Trinity, &c. in the Church's infallibility, roundly deny that this great doctrine can be proved, either from Scripture, or by "confent of the ancient “fathers." This, as that great author obferves, is

doing the principal and proper work of the Soci“nians for them." I find the following extract from the Racovian Catechifm, made by the anonymous author of Four Treatifes concerning the Dottrine, &c. of the Mahometans :-Sententia eorum, qui Chrifto naturam divinam tribuunt, eft repugnans non folum Jane rationi, verum etiam Divinis Literis, &c." Hereunto the author fubjoins two other fimilar paffages, the first from Smalcius, a famous Socinian; and the latter from Socinus himself. words of Socinus are thefe. "Ufque ad tempora CoN"CILII NICENI, et aliquanto poft, ut omnium

The

qui tum extitere fcriptis liquet, ille unus verus Deus, quem paffim facra teftimonia prædicant, folus Pater Jefu Chrifti eft creditus; et qui contrarium fentiunt, "ut SABELLIANI et eorum fimiles, pro hæreticis plane "funt habiti."

Let us fee then how Bp. Jewel manages this matter against his antagonist Mr. Hardinge, who, in his pretended confutation of the Apology for the Church of England, confidently afferts, that "the Divini. ty of the Holy Ghoft cannot be proved by any exprefs authority from Scripture." We find that illuftrious prelate taking the wifeft method of putting his adversary to filence and confufion, by producing teftimonies and opinions, and not barely

4

conceffions, but ftrong affeverations of a directly contrary tendency, from the writers of the Roman Church itself. One quotation from Nazianzen is extremely remarkable, and runs as follows." Dicet aliquis non effe fcriptum, Spiritum San&tum effe "Deum. Atqui proponetur tibi EXAMEN teftimonio"rum, ex quibus oftendetur, Divinitatem S. Spi. tefta"tam effe in facris literis, nifi quis valde infulfus fit, "et alienus a Spiritu Santo." In fhort, the various methods which have been taken by Papifts to evince the neceffity of admitting the infallibility of the Church, and to discredit the authority of the evangelical writings, are equally fcandalous and pitiful. You have them particularly enumerated by an author juft now quoted; and it will be fufficient to select one of them, as it is a flagrant I mean that of the Cardinal Perron, who, in the last century, in order to render the Scriptures fufpected and contemptible, afferted, that " fome

one;

things in them found like fables, others are apt "to raise in the mind indecent and dishonest imagi"nations, as fome expreffions in Solomon's fong; "the hiftory of Balaam's Afs which fpoke; and "the jaw-bone of an Afs, with which Sampfon flew "a thousand Philistines."

CHILLINGWORTH's Preface. Bp. JEWEL's Defence. part 2d. p. 90. Tranflation of JURIEU's Contin. &c. p. 66. WOLLEBIUS's Compend. Theol. Chrif. cap. 2. p. 15. TRAVIS's Third Letter to Mr. GIBBON. See

SOCINUS

SOCINUS de Ecclef. p. 345. Four Treatifes, &c.

P. 191..

Page 13. (c) Errors of integrity.] One of Mr. K.'s arguments, or rather one argument urged by him in the name of his Church, is the following. "He"retics would arife after the Apoftles time, and "after the writing of Scriptures: these cannot be "discovered, condemned, and avoided, unless the "Church be infallible; therefore there must be a "Church infallible." To which Mr. Chillingworth replies in these words. " I pray tell me why can"not herefies befufficiently discovered, condemned, "and avoided by them which believe Scripture to "be the rule of faith? If Scripture be sufficient to "inform us what is the faith, it must of neceffity "be alfo fufficient to teach us what is herefy;

seeing herefy is nothing but a manifest deviation "from, and an oppofition to the faith. That "which is ftraight will plainly teach us what is "crooked, and one contrary cannot but manifeft "the other. If any one should deny that there is a "God, that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, "good, &c, &c; that Jefus Chrift is the Saviour "of the world, and the Son of God; if any man "fhould deny either his birth, his passion, or refur

rection, &c; or fitting at the right hand of God; "his having all power given him, &c; that it is he "whom God hath appointed to be Judge of the "quick and the dead; that all men fhall rife again at

"the last day, &c, &c; if a man fhould hold, "that either the keeping of the Mofaical law is

66

neceffary to Salvation, or that good works are "not neceffary; in a word, if any man should obftinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who does not fee " that every one which believes the Scripture hath "fufficient means to discover, and condemn, and "avoid that herefy, without any need of an "infallible guide? If you fay, that the obfcure places of Scripture contain matters of faith, I an66 fwer, that it is a matter of faith to believe that "the fenfe of them, whatever it is, which was in"tended by God, is true; for he that doth not so, "calls God's truth into question. But to believe "this or that to be the true sense of them, or to "believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the "falfe, is not neceffary either to faith, or falvation."

It may be asked, however, whether this gives us fatisfaction to the full? Do not our Creeds and Articles contain particulars which we shall look for in vain in M. C.'s lift of the objects of faith? Are not many whom we confider as heretics ready to fubfcribe to this lift? Was Mr. C. inadvertently, or defignedly filent with regard to these particulars? Or are we to confign them to the class of obfcurity? Whatever might have been his motive to the wording of his paragraph in this manner, or whatever was his perfonal perfuafion in refpect to the fundamental articles of the faith profeffed by the

Church

Church of England, the momentous import of the interrogatories I have juft put must be vifible to every reader.

When Mr. C., or any body else tells us, that "God does not require any more of any man than "this, to believe the Scripture to be God's word, ❝ and to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and "to live according to it ;" or, that "he that "believes the Scripture fincerely, and endeavours "to believe it in the true fenfe, cannot poffibly be "an heretic,”* he must be understood with qualification; as afferting, not abfolutely that an honest man cannot poffibly err concerning the faith, but that error, or herefy will not be imputed to involuntary ignorance, or to fincerity of persuasion.

"Herefy, fays Bp. Taylor, is not an error of the understanding, but of the will;" and elsewhere, "it is not the opinon, but the impiety that con"demns and makes the heretic." On this principle this fagacious and moderate writer condemns the Herefiarch whofe error " commences upon

pride and ambition, &c. and excufes those who "follow him in fimplicity of heart.”

Agreably to all this, Dr. Potter, (author of the Answer to Charity Miftaken, whofe caufe Chillingworth espouses,) and after him Dr. Waterland quotes the following remarkable paffage from Salvian, an antient Bishop of Marseilles, refpecting the truly

*See Relig. of Proteft. p. 335; and end of Preface.

fincere