon the conscience of one of these Chaplaines, then a reare egge upon his stomack, for they are not ashamed to affirme that God hath not given his people any earthly goods or possessions under the Gospell, and therefore plundering is not robbing, they doe 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 Lords that have such vast possessions should not be much taken with these raptures; if they be, it were good for the Lords to turne Chaplaines or step into a Cloy­ster, and let their own Chaplaines be Lords in their roome. How the Court-Chaplaines will maintain this Doctrine, and not be as Anti-Monarchicall as the very Anabaptists, I professe 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 owne; 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 doe they stick to question the Authority as well as the possessions or Revenues of Kings. The Anabaptists as [Page 53] disobedient to a Parliament as to a King; any per­son or Court which hath power to fine or impri­son, Uide Conrad. Heresb. de factio­ne Monast. Theod. Strack. Hist. Anabapt. pag 56. is by them denyed to be a godly per­son or a Christian court. It was one of the Seditious lawes enacted by that lawlesse faction at Munster, Magistratibus ac Principibus nullus subjiciatur. The Socinians and Arminians think themselves as lawlesse. The Si qui adeo tenera, aut sic à teneru imbutae conscientiae sinc ut credant Christian [...] nulli ne quidem Magistratum gerenti licere sanguinem fundere, aut capital [...]bus suppliciis in sontes animadvertere, Remonstiantes eos libenter tolerare paratisunt. Exam. Cens. cap. 12 pag. 141. Arminians say that they can willingly beare with one that conceives it un­lawfull for a Magistrate to punish any Delinquent with capitall punishment, though he doe not em­brace this opinion out of tendernesse of conscience, but only because he hath been trained up in it from his youth. You see the Arminians give faire quar­ter to the Papists and Socinians; if any man hath been nursed up in this opinion they will beare 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 bloud, no not in a legall way, for capitall offences. The Defensio contra injustam vim qu [...] sine potestate effundendi s [...]ngu [...]nem est, non est defensio, sed defensionis larva terrend [...]s pueris. Rem. ubi supra. Nam vox Gladii quemlibet defensionis modum, etiam quae sine sanguine fi [...], significare po­test. Ibid. Arminians foresaw this consequence, and are content to let it passe, 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 generall expressi­on, the power of the sword, and forbeare to mention any Accedit quod fie [...] non possit ut Infir­mi isti in quorum gratiā confessi [...]lus [...]t Homonymtis magi­stratus, & justos magistratus tolerēt, cū expungant ma­gistratū v [...]d [...]eantē justū (ex officio no­mine D [...]capitali supplicto impiorum ex numer [...] Christia norum, & annume­rent Infidelibus & Homic [...]dis. Isac. Iun. Exam. Apol. R [...]monstrant. cap. 12. p. 311. capitall punishment, because say they we doe not require all that embrace our confession to maintain that Magistrates have power to inflict capitall punishments: whereby it ap­pears that they doe 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 generall and slippery termes 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 Iunius shewes that the Arminians teach their Sec­taries to blot the name of any Prince or Magistrate out of [Page 54] the number of Christians and make him an Infidell, if he punish the greatest offenders with death in a legall way. Doe any Reformed Divines maintain this seditious tenent which will certainly ruine 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 Counsellour Conradus Heresba­chius his Epistle to Erasmus, and there you will see the De­vill Satan ejusmodi pe­stes illum in finem exctavit, ne scil. R [...]formatio orbis Christiani in doctri­n [...] & moribus jam a multo tempore a piis majoribus no­stris desiderata, & à Deo ter Opt. Max. tandem per Lutherum, Zuing. Melan Bucer. ali­osque Dei viros sus­cepta perficeretur. Arg. Epist. He­resbach Conr [...]dus Heresbachtus prin­cipum Iulia Cliviae montium &c. Insti­tutor & Consiliarius qu [...] notatu digna inter obsidendum occurrebant probe consignavit, utroque insuper principe ju bente retulit, teste Theod Strackeo. raised them up in opposition to the Reformers. I know one of late preached valiantly against blessed Luther, and said that Luthers 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 addes withall, 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 expositours. Thomas Muntzerus Saxo erat homo ut accepi illiteratus, sed ut apparebat, in hoc libello egregie exerci­ta [...]us, & scripti interpres parum Candidus, We must di­stinguish betweene the first tumults of Anabaptisticall men, and Deliberate Anabaptisme. The first tumults were raised above an hundred yeares since, by illiterate drea­mers, such as Nicholas Storke, Thomas Muncer, Phifer Rin­gus and the rest; yet Muncer at that time laid a faire foun­dation Docebat Muncerus falsum esse Christū satisfecisse pro no bis, quicquid tandē molles isti Scribae dicant. H Bullinger adversus Anabap­tistas. lib. 1 p. 2. for Servetus, Socinus and the rest to build upon; for he denyed the satisfaction of Christ; and what Doctrine is Fundamentall if the satisfaction of Christ be not? the So­cinians make it their grand designe to perswade men that Jesus Christ hath not truly and properly satisfied for our sinnes. The Heresy of the Anabaptists was not backed with any strength of Argument, nor methodically digested till Ser­vetus [Page 55] and Socinus set to work, I must then look upon Ser­vetus and Socini Defens Tract de ecclesia sub nomine Nicolaidu: Omnes qui Ana­baptista vocantur qui in Polonia de­gunt,—Belgio, Italia & c—ideo­que fraternitatem [...]m omnibus illis (se. Anabaptistis) inire satagun [...] (nempe Socini asseclae) & quo minus res succedat hactenus per eos nullo me­do stat sed per illos penes quos eccle­siarum Evangelicarum regimen est & gubernatio pag. 62. vide Profess. Leydens. Censuram in confession [...]m Remonstrantium. Censur. Praesationis. sect. 24. Lutherus datis ad Senatum Melhusa­num literis monebat lupum hunc perni­ciosissimum diligentissime cavendum esse. Bullinger adversus Anabaptist. lib. 1 ca. 1. Socinus as the maine pillars of Deliberate and Refined Anabaptisme. 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 Luthers authority; for Luther did utterly disavow any such sense, as they put upon his book, nay he abhorred their Designe 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 yeare 1524. and upon the Lords day as Bullinger assures me. In the yeare 1525. and the sixth of Novemb. the Ana­baptists Anno 1525. in Curia Tigurina. Cyprian and the Bishops of [...]ar­thage Councell, are cited by Ana­baptists, but they were not pertina­cious in their errour, as the Ana­baptists now, the Arians and Dona­tists of old. There is no command for Rebaptization in Scripture, nay not so much as example for it, as the A [...]baptists did themselves con­fesse, when they saw that the place, Act. 19. 5. made nothing for them, See the conference at Frankendale, Act. 36. art. 12. Vide Edictum Amplissimi Senatus urbis Tigurina. Bullinger adv. Anabap. lib. 1. cap. 5. Singuli Anabaptista sufficienter nemine impediente & abs­quejurgiis sententiam suam exposue­runt denuo tamen firmissimis testimo­niis sacrarum literarum declaratum est Zuinglium cum suis sectatoribus Ana­baptistas vicisse. 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 cryed out, Sion Sion, rejoyce O Hierusalem, they were presently in such a tumult that they were forced to re­move to another place; yet the Senate, Zuinglius and other learned men were so patient as to ar­gue with them three dayes together, and when the Anabaptists saw themselves confuted by the evident demonstrations which Zuinglius pro­duced out of the word of God, one of them had a designe beyond all the rest, he said Zuing­lius was a learned man and could prove any thing, but saith he, O Zuinglius I adjure thee by the living God to speak thy conscience, and tell the truth. I will quoth Zuinglius, thou art a seditious clowne, 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 Zuinglius had con­vinced them, clearely confuted the Anabaptists, and there­fore they would proceed severely against all Anabaptists. [Page 56] Now about this time Servetus the great Grand-father of Faustus Socinus, as hath been shewen, began to perk up, for Servetus was put to death in the yeare 1553. because he had been a blasphemer for thirty yeares together; so it seemes he began to vent his blasphemies as soone as Thomas Muncer himselfe, about the yeare 1523. Theodorus Serv [...]tus vetus ille sacrae Triadis, id est omnis vere Deitatis hostis, adeoque mō ­s [...]rū—ne à fana­ticis nostroum tē porum Sectis abhor­rere videretur, Bap­tismum Infantium quoque horrendis mod [...]s flagellavit & abominabilem reddere conatus fu­it. Strack Epist. Nuncupat. 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 shew his good inclination towards the fanaticall sects of these times (saith Strackius) hath endeavoured to make the Baptisme of Infants not neg­lected only, but abominated; I dare not mention his other blasphemies, at which I think the very Devills tremble. There are so many severall sects, both of Soci­nians and Anabaptists, who have runne away with their mouths full of Anabaptisticall and Socinian blasphemies, that we must let them all passe for Sectaries of Servetus Reliquos Articulos Muncer [...] urgebant de Verbo Dei Sub­tili non Script [...], de Vi [...]ionibus & Reve [...]ationibus, &c. Bullinger. adver­sus Anabap. lib. 1. cap. 4. The Papists al­low a Divorce & the change of an Hereticall wife as well as the Ana­baptists. Iohan. Angelius Werd in Synopsil Bodini de Repub. nihil a Davide Georg [...]o & tal [...]bus optim [...]s Sanctorum alienum loquutus. Abominandes om­nes Anabaptistas superat blasphemus ille David Georgi­us. Bulling adver­sus Ana [...]ap. lib. 2. c. 14. and Socinus, though some of them are farre more dangerous then others. The Anabaptists maintaine some opinions which are as welcome to the Papists and Iesuited party in England, as other parts are to the Socinians; the Anabap­tists did dreame at first of an unwritten Word, and a very subtile one too, such as the Pope and Jesuites dreame of, and such visions and Revelations as the Priests boast of. The Designe of the Anabaptists pleased the Papists well, because they endeavoured 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 Iohannes 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 [Page 57] George went farre beyond even Servetus him­selfe. The truth is, these two were guilty of sub­limed Vide Consuram Professorum Leydensium in Confess. Remo [...] ­strantium, & Censur. Prafat. Remonstr. In Arca A [...]minianorum ut in Arca N [...]a omnium sp [...]ierum animalia, quamus is diverse uten­tia pabulo, conservantur—politic [...] stratagemate Libertinis omnibus, Anataptist [...] etiam professis, aditum prabent, ut utano sibt parent ad eos opprimendos, quos vident suis conatibus ob­stare. Cens. Pr [...]fat. Sect. 23 In Synodo sua non obstante Con­fessione sus Pad [...]baptismum non esse creditu necessartum sta­tuunt, nec ministros (Anabapt.) e [...] nomine dimovenaos. Cens pag. 305 De coena Domini error et Pontif & Luth. rejictunt, non Anabaptistarum & Soci [...]iano­rum. Censur. in cap 23. Confess. pag 310. Anabaptisme, deadly Socinianisme, though David George differed from Soci [...]us in a point or two. Now what good friends the Iesuites are to the Socinians hath been already shewen, what Patrons the Ar­minians are of Anabaptisme the Professours of Ley­den declare. This being premitted, let us sadly en­quire whether our late writers doe encline 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 seeme to be most zealous for a Reformation in these unhappy dayes, are arrant Anabaptists in this point.

We live in an angry time, and men will speake passionately when they are provoked, and vexed, I Personall defence is lawfull against the suddaine and il­legall assaults of Messengers sent from the Prince, nay if the King himselfe strike at any one he may ward the Kings blowes, hold his hands or the like. Dr. Ferne sect. 2. He doth not condemne the people for hindring the exe­cution of a particular, passi­onate unlawfull command of the King by a loving vio­lence and Importunity. will not therefore take upon me to justify the angry expressions of the most judicious writer, much lesse can I ever mention those bastard-Pam­phlets without indignation, which spring from a Licentious and prostituted Presse. 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 setled & established his lawfull Authority upon surer Sect. 2. See the Book enti­tled Scripture Reason, &c. The Text Rom. 13. doth secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance. pag [...]. Magistrates must be submitted to by ver­tue of Gods Soveraignty. Damnation belongs to obsti­nate resisters of humane laws which are not opposite to Gods law. p. 5. 7. grounds and better principles then those very men who pretend to write for the King. Every man is now accounted an Anabaptist if he doe not maintain Monarchy to be Iure Divino; heare then what Dr. Ferne saith. We confesse that neither Monarchy, nor Aristocracy, or any other forme 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 Monarchicall government. D ^r. [Page 58] Ferne grants that it is the Invention of man, and hath not so much as Gods Permissive approbation till that qualification or Forme is orderly agreed upon by Men; in the selfe same Sec. Be pleased now to hear Mr. Burroughes: However Prin­ces may be exasperated against Puritanicall Preachers (sai M. Burroughes) yet they are as much beholding to them as to any people in their kingdomes for bringing people out of conscience to obey Authority; You see here Mr. Burroughes his Sermon of the 1. of Hoasts. pag. 45. the people are pressed to obey the lawfull Authority Scripture and Reason the book set forth by divers Mi­nisters. The conscience is bound to obey the lawfull commands of Magistrates, Gods wrath is upon the con­science of them that disobey. p. 8. Magistr [...]tes are to be maintained upon the publike stock. p. 8. read pag. 12, 13. and judge whether these Divines doe not plead the Kings cause better then Dr. Ferne; they say that the very houses of Parliament may not resist the Authority of the King com­manding according to law. pag. 23. Read the Ministers E­pistle to the Reader, and their answer to the 7. Section of Dr. Ferne. of the King out of Conscience by such as are coun­ted Puritanicall Preachers. In the answer to the ob­servations printed at Oxford by his Majesties com­mand, I find that Monarchy is not much younger then man himselfe— that Regall Power sprang first from Paternall, a Regall power belonged to the Pater­familias, pag. 3. as if he meant onely 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 peoples Reason, and yet quite The Papists say that although Kings doe governe by the lawes of their kingdome, yet because they are against the Catholique Religion, Sub­jects may rise up against their King and kill him, this do­ctrine of theirs we abhorre. thorowout his book he talkes 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 Turkes and French peasants have done: he teaches them how to perish with a great deale of discretion, or else how to be safe by the benefit of slavery. p. 10, 11. The Observatour saith that Regall 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 Davids rewarding of false Ziba as a pattern to our King, he would perswade the King to trust Pa­pists [Page 59] 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 innocency of the Subject and treachery of these Ziba's, Pa­pists or Pickthankes is discovered, yet the King must not re­verse his sentence pronounced in favour of the Papists though to the ruine of good Subjects and their posterity, all this Divinity is closely involved by this conscientious Doctour, in the 7. Section. How farre the Divines of this time differ from the doctrine of Papists is clearly shewen by Mr. Mr. Burroughes Sermon of the [...]. of Hoasts. p. 41. See Mr. Bridge his Answer to Dr. Fern. The Papists doe not on­ly hold it lawfull to depose, & thus to depose their Prince, but to kill him also, yea that a private man invested with the Popes Authority may do thus, all which we abhorre. Sect. 5. p. 32. Papists owe subjection to a forraine State, crosse centered to this of his Majesties, in its interest of State, and merito­riously malitious by its very Articles of faith. The fuller Answer to Dr Ferne. p. 23. The name King doth sig­nifie a person invested with different power according to the variety of Lawes in seve­verall nations. See an answer to the Observations printed at Oxford by his Majesties command. p. 6. What the Lawes of the Kingdome and Priviledges of Parliament are, the Lawyers books dayly published declare. Nemo potest mutare Consili­um suum in altertus injuriam. There would be no end if the King should undoe what he hath done—there can be no appeale from himselfe to himselfe—he is not to passe sentence in a private but in a publique and judi­ciall way. Answer to the ob­servations, pag. 22. Set forth by his Majesties command. Potestas [...] est [...] Burroughes, Mr. Bridge, and therefore it is strange the Papists should be counted the better Subjects. Mr. Burroughes 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 Doctour Ferne) to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God, yea by the established lawes of the Land; for in these we have his will and consent given upon goood advice, and to obey him against the lawes, were to obey him against himselfe, his suddain will against his deliberate will, Sect. 1. For in­stance, it is the Kings deliberate wil that this Parliament shall not be dissolved, or any forces levyed without consent of both houses of Parliament, as appeares by two severall Acts made this Parliament. If then any take up armes either without consent of Parliament, or on purpose to dissolve this present Parliament, they doe certainly take up armes against the King himselfe, (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 Armes without the consent of the Parliament, or a­gainst the Parliament, such Commissions must be interpreted to proceed from the Kings suddaine 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.

[Page 60] There is another answer to Dr. Ferne intitled a By Law the King cannot, will not refuse to hearken to his great Councell— Answer to the Observation pag. 28. and pag. 37. he saith that by the happy temper of our government, Monarchy is so wisely ballanced, that as we are not exposed to the dangers which attend the Rule of the many, so we may avoid the inconveniences which might probably flow from the Atbitrary power of one. The same Authour doth readily grant that Parlia­ments are good Helpes in Government. p. 13. ergo they are somewhat more then Counsellours. fuller answer, in which there is much Law and Lo­gick (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 Gods ordinance, but then he tells the people their duty in plaine English, namely, that it is Gods 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 Lords sake, as Saint Peter saith. pag. 17. Here is Sub­mission out of Conscience for the Lords sake, to all Legall Supremacy; what can be desired more, un­lesse they would make the King an Absolute Mo­narch? (and so give him an absolute Supremacy) which the King himselfe doth utterly disclaime in his answer to the 19. Propositions.

The zealous Divines of this very time doe ab­horre the seditious practises and opinions of all A­nabaptists, who because the Church had not Chri­stian Kings at first, cry out with open mouth Quemadmodum Anabaptistae opinantur quod nullus Magi­stratus in Ecclesia esse possit. Bulling adv. Anabapt. lib. 5. p. 157. See Scripture and Rea­son set forth by divers lear­ned Ministers. that the Church cannot be safe if there be any King or Magistrate in the Church; nay they adde that if a King turn Christian he must cease to be a King, be­cause Christianity it selfe is repugnant to Magistra­cy, and no Vide Bulling lib. 5. cap. 2. cap. 2. Magistratum non posse neque debere curare res religionis. Magistrate ought to look after any thing that concernes Religion. They maintain that Christians ought not to have any Judiciall tryalls before Magistrates, that no Christians ought to punish offen­dors with death or imprisonment, but with Excommuni­cation only. They would not have Heretikes punished by the Magistrate, Vide eundem cap. 4, 5. ejus­dem libri. Contendunt A [...]abap­tista in Ecclesiâ unicuique libe rum esse debero ut agat & cre­dat quod ipsi visum fuerit, ubi supra. cap. 7. but every man should be left to his liberty to beleeve what he thinks fit, just as the Arminians and Socinians dreame. I would Kings and Princes did seriously consider that the Nulla Carnalis coercitio nul­la poena err [...]ntibus constituta à Deo est—omnes in seipsum armat qui in alios quos errare credit armatur. Par omnium in omnes Ius est. Qui sibi jus tri­buit coercendi alio [...], idem aliis in seipsum Idem jus us concedat necesse est. Exam. Cens. cap. 24. pag. 259. Arminians have taught Heretikes to rebell a­gainst [Page 61] any Prince or Magistrate who goes about to inflict punishment upon them in a legall way; for, say they, if the Magistrate goes about to punish an Heretike because he thinks the Heretike in an errour, the Heretikes may all joyne together and rise up in armes against the Magistrate because they conceive the Magistrate to be in an errour; for the Heretikes have as much power to kill the Magistrate, as the Magistrate hath to execute such seditious Heretikes, Par omnium in omnes jus est, is not that pure Anabaptisme in the highest? Nay they adde Lex ista de Apost [...] ­tis à Christianisnio non agi [...] nedum de Apostatis ad Iu­daismum, & c—Religionem Suam liber am Christus esse voluit; qui ab ea deficiant, suo pe­riculo & damno de­ficiunt. Ex Censur [...] cap. 24. p. 264. farther, that though the Heretikes be seditious, Reipub. Tur­bones, if they be Apostates, if they turne Iewes and blaspheme Christ, yet they would not have them punished by the Ma­gistrates: these Arminian, Socinian, Anabaptisticall errours are justly abhorred by the Divines of this very time. There is at this very day a great talke 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 Tub-prea­chers. publikely, then indeed the Arminians would have them grievously punished, the Magistrate may if it be need­full (say they) make a whippe of Cords and drive them out Nihil tamen ali [...]d colligetur quam ejectionem Hare­ticorum ex publi­cis templis ad ma­gistratum pertinē ­tibus licite à ma­gistratu fieri posse, & quidem si ne­cesse sit flagelloè funiculis ei fini fa­cto, ulterius aut plus concludere ne­mo jure potest. At hoc jus Magistra­tui plenâ manu tribuunt Remon­strantes; Hac ergo in parte imitetur Magistras us Chri­stum. Exam. Cens. cap. 24. pag. 269. At in p [...]imá Ec­clesia institutions cū ordo non est, au [...] in ejus restitutione cum ordo collapsus est, Missionem ne­cessariam esse ne­gant (Remonst.) proinde cam de es­sentia muneris Ec­clesiastici, quod in verbi legitimâ prae­dicatione consistit, non esse habendam. Ex. Cen. c. 21. p. 228 Aut libertas hac communis esse debet & eo usque exten­di quo eam quisque sibi Concedi amat, aut vis inferenda aliorum conscientiis Exam. Cens. c. 24. p 277. of the Temple, as our Saviour did the Hucksters: Thus they abuse our Saviour and the Magistrate both in a breath, they will not allow the Magistrate to doe any more. They doe 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 doe punctually observe the Arminians grave instructions. The Arminians allow a liberty of Prophecying, if any man shall perswade himselfe that he hath received some spirituall 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, [Page 62] 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 perswasion required to beare out this Enthysiast, though he seemes 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 meane 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 mens, contendendi libido, adeo (que) Remonstrantes causam nullam esse vident cur senten­tia eorum qu [...] Pa­dobaptismum ne­cessario in ecclesia Christi necessitate seu Pracepti seu Medii retinendum aut usurpandū esse non arbitrantur, ut entolerabilis in Ec­clesia censenda sit, a [...] proinde cur pa­stores isti qui eum p [...]r conscientiam u­surpare non audent—proveris a [...] degitimis p [...]storibus Christi habendi non sint? malus spiritus suggerit? Exam. Cens. cap. 24. pag. 276. Unlesse 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 Doctours, or else our censure of these Enthysiasts will bee doubtfull, uncertain. Finally (for I am weary of this sub­ject) they will admit Anabaptists to be true and lawfull Pastours 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 Brownists. of this Rent: I know between 40. and 50. yeares agoe, there were some followers of Browne, but in the latter end of King James his reigne, 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 [Page 63] his time) then the number of Brownists began to encrease; the reason was, because ceremonies began to be urged upon the conscience with so much earnestnesse as if they had been necessary to salvation: and about 6. or 7. yeares since when Where the eause of Schisme is ne­cessary, there not he that separates but he that is the cause of separati­on is the Schisma­tique. Tract con­cerning Schisme. pag. 4. the Arch-Bishop was in his ruffe, and his Priests began to sur­rogate it, preaching for doctrines the commandements of men, and consequently worshipping God in vaine, Math. 15. 9. men of tender consciences (and those no weake ones neither) began to feare, that they should transgresse the Commande­ments of God, by observing Traditions, Math. 15. 3. and conceived it vain, to joyne 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 colour 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 Crucifixe, 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 tacite soever our consent was, it would be known to God & our conscience. I will not take this faire Hint to tunne into a long story of what censures were passed upon my self 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 externall worship, that the Papists themselves thought those of greatest worth, learning and Au­thority [Page 64] in England, knew not well what Religion to be of, or where to fasten. The Jesuite who wrote the directions to N. N. which Mr. Chillingworth endeavours to answer, See Mr. Chilling. preface, Sect. 20. began to triumph in our complyances with Rome. Heark what he saith. ‘Protestantisme waxeth weary of it selfe, the Professours of it, they especially of greatest worth, learning and Authority, love temper and Moderation, and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten, then at the infancy of their Church. Their Churches begin to look with a new face, their walls to speak a new language, their Doctrines to be altered in many things, &c.’ Mr. Chillingworth is so vaine as to call this painting of Churches the Beauty of Holinesse, 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 Romane Catho­liques; no marvaile if the poore people cryed out that Eng­land was turned Babylon, and began to separate; for that is Hookers Ecclesiast. Polit l. 5 sect. 65. very observable which Judicious Hooker delivers in his Ec­clesiasticall Politie. The people (saith he) are not accustomed to trouble their wits with nice and subtile differences in the exer­cises Mr Chill. Answer to the Preface. p. 16. Sect. 22. There cannot be any Schisme in leaving Commu­nion with any Church, unlesse we are obliged to continue in it; man cannot be obliged by man, but to what either formally or ver­tually he is obli­ged by God. Was it not law­full for Judah to reforme her selfe whē Israel would not joyn? Sure it was or else the Prophet deceives me; that sayes ex­presly, Though Is­rael transgresse, yet let not Judah sinne. of Religion—and (saith he) in actions of this kinde, (hee speakes of adoration of the Crosse, it may well be applyed to adoration towards the East, hoast, altar, Crucifixe) we are more to respect what the greatest part of men is commonly prone to conceive, then what some few mens wits may devise in constru­ction of their owne 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 subtilties 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 poore people could not be resolved, and [Page 65] durst not be damned; sure the Archbishop was rather Schis­maticall, The Archb. of Cant. his Relati­on. pag. 149. See Mr. Chilling­worths Preface, Sect. 44. answer to the 2. Motive. There may bee just cause to de­part from a parti­cular Church in some doct. ins and, practises, though that Church want nothing necessary to salva [...]ion. Dr. Petter. 2. Edit. Sect. 3. p. 75. There may be a necessary separa­tion, which yet incurres not the blame of Schism: The Archb. of Canterbury his Relation. p. 133. in margine. in imposing such burthens upon tender Communi­cants, then the people in separating from externall Commu­nion. Let M ^r. Chillingworth be Judge, sure he is no Brownist; ‘Neither is it alwayes of necessity Schismaticall to separate from the externall Communion of a Church, though wanting nothing necessary. For if this Church supposed to want nothing necessary, require me to professe against my conscience, that I beleeve some error, though never so small and innocent, which I doe not be­leeve, and will not allow me her Communion, but upon this condition;’ 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 externall Nor can you say that Israel from the t [...]me of Sepa­ration was not a Church. See the Archb. of Cant. Relat. pag. 149. 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 bee 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 See the Defēce of the Churches and Ministery of England by Mr. Iacob ag [...]inst M ^r. Iohnson; the Pub­lishers Epistle to the Reader pre­fixed before the Booke. 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 Kingdome, who are commonly called the Independent Mini­sters, and these are all put downe for Brownists, if not Ana­baptists, in the Oxford Catalogue, though the Ar­minians Non enim si ab hisce coetibus ad alios forte discedat, protinus eos quos deserit contemnit aut à spe salutu exclusos judicat, sed tantummodo ab impurioribus ad puriores se confert, ut veritatem omnem saluti nostrae aliquatenus servientem sibi cura & cordi esse ostendat, & Deo ac Iesu Christo suo conscientiam suam probet, Say the Arminians in their Preface to their Confession. have no reason to censure any that goe from a Congregation that is lesse pure, to one that is more pure. I will therefore briefely shew 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 doe not hold from the Head, [Page 66] as all Officers of the Church should doe, 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 labour by all lawfull meanes to procure a Reformation. They protest a­gainst Brownisme, as a See Mr. Thomas Goodwin his Fast Sermon preached at Westminster. bitter error, and full of cruelty; what can be desired more, to cleare them from being Brow­nists or Anabaptists? I heard the same man preach since with much fervency and earnestnesse of spirit against the Brow­nists for this their error, and among other inconveniencies which arise therefrom, hee mentioned this, that upon the same ground and reason for which they chiefely 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 seeme to acknowledge) to be no true Churches; and so no true Churches to have beene in Europe since the Reformati­on but themselves, which were a horrid opinion to enter in­to a mans heart.

4. Brownists doe not, that ever I could learne, differ from Protestants, concerning Civill government, and ther­fore See Mr. Burroughs his S [...]r­mon of the L. of Hoasts. p. 46. The Iesuits have [...]eene the Authors and Instruments of all tu [...]ults, seditions, &c. as Dr. Potter shewes, Want of Charity, &c. Sect. 1. pag. 9. The present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of salvation they have not to be Christians, as not to bee Ro­man Catholiques—be abso­lutely out of the Churches Communion, as be out of her Communion—whether shee bee not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists, and those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law, let reasonable men judge. Mr. Chillingworth. c. 3. Sect. 64. See D ^r. Potter Sect. 4. I doe 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 doe still groane 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 Catholique 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 errour, schisme, pride, uncharitablenesse, [Page 67] cruelty, and bitternesse be aggravated to the highest, yet the Papists have no reason to complaine of them; for Papists de­ny the Catholike Church as directly as the Brownists can be thought to doe, they confine it to their owne 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, hee may bee an Head without a Body, an Husband without a Spouse, a King without Subjects, as hath beene shewen above, pag. 49. The Socinians say that there is not as yet any triumphant Church above, nor is it necessary there should bee any militant Church here below. It was no errour in the Donatists that St. Augustine and Optatus did ac­knowledge the Donatists to bee their brethren, & their Baptisme to be true Baptisme, vide Aug in Psal. 32. Con 2. Epist. 166. Et contra Donat [...]post Coll. cap. ult. Optat. l. 1. Aug. contra Crese. lib. 4. cap. 4. de Baptis. contra Do­nat. lib. 1. c. 10, 11. D ^r. Potter doth confesse this truth. Sect. 4. p. 107, 108, 109. the first edition. they held it possible that the Church might bee 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 doe so; chap. 3. p. 162. But the Author of the Tract concerning Schisme doth quite outleape M ^r. Chillingworth. It is (saith he) a thing indifferent, the Church may be in any number more or lesse, it may be in any place, Countrey 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 quarrell with the Brownist is, that hee would have the Common-prayer Booke 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 Booke is established; M ^r. Chillingworth desires that there might be this triall made betweene us and the Papists, That there might be some Forme of Worshipping God propounded which is wholly taken out of the Scripture; and herein saith he to the Papists, if we refuse to joyne 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 keepe our distance from you, meerely because your Forme of worshipping God is not taken wholly out of Scrip­ture, though for the present then wee joyne not with you, yet doe not say (till that be done) that wee doe utterly and [Page 68] absolutely abandon your Communion. The Author of the Tract of Schisme would have such a Forme of service, as Donatists, Arians, Papists, all that call themselves Christians, might joyne in; p 9, 10. You see he dislikes the Common­prayer Booke, and sure dislikes the best part of it, the Creeds, he is farre worse then a Brownist. Be pleased to observe that Liturgies were first composed to expell Socinianisme, and Mr. Chillingw. de­sires that nothing else should be re­quired of any man to make him capable of the Churches commu­nion, then that he beleeve the Scrip­ture, and that on­ly; and endeavour to beleeve it in the true sense. His Preface to the Author, &c. an­swer to the last Motive. Ecclesiam nostram in omnibus audien­dam esse cōsequttur duo [...] us modu, tum quâ mutaverunt pleraque in Divinis Officiis, tum quâ multa retinuerunt: nam in altero se ad Antichristum per­tinere declara [...]unt; in altero nos esse populum Dei, & se esse simias nostras confessi sunt. Brist. Mot Tom. 2. Mot. 23. p 242. & seq. See BP. Mortons Appeale. Troubles of Frankford. See Dr Featleys Advertisement to the Reader, pre­fixed before Ver­ [...]m [...]us Romanus. now this Author would have a Liturgie composed to let in Arianisme, or at least to humour the Arians, and sooth them up in their Heresie, as if the Articles of our Creed were but private fancies, and it concerned us more to please Here­ticks, then preserve our Creed. But there is a learned man of a more moderate opinion, and sounder judgement then either of the former, though they bee both very learned men, it is D ^r. Featley, be pleased to heare him speake. There is nothing (saith he) in the Protestant Liturgie or Service which the Romanists do, or by their owne Rules can except at; The Con­fession, forme of Absolution, Prayers, Hymnes, 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 bragge so much, and why some that are not Brownists take offence at our Li­turgy. And this learned Doctor tels 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 certaine distinctive signe betweene Papists and Protestants, then monthly comming to Church, and taking the oathes 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 betweene him and the Smectym­n [...]ans. 3. To passe by what is said about the lawfulnesse of a Set-forme, let them consider what Arguments are produced against the Imposition of a Set-forme. 4. If it were gran­ted [Page 69] that a Set-forme 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 himselfe to prayer, he should meditate and stu­dy how to pray. 6. It is granted on all sides that wee ought to pray according to the occasion, and how we should fore­see all the wants and straits of a Church, and compose a Set-forme for them before-hand, it concernes them to de­clare. When K. Iames was to advise Prince Henry how to pray, hee did not thinke it sufficient to leave him to the Church-Liturgy, or to any prayers composed by man; the onely Rule of Prayer, saith he, is the Lords Prayer: he ad­vised him to study the Psalmes of David, because they be­ing composed by a King, hee might collect prayers out of them most sutable to his wants, and so he should be enabled to pray according to the occasion; he disswaded him from following the common ignorant sort, that prayes nothing but out of bookes, for that would breed an uncouth coldnesse in him towards God: hee bids him take heed that hee 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, Reade his [...], pag 151. 152. Let these things be well weighed and considered, and then our fierce men will not terme every man a Brownist, who desires to have that Law abrogated by which this Com­mon Prayer booke is established and enjoyned. I need not adde what the Arminians and Socinians think of Liturgies, onely 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 defence of our Liturgy, they will not admit, no not of the most received Creeds; there is (they Quare nil dubita­mus profiteri A­thanasium limitem jur [...] huj us prater­gressum esse, quan­do Symbolo suo su­per [...]am istam pr [...] ­sationē prascripsit. 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 hu­mane Formes, and into the assembly of such bold men let not our [Page 70] soule ever enter: you see what they think of humane Formes. Exam. Censurae Praef. pag. 6. 7. and lastly, the Brownists had beene in the right if the Archbishop of Canterbury could have compassed his Designe, 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 beene no true Church of God in England in­deed; not a true governing Church, for his government would have beene tyranicall, not a true practising Church, the practises of his Grace and his adherents are sufficiently knowne: nor a true teaching Church, as shall evidently be demonstrated in the next Chapter.

I Intend not to transcribe overmuch out of Bishop Moun­tague, Shelford, Pocklington, D ^r. Potter, M ^r. Chillingworth, D ^r. Dowe, D ^r. Heylin, &c. Their Books are com­monly The Canterburians Selfe-Conviction shewes; 1. Their avowed Armini­ [...]nisme. 2. Their affection to the Pope, and Popery in the grosse, cap. 3. 3. The Canterburians joyn with Rome in her grossest 1. dolatries, cap. 4. 4. Their embracing of Po­pish heresies and grossest er­rors, cap. 5. 5. Their Superstitions, cap. 6. 6. The Canterburians em­brace the Masse it self, cap. 7. 7. Their Maxims of tyran­ny, cap. 8. See the third Edition of this Canterb. Self-Convicti­on, with the large Supple­ment which containes sundry very materiall passages. 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 severall men, so that I am forestalled, and by some happi­ly prevented; there is a Booke entituled Ladensium [...] closely penned, and never answered, in which their Heresies are filled up by dozens, There will come forth a Booke very shortly, in which the Designe of Reconciling, or rather uni­ting Rome and Canterbury, (for there was no great quarrell betweene them) will be more fully disco­vered; for these reasons I may well shorten my journey. Let any man that desires satisfaction, but peruse those Bookes which were Printed in [Page 71] England betweene 1630. and 1639. and compare them with the Harmony of Confessions of the Reformed Chur­ches, and then hee 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 Masse: why for that if they will but yeild thus farre, as to turne their Masse into English, the good men are agreed; for M ^r. Chil­lingworth tels the Papists, that no Godly Lay man (that is, an ignorant Papist that is well conceited of the Masse) who is verily perswaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of their Latine Service shall be damned as he hopes for being pre­sent at it; Excellent Divinity! A strong perswasion will M ^r. Chillingworth [...] Answer to the Preface of Cha­rity Maintained, which is as it were a second Preface, for it followes the Pre­face joyned with an Answer to the Direction to N. N. p. 9. Sect. 7. turne superstition and impiety into godlinesse. Yet he saith there is some danger as long as the Service is in Latine, 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 beene saved; that is, might have beene saved if the Service had beene in English; this is plaine dealing, the men are likely to agree, the Masse 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 be­tweene 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.

[Page 72] 1. God is not offended with us for not doing what hee The answer to the Preface p. 19. knowes we cannot doe. Whiles we are unregenerate God knowes we cannot repent and beleeve; is not God of­fended with us even then, for our impenitence and unbe­leefe? besides, he conceives that unaffected ignorance joyn­ed with Implicite faith and generall repentance is not dam­nable.

2. Mr. Chillingworth is verily perswaded that God will In the same Fre­face. The second Pre­face. p. 19. not impute errours to them as sinnes, who use such a mea­sure of industry in finding truth, as humane prudence and ordinary discretion (their abilities, and opportunities, their distractions and hinderances, 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 justifie our selves when our opinions and practises are scanned by humane prudence, yet God may justly condemne 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 Vide Vedelium de Arc [...]nu Armini­anismi: the foure Professours of Leyden in their approbation of that book declare them to be will­fully blind who do not see that it was the scope of the Arminians to introduce Liber­tinisme. Vtnemo deinceps, quinon sponte cacutire ve­lit, de corum ad Libertinismi Introductionem Scopo dubitare possit Approbatio Facultatu Theolo­gica Leydensis. Mr. Chilling first Preface Sect. 29. Armini­an Libertinisme, which hath been so much admired of late dayes, and cryed up as the only way to maintain peace. For if a man poysoned 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 hinderances many; besides if he have time to consider the Arguments propounded, yet hee wants opportunity, and therefore all things considered he had as good yeeld as stand out, for it is in the eye of humane prudence, a matter of no great consequence: for Mr. Chillingworth saith a Papist may be saved, especially if he have the Masse 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 maintaine the Lawes of Christ with lesse indulgence to the flesh then the Papists.

3. Mr. Chillingworth thinkes it sufficient to beleeve all [Page 73] those bookes of Scripture (to be Gods Word) of whose Cap. 2 pag 64. Authority there was never any doubt made in the Church: hee cannot in reason beleeve the The book of Esther, Job, Ec­clesiastes, the Epi­stle of James and Jude, the second of Peter, the third of John, the Epi­stle to the He­brews, the book of the Revelati­on. We live in a questioning age: & no man knows how soon all the rest may be que­stioned. You may read more of Mr. Chillingworths prin­ciples, in a book entitled Christia­nity maintained: the passage about Henry the 8, &c. is too famous to be mentioned. Nos in diem vivi [...] mus; quodcunque nostros animos pro­babilitate percussit, illud dicimus. It a­que soli sumusli­beri hoc est Scepti­ci, vide Ciceron. Tusc. quast. lib. 5. Answer to the Preface. Sect. 26. The Arch-Bishop himselfe is more sound. A Church may hold the fun­damentall point Literally—yet erre damnably in the exposition of it: and this is the Church of Romes case—it hath in the Exposition both of Creeds & Councels quite changed and lost the sense & mea­ning of some of them. The Arch Bi­shops Relat. pag. 320. other bookes 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 denyall. Sect. 38. There is no necessity of conforming our selves to the judgement 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, shewed that they knew no necessity of con­forming themselves herein to the judgement of any Church. Sect. 34. and yet of this controversy whether such or such bookes be Canonicall, 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 beleeve by a kind of Implicite faith, that the Scripture is true in Gods 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 Gods 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 subtile booke most like a Protestant, let the learned judge. I have said enough of Dr. Potter already, I referre the Reader to Ladens. [...].

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 Crosse upon it, if we will beleeve Dr. Pocklington, Altare Christianum. cap. 21. pag. 143. We may comply with the Jewes 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 [Page 70] a vain conceit that the Christian Church of the Iewes had Vide Vedelium de Deo Synagoga. Dr. Kellet his Tricenium. The Laick must trust in his Priest, the Clergyman in his Church. p. 630. The [...]u [...]harist to be adored. p. 637. and received with our hands framed like a Crosse. 655. Altars adored. p.—644. The Arch Bi­shop of Ca [...]t. his Relat. pag. 147. Altars. I hope they did not bow all, to, or towards the Altar when they met. Act. 15. We must if we will beleeve this Dr. agree with the Iewes in externall 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 assigne what errours 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 doore for Schisme; he knew full well that some who were countenanced by him had brought in errours enough, which gáve just cause of separation. Knot the Je­suite spoke plaine 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 forsooke the Romane 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 This is the Pro­testant Religion which the Papists fight for, in thes fighting dayes. determining controversies of faith, and to interpret Scripture, about Free-will, Predestination, universall grace; that all our workes are not sinnes, Merit of good workes Inherent Justice, Faith alone doth not justify, Traditions, Commandements possi­ble to be kept. Your thirty nine Articles are patient, nay ambi­tious of some sense in which they may seeme Catholique. Calvi­nisme is accounted Heresy, and little lesse then treason. Men in talke use willingly the once fearfull names of Priests and Al­tars. What saith Mr. Chillingworth to this bold charge? Why, Behold the Pro­testant Religion which the Armi­minians maintain. Mr. Chillingworth might have que­stioned the salva­tion of the Iesu­ites as well as of the Dominicans, Ans. to the Pre­face. pag. 20. First Preface with an Answer to the Directions to N. N. Sect. 26. some things he excuses, and grants the rest. As for the Popes not being Antichrist, the lawfulnesse of some kinde of pray­ers for the dead, the Estate of the Fathers soules before Christs Ascension, Free-will, Predestination, universall grace, the possibility of keeping Gods Commandements, 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 beleeve an Arch-Priest Brearley; and so he leaves that point; here is a faire compasse, a long rope for a Papist, Arminian, &c. to dance in. But Mr. Chillingworth [Page 71] saith the Protestants have constantly maintained, and doe still maintain, that good workes 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 wil inform him of the ex­travagancies of some in these points, who passed for such Protestants as England hath been guilty of entertaining of late yeares. I have heard it publikely maintained in Oxford by Mr. Wethereld of Queenes Colledge, that Bona opera sunt Mr. Wethereld his Sermon at Saint Maries. Causae Physicae Vitae Aeternae, he had said before that they were Morall 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 justifyed; you may read their words at large in Ladensium [...] the fifth Chapter.

The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath given us the reason why the Jesuites refused to come to our Churches, (it seems he had invited them) since they themselves acknowledge The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury his Relat. Sect. 35. Punct. 5. p. 307. A probable con­jecture of his Graces Reason why he altered the Service-book. The difference between the Scotch Li [...]u [...]gy and the English is exactly set down in the Canterburians selfe conviction p. 97. to 113. See M. Newcomen his Sermon prea­ched on the fifth of Novemb. that there is no positive errour in our Liturgy, and it is briefly this. Because though our Liturgy had in it nothing ill, yet it wanted a great deale 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 Jesuites, for he put in some­thing which the Jesuites counted good, and so in his appre­hension made up the defect.

Mr. Newcomen in his learned Sermon hath shewen at large how punctuall his Grace was in observing the Je­suites instructions for the alteration of our Religion. How truth hath been sold at a low rate, by the highest Priests, is clearely 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 adde any thing 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 pre­tious manuscript called Romano-Catholicus Pacificus, in which [Page 76] there are many faire offers made for a Reconciliation be­tween The large sup­plement of the Canterburian selfe-conviction pag. 19, 20. Bishop Mounta­gu [...] saith that the [...]igne of the crosse is the Instrument of divine power and sufficient to drive away De­vills, it is to be made in the breast or forehead, &c. Orig. Eccles. Tom. prioris parte poster' pag. 80. Scripture and Reason, &c. Set forth by divers; Ministers. The book called Iesui­tica Negotiatio gave Iesuited per­sons leave to pro­fesse the Prote­stant religion, to keep any office, to passe sentence of death upon any person according to his office, so he was as favou­rable as possible, and gave timely intelligence of any severe sen­tence. pag. 74. Rome and Canterbury, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall enjoy the Cyprian priviledge and be subject to no Pa­triarch, of which you may read at large in the supplement of the Canterburian selfe-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 Mountague 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 bookes or in his Articles at visitation; It seemes our guides were gone so farre 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 professe them­selves members of the Church of England; Protestants are now counted Heretiques no longer, if you will speak pro­perly and strictly, saith that Popish Priest, and therefore sure Protestantisme is waxed weary of it selfe, as Knot speaks; you may well know what Protestants this Vertumnus meanes, 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-soules, and Dean Just like the Iesu­ise Dr Potter speaks of, who hoped well of honest Pagans, & rashly dāned the best part of Chri­stians. sect. 2. p. 45. I say nothing of Dr. Sheldon his Latine Sermon in which he did highly advance the Power of the Priest. 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 beleeve that Mr. Chillingworth doth intend to main­taine Calvinisme, I mean pure Protestant Religion? I appeale to the conscience of* Dr. Sheldon whether he hath not re­served more charity for an Infidel then a Calvinist? he hath expressed himselfe very slily in his Sermons, and yet plainly enough to intelligent Auditours, but I will take the counsell [Page 77] of his Text, and judge nothing before the time. I remember his observations upon that Text, Good Master what shall I doe that I may inherit eternall life? it is not, saith he, what shall I beleeve, as the Calvinists would have it, (or to that effect) but what shall I doe? Sure the good Dr. forgot the Jaylours cue­stion, What shall I doe to be saved? and the Apostles answer, Beleeve, &c. Is this the Calvinisme he jerkes at? Knot I be­leeve had some ground to say that the infection was so ge­nerall that it had overspread All Soules. I would there had been no need of such discoveries, but since things are grown to this passe, it is folly to complement, we are compelled to speak Plain English in Sober Sadnesse. If our faith will be Dr Potter 2 edit. sect. 3. pag. 68. lost except it be kept by a controversy, it is an act both of faith and love for Orthodoxe men to undertake the con­troversy.

Dr. Potter doth acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member of the Church universall, and saith the Church of Eng­land hath a true and reall union still with that Church in Faith and Charity: nay pag. 76. We doe not forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome any more then we forsake the Body of Christ, whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member though Impuritas non in dogmatibus fidei reperitur, sed vel in conclusionibus mi­nus certis, vel in ritibus; alioqui si impuritas ipsum cor & medullam oc­cupet, actum esse de tali ecclesiâ om­nes Orthodo [...]i cen­sent. Profess. Leyd. Censur. Praefat. Re­monst Praefix con­fess. sect. 23. That proud and curst Dame of Rome, &c. saith Dr. Potter p. 11. She doth poyson her own children, gives them ser­pents instead of fishes. p. 14. their charity is contrary to the true nature of Charity. p 16 they have more Chari­ty for a Iew and a Turk then a Calvinist. p. 17. we are persecuted with fire & sword and cursed into eternall fire by the Romane Charity, as Dr. Potter saith. p. 13 corrupted. But it seems in 8. or 9. yeares Dr. Potter had al­tered his opinion, for in his Sermon preached at the Con­secration of the Bishop of Carlslie, in the yeare 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 reall union with it still in Faith and Charity? It is in vaine 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 [Page 74] Charrons similitude, the Church is the apple, and the C [...]ur the worme, the worme hath eaten up the apple, the Court hath devoured the Church; we distinguish between Fundamen­talls and superstructions, and some talke as if the Papists were sound in Fundamentalls, but the case is cleare 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 shewes, cap. 2. pag. 64. Sect. 35. then sure here is a new Foundation, or else their Church is a Castle in the ayre, a Church without foundations. I dare appeale to Master Chillingworth whether the Papists doe not erre grossely (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 Read the cēsure of Reverend Dr. Twisse upon this passage of Dr. Potter in his trea­tise of the mora­lity of the fourth Commandement. pag. 34. Damna­ble i [...] themselves is in both editi­o [...]s, only corre­cted in the Erra­ta of the second edition, damna­ble in their issue. D. Twisse gives the reason. See Dr Potter 2d. edition p. 254, 255. We shall find that in those Propositions which without al controversy are universally re­ceived in the whole Christian World, so much truth is contained as be­ing joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a manun­to everlasting salvation. p. 255. that their errours and practises for which they have been forsaken of Protestants are not damnable in themselves to men who beleeve as they professe; but the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury is more Orthodoxe, or else the man that gave him this note was more Orthodoxe, (for doubtlesse the materialls of that faire fabrick were brought in by men of different re­ligions, the principles are so crosse) he saith that errour in points not Fundamentall 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 joyn with him; but the Arch-Bishop dislikes this plot, as it comes from A. C. or at least shewes 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 beleeve that only which the dissenting parties agree upon, or which the adverse party confesses; the Arch-Bishop instances in the Doctrine between the Orthodoxe and the Arian; if that rule [Page 75] be true which was mentioned before, then saith he 'tis sa­fest The Arminians say no man is an Herelike who de­nies a point which is, or may be controverted, and so they may deny the whole creed. De harcti­cu quaritur, non qut ea qu [...] in scrip turis aperte decis [...] sunt convellere au­dent, sed qui e [...] qu [...] controversa sunt, aut controverti pes­sunt in dubium vo [...] cant Exam. Cens. cap. 24. p. 276. The Arch-Bishop of Cant. his Relat. pag. 309, 310. Dr. Potter his Prayer. for a Christian to beleeve that Christ is of like nature with God the Father, and be free from beleefe, that he is Consubstantiall 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 meanes, and not confesse the Trinity of Persons in the unity of the Godhead, for his Grace hath not framed his argument right) then Iewes, Turkes and Socinians will be as good Chri­stians as we are. The fourth instance is about the verity of Christs 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 Turkes 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 Schismes, 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 minde and one mouth we may all joyne in his service, and for ever glorify the holy name of the most holy and glorious Trinity.