{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41421/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41421","id":"gutenberg_41421","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41421","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Socinianism -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\n The text is divided into 5 \"Conferences\" and 41 sections.\n\n Marginal notes indicating the start of individual sections have been\n converted into section headings. Other notes have been numbered and\n moved to the end of each Conference. They often refer to the following\n (rather than preceding) passage, and if so are positioned accordingly.\n The locations of the marker for Note 13, and of the start of Section\n 8, are unclear: they have been inserted in accordance with the sense\n of the text.\n\n Other markers that do not correspond to marginal notes have been\n removed. The \"*\" that are retained in sections 11, 13 and 18 do not\n indicate marginal notes, but instead function as bullet points.\n\n Variations in spelling have been retained with the exception of the\n following:\n\n  Conference 1 Summary: \"byass'd\" changed to \"bypass'd\".\n\n  Conference 2 Section 17: \"be-belief\" changed to \"belief\" and\n  \"absolure\" to \"absolute\".\n\n  Conference 5 Section 36 \"enent\" changed to \"tenent\"; Section 37\n  \"Athenasian\" changed to \"Athanasian\".\n\n Obscured text has been transcribed as follows:\n\n  Conference 1 Section 8: \"?her\" transcribed as \"Luther\".\n\n  Conference 3 Section 18: the sentence beginning \"But if it be said\"\n  has been reconstructed from the work cited.\n\n  Conference 5 Section 30: the phrases \"not-conforming to\" and \"As to\n  Charity\" have been reconstructed.\n\n At the beginning of Conference 1 a brace, extending over several\n lines, has been replaced by a column of individual braces.\n\n Italics are indicated by _underscores_ and Greek by +plus signs+.\n When a word in italics is followed by \"'s\" the latter may or may not\n be italicised. This inconsistency has been retained. Inconsistent\n hyphenation has also been retained.\n\n The Text has been corrected in accordance with the Errata section.\n Mismatched brackets and parentheses have been removed and apparent\n punctuation errors corrected.\n\n\n\n\n THE\n Protestants Plea\n FOR A SOCINIAN:\n\n Justifying His Doctrine from being opposite to\n SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH-AUTHORITY;\n\n And Him from being Guilty of\n HERESIE, or SCHISM.\n\n In Five Conferences.\n\n Publish'd with Allowance.\n\n _LONDON_,\n Printed by _Henry Hills_, Printer to the King's Most\n Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel. 1686.\n\n\n\n\n THE\n First Conference.\n\nThe _Socinian's_ Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing\ncontrary to the _Holy Scriptures_.\n\n\n 1. _That he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's\n   Word; and therefore implicitly believes those truths, against which\n   he errs._ \u00a7. 2.\n\n 2. _That also he useth his best endeavor to find the true sense of\n   Scriptures: and, that more is not required of him from God for his\n   Faith or Salvation, than doing his best endeavour for attaining\n   it._ \u00a7. 3.\n\n 3. _That, as for an explicite Faith required of some points\n   necessary, he is sufficiently assured, that this point concerning\n   the Son's Consubstantiality with the Father, as to the affirmative,\n   is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be\n   clear in Scripture, even to the unlearned; which this, in the\n   affirmative, is not to him._ \u00a7. 4.\n\n 4. _That several express, and plain Scriptures do perswade him,\n   that the negative (if either) is necessary to be believed; and that\n   from the clearness of Scriptures, he hath as much certainty in this\n   point, as Protestants can have from them in some other, held\n   against the common expressions of the former times of the\n   Church._ \u00a7. 6, 8.\n\n 5. _That, for the right understanding of Scriptures, either he may\n   be certain of a just industry used; or else, that Protestants, in\n   asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious;\n   and then, that none are certain, when they have used a just\n   industry, thus must still remain also uncertain in their Faith; as\n   not knowing, whether some defect in this their industry causeth\n   them not to mistake the Scriptures._\n\n 6. _Lastly; That none have used more diligence in the search of\n   Scripture, than the_ Socinians, _as appears by their Writings,\n   addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God, and not suffering\n   themselves to be any way bypass'd by any other humane, either\n   modern, or ancient Authority._ \u00a7. 9.\n\n          {Where, _The_ Protestant's, _and_ Socinian's _pretended_\n          {_Certainty of the sense of Scripture apprehended by them,_\n Digress. {_and made the ground of their Faith against the sense of_\n          {_the same Scripture declared by the major part of the_\n          {_Church is examined_. \u00a7. 9.\n\n\n\u00a7. 1.\n\nTo shew the invalidity of such a Guide as Protestants have framed to\nthemselves for preserving the true Faith, and suppressing Heresies,\nhath for several years been the Subject of divers Modern Pens: But,\nbecause Instances and Examples, seem to some, more weighty and\nconvincing, it is thought fit (the more to awaken, and the better to\nsatisfie him) here to let the Reader see what Apology a _Socinian_\n(who tho' denying the Trinity, and our Saviors Deity, yet, most\nzealously urges Scripture, and its plainness in all necessaries, as if\nit justified his own Errors; or that he Erred only in matters not\nnecessary) upon the Protestant Principles may return for himself to a\nProtestant endeavouring to reduce him to the true Faith and the\n_Nicene_ Creed; and using any of these five Motives thereto, _viz._\nThe Testimony of 1. Scripture. 2. Catholic-Church-Authority. 3.\nCouncils, with the Danger and Guilt of 4. Heresie, and 5. Schism. Not\nintending hereby to equal all Protestant Opinions with the _Socinian_;\nbut inferring that these Pleas as relating to these Motives will as\nrationally justifie the _Socinian_ as the Protestant.\n\nFor, suppose a Protestant, first, concerning the _Scriptures_,\nquestion a _Socinian_ in this manner.\n\n_Prot._ Why do you, to the great danger of your soul, and salvation,\nnot believe, _God the Son to be of one, and the same essence, and\nsubstance with God the Father_, it being so principal an Article of\nthe _Christian_ Faith, delivered in the _Holy Scriptures_?\n\n_Soc._ To give you a satisfactory account of this matter. I do\nbelieve, with other Christians, that the Scriptures are the Word of\nGod; and, with other Protestants, that they are a perfect _Rule_ of my\nfaith.\n\n\n\u00a7. 2.\n\n_Prot._ But, this secures you not, unless you believe according to\nthis _Rule_; which in this point, you do not.\n\n_Soc._ However I believe in this point; truly, or falsly; I am secure\nthat my Faith is entire, as to all _necessary_ points of Faith.\n\n_Prot._ How so?\n\n_Soc._ Because, as M. _Chillingworth_ saith[1]--_He that believes all\nthat is in the_ Bible, _all that is in the_ Scriptures (_as I do_)\n_believes all that is_ necessary _there_.\n\n_Prot._ This must needs be true: but mean while, if there be either\nsome part of Scripture not known at all by you; or the true sense of\nsome part of that you know (for, _the Scripture_, as that Author\nnotes[2], _is not so much the words, as the sense_) be mistaken by\nyou, how can you say, you believe all the Scriptures? For, when you\nsay, you believe all the Scripture, you mean only this: that you\nbelieve, that, whatsoever is the _true sense_ thereof, that is _God's\nWord_; and most certainly true: which belief of yours doth very well\nconsist with your not believing, or also your believing the contrary\nto the _true sense_ thereof: and then you, not believing the true\nsense of some part of it at least, may also not believe the true sense\nof something _necessary_ there; which is quite contrary to your\nconclusion here.\n\n\n\u00a7. 3.\n\n_Soc._ [3]----_I believe, that that sense of them which God intendeth\nwhatsoever it is, is certainly true; And thus I believe implicitely\neven those very truths, against which I err._ Next: [4]----_I do my_\nbest endeavour _to believe Scripture in the true sense thereof. By my\nbest endeavour I mean_[5], _such a measure of industry, as humane\nprudence, and ordinary discretion_ (_my abilities, and opportunities,\nmy distractions, and hindrances, and all other things considered_)\n_shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence._ Of _using_\nwhich _endeavour_ also, I conceive, I may be sufficiently certain:\n[for otherwise, I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from\nthis compleat Rule of Scriptures; this due endeavor being the\ncondition, which Protestants require, that I shall not be, as to all\nnecessaries, deceived in the sense of Scripture.] Now, being conscious\nto my self of such a right endeavor used: [6]----_For me, to believe,\nfurther, this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures; or to\nbelieve the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not\nnecessary, either to my faith or salvation. For, if God would have had\nhis meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with\nhis wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak\nobscurely? Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to\nknow certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not\nrevealed?_ [7]----_For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly\ncontained in Scripture, after my best endeavour used; to say that God\nwill damn me for such errors, who am a lover of him, and lover of\ntruth, is to rob man of his comfort, and God of his goodness; is to\nmake man desperate, and God a Tyrant._\n\n\n\u00a7. 4.\n\n_Prot._ But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of\nFaith revealed in Scripture: for you ought to have of some points an\n_express_ and _explicite_ Faith.\n\n_Soc._ Of what points?\n\n_Prot._ Of all those that are _fundamental_ and _necessary_.\n\n_Soc._ Then if this point of _Consubstantiality of the Son with God\nthe Father_ be none of the _Fundamentals_, and necessaries, wherein I\nam to have a right and an explicite Faith, the account I have given\nyou already, I hope, is satisfactory.\n\n\n\u00a7. 5.\n\nBut next: I am secure, that this point, which is the subject of our\ndiscourse, at least in the affirmative thereof, is no fundamental;\nfor, according to the Protestant principles [8]----_The Scripture is a\nRule, as sufficiently perfect, so sufficiently intelligible in things\nnecessary, to all that have understanding; whether learned, or\nunlearned. Neither is any thing necessary to be believed, but what is\nplainly revealed: for to say, that when a place of Scripture by reason\nof ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses, whereof one\nis true, and the other false, that God obligeth men under pain of\ndamnation not to mistake through error, and humane frailty, is to make\nGod a Tyrant, and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain\nthat end, for the attaining whereof we have no certain means. In\nfine,_ [9] _where Scriptures are plain, as they are in necessaries,\nthey need no infallible Interpreter, no further explanation_ [to me];\n_and where they are not plain, there if I, using diligence to find the\ntruth, do yet miss of it, and fall into Error, there is no danger in\nit._\n\n_Prot._ True. Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned, using\na due Industry, void of a contrary interest, _&c._\n\n_Soc._ And in such industry I may be assured, I have not been\ndeficient, having bestowed much study on this matter, read the\nControversie on both sides; compared Texts, _&c._ (as also appears in\nthe diligent writings of others of my perswasion); and after all this,\nthe sense of Scripture also, which I embrace, (a sense, you know,\ndecried and persecuted by most Christians) is very contrary to all my\nsecular relations, interest, and profit.\n\n\n\u00a7. 6.\n\nNow, after all this search I have used, I am so far satisfied, that\nthis point, on the affirmative side, is not clear, and evident in\nScripture (and therefore no Fundamental) that I can produce most clear\nand evident places out of the Scriptures (if a man can be certain of\nany thing from the perspicuity of its Expressions) that the contrary\nof it is so.\n\n[See _Crellius_ in the Preface to his Book _De uno Deo Patre_,----_H\u00e6c\nde uno Deo Patre sententia_ plurimis, _ac_ clarissimis _sacrarum\nliterarum testimoniis nititur_----Evidens _sententi\u00e6 veritas, &\nrationum_ firmissimarum _\u00e8 sacris literis spont\u00e8 subnascentium_\nmultitudo, _ingenii nostri tenuitatem sublevat, &c._----_Argumenta,\nqu\u00e6 ex sacris literis deprompsimus, per se_ plana _sunt, ac_ facilia\n_adeo quidem, ut eorum vim declinare ali\u00e2 ratione non possint\nadversarii, quam ut \u00e2 verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant, tum\nnos abducere conentur._ And see the particular places of Scripture\nwhich they urge (where, as to the expression, and other Texts being\nlaid aside, that seems to be said, as it were _totidem verbis_, which\nthe Socinians maintain), _Joh._ 14. 28. 17. 3. _Ep._ 1 _Cor._ 8.\n6.----_Col._ 1. 15. _& Rev._ 3. 14. I set not down this to countenance\ntheir Cause, but to shew their Confidence.]\n\n\n\u00a7. 7.\n\n_Prot._ O strange Presumption! And is not your judgment, then, liable\nto mistake in the true sense of these Scriptures, because you strongly\npersuade your self, they are most evident on your side?\n\n_Soc._ 'Tis true, that I may _mistake_ in the sense of _some_\nScripture; but it follows not from hence, that I can be _certain_ of\nthe sense of _no_ Scriptures. To answer you in the words of Mr.\n_Chillingworth_[10]----_Tho' I pretend not to certain means in\ninterpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure\nand ambiguous; yet this methinks should be no impediment, but that we\nmay have certain means of not erring in, and about the sense of those\nplaces which are so plain and clear, that they need no Interpreters;\nand in such this my Faith is contained. If you ask me, how I can be\nsure, that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask you again;\nCan you be sure you understand what I, or any man else saith; They\nthat heard our Saviour and the Apostles Preach, can they have\nsufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would\nhave them do? If not, to what end did they hear them? If they could,\nwhy may not I be as well assured, that I understand sufficiently, what\nI conceive plain in their Writings?_ Again; I pray tell me, whether do\nyou certainly know the sense of these Scriptures, for the evidence of\nwhich you separated from the Church that was before _Luther_,\nrequiring conformity to the contrary Doctrines, as a condition of her\nCommunion? _If you do, then give us leave to have the same means, and\nthe same abilities to know other plain places, which you have to know\nthese. For if all the Scripture be obscure, how can you know the sense\nof these places? If some places of it be plain, why should I stay\nhere?_----[11] _If you ask, seeing I may possibly err, how can I be\nassured I do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive\nyou, how can you be sure you see the Sun, when you do see it?_ [12] _A\nJudge may possibly err in Judgment, can he therefore never have\nassurance that he hath judged rightly? a Traveller may possibly\nmistake his way; must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the\nright way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our_ London _Carrier have\nno certainty in the middle of the day, when he is sober, and in his\nwits, that he is in his way to_ London?[13]--_This I am certain of,\nthat God will not require of me a certainly unerring belief, unless he\nhad given me a certain means to avoid error, and if I use those which\nI have, will never require of me, that I use that which I have\nnot_[14].----This is Mr. _Chillingworth_'s solid Plea, against the\nPapist's grand Objection, for the proving an uncertainty in the\nProtestant's Faith upon any their pretence of _evident_ Scripture.\n\n\nSect. 8.\n\n_Prot._ But the Scriptures, which you urge against _the Son's being\nthe same one only God with God the Father_, carry not the same\nevidence and clearness, as those Scriptures do, whereon Protestants\nbuild the certainty of their Faith against the Papists, or against the\ncommon Church-Doctrines that were before _Luther_.\n\n_Soc._ That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures, which you of\nmine: I pray, what can be said more plain, or in what point, in your\nOpinion, more fundamental (wherein we contend Scripture is most clear,\neven to the unlearned), than this, in _Joh._ 17. 3.--_Ut cognoscant\nte_ [Pater] _solum verum Deum; &, quem misisti, Jesum Christum_--And,\n1 _Cor._ 8. 6. _Unus Deus, Pater; & unus Dominus, Jesus._ And, _Eph._\n4. _ver._ 5. _Unus est Dominus_, [i. e. _Jesus_;] and then, _ver._ 6.\n_Unus est Deus, & Pater omnium_--And, _Joh._ 14. 1. _Creditis in Deum,\n& in me credite_----And _v._ 28. _Pater meus major me est._ I say,\nwhat more clear for proving the Father his being the _true, most high_\nGod, and excluding the other Persons [the _Son_, or the _Holy Ghost_]\nfrom being the very same God?\n\n_Prot._ And 1. what more clear, on the other side, than these Texts,\n_Rom._ 9. 5. _Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is\nover all, God blessed for ever_----And, _Tit._ 2. 13. _The glorious\nappearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ._\nAnd [15]--_we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.\nThis is the true God and eternal life_, spoken by St. _John_, the\ngreat vindicator, against _Ebion_, _Cerinthus_, _Carpocrates_ and\nother, in his time, opposers of our Lord's Divinity[16]----And _Apoc._\n1. 8. compared with 1. 17.----_I am_ Alpha _and_ Omega, _the beginning\nand the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the\nAlmighty_? I say, what more clear than these Texts, for shewing the\n_true Deity_ of Christ? 2. And then, how many other clear Texts are\nthere, asserting the _Eternity_ of our Lord; that he is nothing made\nor created, but pre-existent before the constitution of the World;\nequal with God; and that Heaven, and Earth, and all things were made\nby him, that were made; and that he descended from Heaven from his\nFather, when he took our nature upon him? See _Joh._ 1. 1. &c.--3. 13.\n_Heb._ 1. 2, 3, 10 &c.--_Joh._ 17. 5, 24.--_Phil._ 2. 6.--_Joh._ 6.\n38.----16. 28.----1. _Tim._ 3. 16.--_Heb._ 2. 14. And 3. then, his\n_Deity_ and _Eternity_ thus cleared, his Deity can be no other, than,\nin the total essence thereof, numerically the same with that of God\nthe Father. For, those of your own Sect, together with the whole\nChristian world, do acknowledge, 1. That there is but one numerical\nmost high God, an inseparable attribute of whom is his Creating of the\nworld, and preexistence before it. And again; 2. That the substance or\nessence of this most high God, is not any way divisible, partible or\nmultipliable; so that, _Si Christus ex Dei substanti\u00e2 generatus fuit,\ntota ei Patris substantia, eadem numero, communicata fuit._ See\n_Volkel. de vera Rel. l._ 5. _c._ 12. upon which consequence well\ndiscerned, your predecessors were constrained to desert Arianism, or\nsemi-Arianism, and to take in other respects a more desperate way, of\ndenying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation: To\nreturn then to our business. All Scripture being equally true; you\nknow, no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sense, which\nothers, as clear contradict. The non-consideration of which by the\npassionate or unlearned, is the mother of all errors. The Texts\ntherefore that you produce here so manifest on your side, that they\nmay not contradict many more others as clear against you, are to be\nunderstood to speak of our Lord only according to his _Incarnation_,\n_Messias_ and _Mediatorship_, in which he hath an inferiority to the\nFather and is our _Lord_, by a special Redemption with his blood, in\nanother manner, than He together with his Father, in the same essence,\nis the one true God.\n\n_Soc._ All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently\nconsidered, and answered by our party.\n\n_Prot._ And your Answers are new, forced, absurd, as may clearly\nappear to any rational and indifferent person perusing _Volkelius_ l.\n5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter. But to omit this dispute, as now\nbeside my purpose. If your sense of the Scriptures, you have urged, be\nso manifest and clear, as you pretend; how comes so great a part of\nthe Christian world (doubtless rational men), in the sense of these\nvery Scriptures so much to differ from you? Therefore here I cannot\nbut still suppose in you the defect of a _due industry_, well\ncomparing these Scriptures, and void of pride, passion, and other\ninterest.\n\n_Soc._ And I return the like question to you. If, on the clearness of\nthe express sense of these Scriptures, I cannot infallibly ground my\nfaith, against many other rational men contradicting; on what\nplainness of the sense of any other Scripture is it, that Protestants\ncan ground theirs against a contrary sense given by the learned; by\nseveral Councils; by the whole Church of some ages, as they do; not\npromising to the Councils, even to the four first, an absolute, but\nconditional assent, _viz._ only so far, as their Decrees agree with\nthese clear Scriptures? If neither the plain words of Scripture can\nafford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter, which Scriptures,\nyou say, in fundamentals are to all perspicuous (and such do many deem\nthis point); nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbiast\nindustry in the understanding of these Scriptures, and also in the\ncomparing them with others, in which I am conscious to my self of no\nneglect, I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any\nother part of Scripture; and then, wherein can lye the assurance of a\nProtestant's Faith, for his not erring in _Fundamentals_ at least?\nBishop _Lany_ tells me,[17] _That when we have certain knowledge of a\nthing, we may safely learn from the Schools,_ viz. _Ubi non est\nformido contrarii; that after diligent search and inquiry when there\nremains no scruple, doubt, and fear of the contrary, when the\nunderstanding is fixt, we are said to be certain--And that they who\nwill say it, and do think so too, may safely be absolved from the\nguilt of disobedience._\n\n_Prot._ [18]_You have a judgment of discretion I grant, and may\nInterpret Scripture for your self: without the use of which Judgment\nyou cannot serve God with a reasonable service, who are also to give\naccount of your self, and are to be saved by your own Faith, and do\nperish upon your own score._----[19]_None may usurp that royal\nprerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned,\nbut leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws,\nbecause each Member of this Society is bound to take care of his Soul,\nand of all things that tend thereto_----[20]_In matters of Religion,\nwhen the question is, whether any man be a fit judge, and chooser for\nhimself, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference\nbetween a moment and eternity. And then I suppose that all the\nnecessary points in Religion are plain and easie, and consequently\nevery man in this case to be a compleat Judge for himself, because it\nconcerns himself to Judge aright, as much as eternal happiness is\nworth: and if through his own default he Judge amiss, he alone shall\nsuffer for it._ To God's righteous Judgment therefore I must finally\nremit you. At your own peril be it. This, of the Socinian's Plea\nconcerning the Scripture on his side.\n\n\n\u00a7. 9.\n\nWhere the self-clearness of the sense of Scriptures, not mistakable in\nFundamentals, or necessaries, upon a due industry used (of which also\nrightly used, men may be sufficiently assured,) being made the ground,\nas you see, of the Protestants and Socinians Faith, before these two\nproceed to any further conference, give me leave, to interpose a word\nbetween them, concerning this certainty so much spoken of, and\npresumed on.\n\n\n\u00a7. 10.\n\nAnd here first, from this way, lately taken by many Protestants, there\nseems to be something necessarily consequent, which I suppose they\nwill by no means allow, _viz._ That instead of the Roman Church her\nsetting up some men, (the Church Governors,) as infallible in\nnecessaries, here is set up by them every Christian, if he will, both\ninfallible in all necessaries; and certain that he is so. For the\nScripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due\nindustry, and of this due industry they also affirm, men may be\ncertain, that they have used it; being not all, _possible_, endeavour,\nbut such a measure thereof _as ordinary discretion_, &c. _adviseth\nto_. (See Mr. _Chillingworth_, p. 19.) And next, from this affirmed,\nthat every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals, it must be\nmaintained also, that their spiritual Guides, in a conjunction of\nthem, nay more, every single Prelate, or Presbyter, if they are not,\nyet may be, an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary.\nAnd therefore M. _Chillingworth_ freely speaks to this purpose[21]----_That\nthese also may be both in Fundamentals, and also in some points\nunfundamental, both certain of the infallibility of their Rule, and\nthat they do manifestly proceed according to it: and then, in what\nthey are certain that they cannot be mistaken, they may_ (saith\nhe[22]) _lawfully decide the controversies about them, and without\nrashness propose their decrees, as_ certain, divine _Revelations: and\nexcommunicate or anathematize any man persisting in the contrary\nerror._ And there seems reason in such _Anathema_; because all others\neither do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same\ncertain means, as these Governors do. Now then; what certainty the\nGuides of a particular Church may have, I hope may also those of the\nChurch Catholick: and then, obedience being yielded to these by all\ntheir inferiors, this will restore all things to their right course.\nAll this follows upon certainty, 1. That Scriptures are plain in\nFundamentals; And 2. That due industry is used to understand them.\nBut, if you should deny that men can have a _certainty_ of their\nindustry _rightly used_; then again, is all the fair security these\nmen promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite\nvanished.\n\nBut now, to pass from this consequence, (to which I know not what can\nbe said), and to enquire a little after the true grounds of our\ncertainty in any thing, which is here so much pretended.\n\n1. It cannot be denyed, that he that doth err in one thing, may be\ncertain, that he doth not err in some other; because he may have\nsufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing, which he\nhath not in another. Nor again denied, that he, who possibly may err,\nyet in the same thing may be certain, that he doth not err, if not\nneglecting some means, which he knows will certainly keep him from\nerror.\n\n\n\u00a7. 11.\n\n2. But notwithstanding these: This seems also necessary to be granted\non the other side (and is so by learned Protestants,) That in what\nkind of knowledge soever it be (whether of our _Sense_ or _Reason_, in\nwhatever _Art_ or _Science_) one can never _rightly_ assure himself\nconcerning his own knowledge, that he is certain of any thing for a\n_truth_, which all, or most others of the same or better abilities for\ntheir cognoscitive faculties, in all the same external means, or\ngrounds of the knowledge thereof, do pronounce an _error_. Not, as if\ntruth were not so, though all the World oppose it; nor had certain\ngrounds to be proved so, though all the World should deny them; but\nbecause the true knowledge of it, and them, cannot possibly appear to\none mans intellect, and, _omnibus paribus_, not to others. Now for any\ndisparity, as to defect, whether in the _instrument_, or in the\n_means_ of knowledge, there, where all or most differ from me, it\nseems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self, rather\nthan them; especially, * whenas, all the grounds of my Science are\ncommunicated to them; and * whenas, for my own mistakes, I cannot know\nexactly the extent of supernatural delusions. I say, be this in what\nknowledge we please; in that of sense, _seeing_, _hearing_,\n_numbring_, or in any of Mr. _Chillingworth's_ former instances\nmentioned, \u00a7. 7. So, I can never rationally assure my self of what I\nsee, when men, as well or better sighted, and all external\ncircumstances for any thing I know being the same, see no such matter.\nAnd this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep\nevery Fanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit. See\nArch-Bishop _Laud_ (\u00a7. 33. Consid. 5. n. 1.)----and _Hooker_ (Preface\n\u00a7. 6.) their designing of a clear evidence, or demonstrative argument,\n_viz._ _Such as proposed to_ any man, _and understood, the mind cannot\nchuse but inwardly assent to it_; and therefore, surely, proposed to\nmany men, the mind of the most cannot dissent from it.\n\n\n\u00a7. 12.\n\nConsequently, in the Scripture; abstracting from the inward operations\nof God's Holy Spirit, and any external infallible Guide, (which\ninfallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to _two_ men delivering a\ncontrary sense thereof:) I see not from whence any certainty can arise\nto particular persons, for so many Texts or places thereof, concerning\nthe sense of which, the most, or the most learned, or their Superiors,\nto whom also all their motives or arguments are represented, do differ\nfrom them. From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical\nconstruction of the words, such certainty cannot arise; unless no term\nthereof can possibly be distinguished, or taken in a diverse or\nunliteral sense; but, if it cannot be so taken, then all Expositors\nmust needs agree in one and the same sense. For Example, For the\n_Literal_ and _Grammatical_ sense, what Text Plainer than [_Hoc est\ncorpus meum_]? and yet Protestants understand it otherwise. Very\ndeficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. _Chillingworth's_ to\n_F. Knot_[23], urging, _That the first Reformers ought to have\ndoubted, whether their opinions were certain,--Which is to say_\n(answers he), _that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of\nScripture; which_ in formal and express terms, _contains many of\ntheir opinions_ [whenas the greater world of Catholicks sees no such\nmatter.] Besides, as there is no term almost in any sentence, but is\ncapable of several acceptions; so, since no falshood, no discord is in\nthe Scriptures, there is no sentence in it, however sounding for the\nexpression, but must be reconciled in its sense to all the rest; and\nfor this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary, to attain the\ntrue meaning of many places, that seem at the first sight most clear\nin what they say, but that there are also other places as clear that\nseem to say the contrary: And some such places they were, (and that in\nvery necessary points too) of which St. _Peter_ saith; _That some\nwrested them to their own damnation_[24]_: wrested them_, because they\nwanted (not industry, but) learning; _which the unlearned_ (saith he)\n_wrest_----And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the\nstrongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe,\nbecause they know fewest reasons against it; whilst, by much study and\ncomparing several Revelations one with another, those come at last to\ndoubt, or deny that sense of some of them, which at the first they\ntook for most certainly and evidently true. Pardon this long\nParenthesis.\n\n\n[1] _p._ 23, 159, 367.\n\n[2] _Chill. p._ 87.\n\n[3] _Chill. p._ 18.\n\n[4] _Chill. Ib._\n\n[5] _Chill. p._ 19.\n\n[6] _Chillingw. p._ 102.\n\n[7] _Chill. p._ 18, 92.\n\n[8] _Chill. p._ 92.\n\n[9] _Chill. p._ 59.\n\n[10] _Chillingw. p._ 111.\n\n[11] _Ib. p._ 112.\n\n[12] _Ib. p._ 117.\n\n[13] _Ib. p._ 112.\n\n[14] _See also Chill. p._ 140, 366, 367.\n\n[15] 1 _Joh._ 5. 20.\n\n[16] _S. Hieron. de viris illust._\n\n[17] _Serm. at Whitehall_, _March_ 12. 1664. _p._ 17.\n\n[18] _Dr. Ferne, Division of Churches_, _p._ 46, 61. _Chillinw. p._ 57.\n\n[19] _Stillingfl. p._ 1, 3.\n\n[20] _Chillinw. p._ 59, 100.\n\n[21] _p._ 140.\n\n[22] _p._ 118. 140. & 166.\n\n[23] _Chillingw. p._ 307.\n\n[24] 2 _Pet._ 3. 16.\n\n\n\n\nCONFERENCE II.\n\n_The Socinians Protestant-Plea, For his not holding any thing contrary\nto the unanimous sense of the Catholick Church, so far as this can\njustly oblige._\n\n\n 1st. _That an unanimous Consent of the_ whole _Catholick Church in\n   all ages, such as the Protestants require for the proving of a\n   point of faith to be necessary, can never be shewed, concerning\n   this point of_ Consubstantiality. \u00a7. 14.\n\n _And that the consent, to such a doctrine of the_ major part _is no\n   argument sufficient, since the Protestants deny the like consent\n   valid for several other points._ \u00a7. 14.\n\n 2. _That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of\n   all ages in this point, yet from hence a Christian hath no security\n   of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles, if this\n   point, (whether way soever held) be a non-necessary; for that in\n   such, it is said the_ whole _Church may err._ \u00a7. 15.\n\n 3. _That this Article's being in the affirmative, put in the Creed\n   proves it not (as to the affirmative) a Necessary._ \u00a7. 16.\n\n   1st. _Because not originally in the Creed, but added by a Council;\n     to which Creed if one Council may add, so may another of equal\n     authority in any age, whatever restraint be made by a former\n     Council._\n\n   2. _Because several Articles of the latter Creeds are affirmed by\n     Protestants not necessary to be believed, but upon a previous\n     conviction, that they are divine revelation._ \u00a7. 16.\n\n 4. _Lastly. That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any\n   point, the contrary to that he holds, he is not obliged to resign\n   his judgment to her's, except conditionally, and with this\n   reservation, unless on the other side, there appear evidence to him\n   in God's Word. Now, of the evidence of Scripture in this point on\n   his side, that he hath no doubt._ \u00a7. 17.\n\n\n\u00a7. 13.\n\n2. Now to resume the _Conference_. The _Protestant_, better thinking\non it, will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of\nhis own sense of Scripture, but thus proceeds.\n\n_Prot. Scriptures_ indeed are not so clear and perspicuous to every\none[25] _as that Art and subtilty may not be used to pervert the\nCatholick doctrine, and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which\ndeliver it, so far from their proper meaning, that very few ordinary\ncapacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast\nbefore their eyes, even_ in the great Articles of the Christian faith.\nTherefore why do not you submit your judgment, and assent to _the\nsense of Scripture_, in this point _unanimously delivered by the\nconsent of the Catholick Church_; which also is believed always\nunerrable in any necessary point of faith, as this is?\n\n_Soc._ First, If you can shew me _an unanimous consent_ of the Church\nCatholick of all ages in this point, and that as held necessary, I\nwill willingly submit to it. But this you can never do according to\nsuch a proof thereof, as is required, _viz._ [26]_That all Catholick\nWriters agree in the belief of it; and none of them oppose it: and\nagree also in the belief of the necessity of it to all Christians. *\nThat no later Writers and Fathers, in opposition of Hereticks, or\nheats of contention, judged then the Article so opposed to be more\nnecessary than it was judged before the contention. * That all\nWriters, that give an account of the faith of Christians, deliver it;\nAnd deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be\nconvinced that it is of divine Revelation, but with a necessity of its\nbeing explicitely believed by all_[27]. Now, no such unanimous\nconsent can be pretended for the forementioned _Consubstantiality_.\nFor, not to speak of the times next following the Council of _Nice_,\nnor yet of several expressions in the Ancients, _Justin Martyr_,\n_Iren\u00e6us_, _Tertullian_, _Clemens Alexandrinus_, _Origen_, that seem\nto favour our opinion[28]: Nor, of those Eastern Bishops, which\n_Arrius_, in his Letter to _Eusebius Nicomed._[29] (numbers on his\nside,) _Hilarius_[30] relates no less than Eighty Bishops before that\nCouncil, to have disallowed the reception of the word +homousios+; and\nin the Council also Seventeen, (some of note) at first to have\ndissented from the rest.\n\n\n\u00a7. 14.\n\n_Prot._ Not yeilding what you say for truth; but for the present,\nsupposing it; yet the Judgment of so _small_ a _party_ may by no means\nbe adhered to by you, it being inconsiderable in respect of the _whole\nBody_ of the Catholick Church declaring against you.\n\n_Soc._ If the consent of the much major part is to be taken for the\nwhole, then the Reformed cannot maintain their dissent from the much\nmore numerous body of Christianity, that opposed their opinions, and\nsense of Scriptures at the beginning of the Reformation, and do still\noppose them. But not to stand upon this, I would willingly conform to\nthe unanimous, or most general judgment of the Church Catholick; if I\nwere secure that she could not be mistaken in it. But [31]_The sense\nof the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting\nScripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith--[32]Nor may\nshe usurp that royal Prerogative of Heaven, in prescribing infallibly\nin matters questioned._\n\n_Prot._ You may be secure, that she never erreth in any point\n_necessary_.\n\n_Soc._ But you tell me, that though she never err in necessaries, yet\nit follows not, that she is an _unerring Guide or Witness_ therein[33]\nor, _that she must unerringly declare what points are necessary and what\nnot_; and I must first learn, whether this point of _Consubstantiality_\nis to be numbred among _necessaries_, before I can be assured, that the\nsense of the Church Catholick errs not therein.\n\n\n\u00a7. 15.\n\n_Prot._ But [34]_It is a sufficient prescription against any thing\nwhich can be alledged out of Scripture, that it ought not to be looked\non as the true meaning of Scripture, if it appear contrary to the\nsense of the Church Catholick from the beginning; and therefore such\ndoctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of Faith, which\nhave been so unanimously condemned by the Church Catholick._\n\n_Soc._ Why so?\n\n_Prot._ [35]_Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of\nFaith can be so held by the Catholick Church; for its very Being\ndepends on its belief of necessaries to salvation._\n\n_Soc._ This last is most true; but then, if you mean to make your\ndiscourse cohere, you must say, it is a sufficient prescription, _&c._\nif it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church, _viz. in a\npoint necessary_: for, the reason you give carries, and secures you no\nfurther; and then that which you say is no great matter: For, here we\nare still to seek, whether the point we discourse of is in the\naffirmative such a _necessary_.\n\n\n\u00a7. 16.\n\n_Prot._ But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath\nput in her Creeds.\n\n_Soc._ From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed; and\nthough it should be granted that all points necessary are contained in\nthe Creeds, yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary:\n[36]_Necessary so, as to be believed by any before a clear conviction\nof the divine Revelation thereof_: which conviction I yet want.\n\n\n\u00a7. 17.\n\n_Prot._ But yet, though, first the Catholick Church may err in\n_non-necessaries_; And 2ly. in what points are _necessary_, what not,\nher judgment be not infallible, yet you have still great reason to\nsubmit your judgment to hers; because, if it happen to be a point\nnecessary, she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in\nit; not so, you. 2. If not necessary, and so both she and you therein\nliable to error, yet you much the more; and she also in these things\nis appointed by God for your Teacher and Guide.\n\n_Soc._ Therefore I use the help and direction of my spiritual Guides;\nconsider their reasons; do not rashly depart from their judgment; but\nyet [37]_The due submission of my assent, and belief to them is only\nto be conditional, with reservation of evidence in God's Word. For in\nmatter of faith_ (as Dr. _Ferne_ saith) _I cannot submit to any\ncompany of men by resignation of my judgment and belief to receive for\nfaith all that they shall define, for such resignation stands excluded\nby the condition of the authority which is not infallible; and by the\ncondition of the matter, faith, of high concernment to our own souls,\nand to be accounted for by_ our selves: _who therefore stand bound to\nmake present, and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration\nfrom God's Word, upon which we may finally and securely stay our\nbelief_----And [38]_The Church determining matter of faith_ (saith\nhe) _ought to manifest it out of_ God's Word: _and we may expect such\nChurches, proof, before we yield absolute assent of belief._ And so\nDr. _Stillingfleet_ saith[39]----_All men ought to be left to judge\naccording to the Pandects of the divine Laws, because each member of\nthis Society is bound to take care of his Soul, and of all things that\ntend thereto._ Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the\nScripture for _Consubstantiality_, but rather for the contrary; which\nseveral of our Writers have made appear to the world. And therefore\nunless the Church were either infallible in all she determined, or at\nleast in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err from\nthe rest, it seems no way justifiable, that she puts this her\ndefinition into the Creed; she, as I conceive, thus requiring from all\nan absolute consent thereto; and not only (as some[40] would perswade\nme) a conditional for some of them, _viz._ whenever I shall be clearly\nconvinced, that such point is of divine Revelation.\n\n\n[25] _Stillingfl. p._ 58, 59.\n\n[26] _Stillingfl. p._ 72.\n\n[27] See before _Dis._ 3. \u00a7. 52.\n\n[28] _See Petavius in Epipha. H\u00e6r._ 69.\n\n[29] _Apud Epipha. H\u00e6r._ 69.--_Theodor. l._ 1. _c._ 5.\n\n[30] _De Synod._\n\n[31] _Still. p._ 59.\n\n[32] _Stillingfl. p._ 133.\n\n[33] _Stilling. p._ 154, 152.--_Chillingw. p._ 150.--_Dr. Hammond,\nDefence of the Lord Falkl. p._ 23.\n\n[34] _Stillingfl. p._ 59.\n\n[35] _Stilling. ib._\n\n[36] _Stillingfl. p._ 70, 71.\n\n[37] _Dr. Ferne, Considerations_, _p._ 10.\n\n[38] _The Case between the Churches_, _p._ 40.\n\n[39] _p._ 133.\n\n[40] _Still. p._ 70.\n\n\n\n\nCONFERENCE III.\n\nHis Plea, for his not holding any thing contrary to the Definitions of\n_lawful General Councils_, the just conditions thereof observed.\n\n\n_That he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of_ Nice.\n\n 1. _Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General\n   Council with so much certainty, as is necessary for the ground of\n   his Faith, as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr._\n   Chillingworth, Stillingfleet, _and other Protestants, wherein he\n   must first be satisfied, concerning it._\n\n 2. _Because, though it were a General Council, yet it might err even\n   in necessaries, if it were not universally accepted; as he can shew\n   it was not._\n\n 3. _That, though yielded to be generally accepted, it might err still\n   in non-necessaries; and that Protestants cannot prove this point to\n   be otherwise._\n\n 4. _That the Leaders of this Council were plainly a party contesting\n   this, for many years before, with the other side condemned by them;\n   and were Judges in their own cause._\n\n 5. _All these exceptions cancelled, and Obedience granted due to this\n   Council; yet, that so, there is due to it not that of_ assent, _but\n   only of_ silence. \u00a7. 19.\n\n 6. _But yet not that of silence neither from him; considering his\n   present perswasion, that indeed the affirmative in this point is an\n   error_ manifest _and_ intolerable: _concerning which matter his\n   party having long complained to their Superiors, and produced\n   sufficient evidence; yet these have proceeded to no redress of\n   it._ \u00a7. 20.\n\n 7. _But yet that he will submit to the Judgment of a future Council,\n   if it, rightly considering the reasons of his tenent, decree that\n   which is according to God's Word, and he be convinced thereof._\n   \u00a7. 22.\n\n\n\u00a7. 18.\n\n3. _Prot._ But do you not consider by what persons this Article was\nlong ago inserted into the Creed: Namely, by the _first General_, and\nthe most venerable Assembly of the _Fathers_ of the Church that hath\nbeen convened since the _Apostles_ times; celebrated under the _first\nChristian_ Emperor by a perfect Representative of the Catholick\nChurch; and by such persons, as came very much purified out of the\nnewly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution that the Church hath\nsuffered, that under _Dioclesian_; will not you then at least submit\nyour judgment to the Decree of this great and Holy Council; one and\nthe first of those four which St. _Gregory_ said he received with the\nsame reverence, as the four Gospels?\n\n_Soc._ No, And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons, as I\nconceive satisfactory. For 1. Had I an obligation of submission of\njudgment to lawful General Councils, you cannot prove this such a one,\nand those the decrees thereof which are now extant, with such a\ncertainty as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my Faith. For\nto prove this, you must satisfie me in all those things questioned\nconcerning General Councils * by M. _Chillingworth_, p. 94. * By Dr.\n_Pierce_ in his answer to Mr. _Cressy_, p. 18. &c. * By Mr. _Whitby_\nfrom p. 428. to p. 433. [where he concludes: 1. _That we never had a\nGeneral Council._ 2. _That a General Council is a thing impossible_.]\n* By Mr. _Stillingfleet_ p. 508. &c.----495. 119. 123. &c. Who also,\nagainst the being of such a General Council as is the Representative\nof the whole Church Catholick, thus disputes[41]----_The representation\nof a Church_ (saith he) _by a General Council, is a thing not so\nevident, from whence it should come: for if such representative of the\nwhole Church there be, it must either be so by some formal act of the\nChurch, or by a tacite consent. It could not be by any formal act of\nthe Church; for then there must be some such act of the universal\nChurch preceding the being of any General Council, by which they\nreceive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church.\nNow that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is\nutterly impossible to be demonstrated, either that it could be, or\nthat it was. But if it be said, that such a formal act is not\nnecessary, but the tacite consent of the whole Church is sufficient\nfor it; then such a consent of the Church must be made evident, by\nwhich, they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a_\nRepresentative. _And all these must consent in that act whose power\nthe Council pretends to have; of which no footsteps appear----The\nutmost then_ (saith he) _that can be supposed in this case, is, that\nthe parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the\ndecrees of such a Council; and by that voluntary act, or by the\nsupreme authority enjoyning it, such decrees may become obligatory._\nThus he. But I suppose its Decrees obligatory then only to those parts\nof the Church that voluntarily consent to accept of them, as the\n_Arians_ did not to receive the _Decrees_ of _Nice_. Lastly, by *\nBishop _Taylor_ in the 2d. Part of his _Disswasive_, _l._ 1. \u00a7. 1. p.\n29. _&c._ to the end of the Section. Where p. 31. he saith concerning\nthis of _Nice_, that makes for you, compared with that of _Ariminum_,\nwhich makes for us----_That if a Catholick producing the Nicene\nCouncil be rencountred by an Arian producing the Council of_ Ariminium\n_which was far more numerous, here are_ aquilis aquil\u00e6 & pila minantia\npilis: _but who shall prevail? If a General Council be the rule and\nguide, they will both prevail, that is, neither. And it ought not to\nbe said by the Catholick; Yea, but our Council determined for the\ntruth; but yours for error: For, the_ Arian _will say so too. But,\nwhether they do or no, yet it is plain that they may both say so: and\nif they do, then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and\ndecision of a General Council; but we approve this General, because\nupon other accounts we believe that what is there defined is true. And\ntherefore_ S. Austin's _way here is best_, Neque ego Nic\u00e6num\nConcilium, neque tu Ariminense, _&c. both sides pretend to General\nCouncils: that which both equally pretend to, will help neither;\ntherefore let us go to Scripture._ And _p._ 32.----_What is the\nreason_ (saith he of Councils in General) _that some Councils are\npartly condemned: the Council of_ Sardis, _that in_ Trullo, _those of_\nFrankford, Constance, _and_ Basil? _but that every man and every\nChurch accepts the Councils as far as they please, and no further? The\nGreeks receive but seven General Councils, the Lutherans six, the\nEutychians three, Nestorians two_, &c.----Pro captu lectoris habent\nsua fata. _It is as every one likes._ I spare to tell you what he\nsaith, _p._ 26.--_That in the first General Council of_ Jerusalem,\n_which was the first precedent, and ought to be the true measure of\nthe rest, the Apostles were the Presidents, and the Presbyters\nAssistants, but the Church_ [viz. _the converted brethren and the\nLaity_, see p. 36.] _was the Body of the Council, and were Parties in\nthe Decree_, quoting _Acts_ 15, 22, 23. _and that we can have no other\nwarrant of an authentick Council than this._ 2. Though it be shewed a\nlawful General Council, representing the whole Church (as it ought, if\nsuch) yet what obligation can there lye upon me of consenting to it?\nsince it may _err_ even in _Fundamentals_, if it be not universally\naccepted, as indeed this Council was not, for several Bishops there\nwere, that were dissenters in the Council, and many more\nafterward.[42] 3. Were it universally accepted; yet unless you can\nshew me by some means, that this point wherein I differ from its\njudgment, is a fundamental or necessary point to salvation, both it,\nand the Catholick Church also that accepts it may err therein. 4. The\njudgment of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account.\nThat whereas the _Guides_ of the _Church_, many years before this\nCouncil were divided in their opinion, _Alexander_ Patriarch of\n_Alexandria_, and _Hosius_ a Favorite of the Emperor heading one\nparty; and _Arius_ and the Bishops adhering to him, whom I mentioned\nformerly[43], heading another, and whereas afterward, in the\nprosecution of this difference, both the foresaid _Alexander_ in one\n_Provincial Council_ held in _Egypt_, and _Hosius_ sent thither by the\nEmperor in another, had there condemned _Arius_, and his Confederates;\nyet so it was ordered, that in this General Council assembled for an\nequal hearing and decision of this Controversie of these two professed\nEnemies to the other party, the one (_Hosius_) was appointed to sit as\nPresident of this Council; and the other (_Alexander_) held in it the\nnext place to him; and poor _Arius_ excluded; and the Bishops who\nfavoured him in the Council, though at first freely declaring their\ndissent, yet at last over-awed to a subscription; as also was _Arius_\nhimself chiefly by the Emperor _Constantine_'s overbearing authority;\nwho, before somewhat indifferent in the contest, yet upon Arius his\nundutiful and too peremptory Letters, had some years before taken\ngreat offence at him; and also (as he was very eloquent) publickly\nwritten against him[44]. Which _overawing_ hence appears, in that the\nsame _Bishops_ that were adherents to _Arius_, when, this Emperor\nbeing deceased, _Constantius_ his Son countenanced their Cause,\nreturned, I say not to their former Opinion only, but to their publick\nprofession of it. By which we may guess, that if the Controversie had\nat that time been committed to equal and disengaged Judges, and such\nas had not formerly shewed themselves a Party; or, if the Oriental\nBishops, without any fear of the Prince upon them, might have given\nfree Votes; and the _Arian_ Cause had then had a _Constantius_ instead\nof a _Constantine_, (things wherein Protestants well understand me,\nbecause on the same Grounds they have rejected the Council of _Trent_)\nwe may presume then the issue would have been under _Constantine_ the\nsame that it was under his Successor, I say before Judges equal and\nindifferent, and not such as were before a Party, though this Party\nshould be compounded of the chief Superior Prelates of the Church.\nFor, as Dr. _Stillingfleet_ urgeth, [45]----_We must either absolutely,\nand roundly assert, that it is impossible that the Superiors in the\nChurch may be guilty of any error or corruption; or, that if they be,\nthey must never be called to an account for it; or else, that it may\nbe just, in some Cases, to except against them as Parties: And if in\nsome Cases, then the Question comes to this, Whether the present_ [he\nspeaks of Idolatry, I of Consubstantiality] _be some of these Cases or\nno? And here if we make those Superiors Judges again, what we granted\nbefore comes to nothing._\n\n_Prot._ No Person that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any\nControversie (as those Bishops you have mentioned were in the Cause of\n_Arius_) can rightly or properly be said to be, on that Side for which\nhe gives Sentence, a Party. Nor doth their giving Sentence once\nagainst any Side, prejudice them (as supposed Enemies, or Opposites,\nor Interested) from sitting on the Bench, as oft as need requires, to\npass it again, alone, or with others. But, if every one may be\nafterward called an Anti-party, who once declares himself of a\ncontrary Judgment, I perceive Mr. _Chillingworth_'s Observation is\nright, [46]_That, in Controversies in Religion, it is in a manner\nimpossible to be avoided, but the Judge must be a Party._ I add also,\nThat in Matters of Religion, where every Man is concerned, and in\ngreat Controversies, especially where is any division of Communion,\nall, both _Laity_ and _Clergy_, speedily own, and range themselves on\none side or other; _Clergy_ interessing themselves for the necessary\ndirection of their _Subjects_; _Laity_, in obedience to their\n_Superiors_; neither can such a Judge be nominated, that is not to one\nside suspected. So that, in Controversies of Religion, we must deny\nany Judge (as he did[47]); or this Plea, That the ordinary Judge, that\nis assigned us, is a _Party_, must not be easily hearkened to. As for\nthat you urge out of Bishop _Taylor_, concerning the _Laity_ in the\nfirst Council at _Jerusalem_ (the Pattern to all following) being\nParties in the Decree, I suppose it is meant no further, than that\nalso these may assist in the Council, and give there a consentient, or\nattesting, but not a decisive Vote: which neither did the Emperors\nclaim, when they presided therein. _See Dr. Field of the Church, p._\n646.\n\n\n\u00a7. 19.\n\n_Soc._ But I have not yet said all. For Fifthly, Were there none of\nthe forenamed defects in it, [48]_No Authority on Earth can oblige\nto_ internal assent _in matters of Faith, or to any farther Obedience\nthan that of_ Silence.\n\n_Prot._ Yes, you stand obliged to yield a _conditional_ assent, at\nleast to the Definitions of these highest Courts, _i. e._ unless you\ncan bring evident _Scripture_, or _Demonstration_ against them.\n\n_Soc._ I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this. I find indeed\nthe Archbishop[49] requiring Evidence and Demonstration, for Inferiors\n_contradicting_, or publishing their dissent from the Councils\nDecrees, but not requiring thus much for their _denial_ of _assent_.\nAnd I am told, [50]--_That in matters proposed by my Superiors, as_\nGod's Word, _and of_ Faith, _I am not tied to believe it such, till\nthey manifest it to me to be_ so; _and not that I am to believe it\nsuch, unless I can manifest it to be_ contrary, _because my Faith can\nrest on no Humane Authority, but only on God's Word, and Divine\nRevelation._ And Dr. _Field_ saith,--[51]_It is not necessary\nexpresly to believe, whatsoever the Council hath concluded, though it\nbe true, unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true, and\nwe be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare Determination\nof the Council._ Till I am convinced then of my Error, the Obedience\nof _Silence_ is the most that can be required of me.\n\n\n\u00a7. 20\n\nBut sixthly, I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this\nneither; considering my present persuasion, that this Council\n_manifestly_ erred; and that, in an error of such high consequence\n(concerning the _unity_ of the _most high God_) as is no way to be\ntolerated; and I want not evident Scriptures, and many other\nunanswerable Demonstrations, to shew it did so; and therefore being\nadmitted into the honourable Function of the Ministry, I conceive I\nhave a lawful Commission from an _higher Authority_, to publish this\ngreat Truth of _God_, and to contradict the _Councils_ Decree.\n\n\n\u00a7. 21.\n\n_Prot._ But you may easily mistake that for _evident Scripture_, and\nthose for _Demonstrations_, that are not. Concerning which you know\nwhat the Archbishop and Mr. _Hooker_ say[52]----_That they are such,\nas proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot chuse but\ninwardly assent to them_[53]. You ought therefore first to propose\nthese to your Superiors, or to the Church, desiring a redress of such\nError by her calling another Council. And, if these Superiors,\nacquainted therewith, dislike your Demonstrations, which the\nDefinition saith, if they be right ones, they must be by all, and\ntherefore by them, assented to, methinks, (though this is not said by\nthe Archbishop) in humility you ought also to suspect these\nDemonstrations, and remain in silence at least, and no further trouble\nthe Church.\n\n_Soc._ May therefore no particular Person, or Church, proceed to a\nReformation of a former Doctrine, if these Superiors, first complained\nto, declare the Grounds of such Persons or Churches for it, not\nsufficient?\n\n_Prot._ I must not say so. But if they neglect (as they may) to\nconsider their _just_ Reasons so diligently as they ought, and to call\na Council for the Correcting of such Error according to the weight of\nthese Reasons, then here is place for Inferiors to proceed to a\nreformation of such Error without them.\n\n_Soc._ And who then shall judge, whether the Reasons pretended are\n_defective_, or rather the present Church _negligent_ in considering\nthem?\n\n_Prot._ Here, I confess, to make _the Superiors_ Judges of this, is to\ncast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his Grievance,\nthese Superiors, whose Faith appears to adhere to the former Council,\nbeing only Judges in their own Cause; and so the liberty of\ncomplaining will come to nothing[54].\n\n_Soc._ The Inferiors then, that complain, I suppose are to judge of\nthis. To proceed then. To these Superiors, in many diligent Writings,\nwe have proposed, as we think, many unanswerable Scriptures, and\nReasons much advanced beyond those represented by our Party to the\nformer _Nicene_ Council (and therefore from which Evidences of ours we\nhave just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary Sentence);\nand finding no redress by their calling another Council for a\nreviewing this Point, we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a\nSocinian Church, Pastor, or Bishop, to reform for themselves, and the\nSouls committed to them, in an Error appearing to them _manifest_ and\n_intolerable_, as for the Protestants, or for Dr. _Luther_, to have\ndone the same for Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, and other\nPoints that have been concluded, against the Truth, by several former\nCouncils.\n\n_Prot._ But such were not _lawful General Councils_, as that of _Nice_\nwas.\n\n_Soc._ Whatever these Councils were, this much matters not, as to a\n_reformation_ from them; for, had they been lawfully General, yet\nProtestants hold[55], these not universally accepted may err even in\n_Fundamentals_; or, when so accepted, yet may err in Non-fundamentals;\nErrors _manifest_, and _intolerable_, and so may be appealed from to\nfuture; and those not called, their Error presently rectified by such\nParts of Christianity as discern it; and also S. _Austin_[56] is\nfrequently quoted by them, saying----_That past General Councils\nerring, may be corrected by other Councils following_.\n\n\n\u00a7. 22.\n\n_Prot._ But I pray you consider, if that famous Council of _Nice_ hath\nso erred, another Council called, may it also not err, notwithstanding\nyour Evidences proposed to it? For, though perhaps some new\ndemonstrative Proofs you may pretend from several Texts more\naccurately compared and explained; yet you will not deny this\nsufficient Evidence to have been extant for that most Learned Council\nto have seen the Truth, having then the same entire Rule of Faith as\nyou now, the Scriptures, (in which, you say, your clearest Evidences\nlie) for their direction. When a Future Council (then) is assembled,\nand hath heard your Plea, will you _assent_ to it, and acquiesce in\nthe Judgment thereof?\n\n_Soc._ Yes, interposing the Protestant-Conditions of Assent, _If its\nDecree be according to God's Word, and we convinced thereof_.\n\n_Prot._ Why, such a submission of Judgment and Assent I suppose you\nwill presently yield to me in any thing, whereof you are convinced by\nme; may this future Council then challenge no further Duty from you?\nwhy then should the Church be troubled to call it?\n\n_Soc._ [57]_Though this Future Council also should err, yet it may\nafford Remedy against Inconveniences; and one great Inconvenience\nbeing, Breaking the Church's Peace; this is remedied by its\nAuthority_, if I only yield the Obedience of Silence thereto.\n\n_Prot._ But if your Obedience oblige not to _silence_ concerning\nCouncils past, because of your new Evidences, neither will it to a\nfuture, if you think it also doth err; and either these Evidences\nremain still unsatisfied, or these satisfied, yet some other new ones\nappear to call for a new Consideration.\n\n_Soc._ [58]_Because it may also err, it follows not it must err; and\nit is probable that it shall not err, when the former Error is thus\ndiscovered, and if the Council proceed lawfully, be not overawed,_\n&c.[59] But however, if I ought upon this review to be restrained to\n_silence_, yet, I not convinced of the truth of its Decree, this\nSilence is the uttermost that any future Council, after its rejecting\nmy Reasons, can justly exact of me; and not _belief_, or _assent_, at\nall: It may not oblige me, that I should relinquish that you call\n_Socinianism_ at all, but that, not divulge it; whereas now by the\nActs of _former_ Councils (I would gladly know upon what rational\nground) an _Anathema_ is pronounced against me, if I do not believe\nthe contrary, and I am declared to stand guilty of _Heresie_ meerly\nfor retaining this Opinion; which retaining it is called _obstinacy_\nand _contumacy_ in me, after the Councils contrary _Definition_.\n\n\n[41] _p._ 515, 516.\n\n[42] _See before_, \u00a7. 13.\n\n[43] \u00a7. 13.\n\n[44] _See Baronius._ A. D. 318, 319.\n\n[45] \u00a7. 478.\n\n[46] _p._ 60.\n\n[47] _Ib._ \u00a7. 10.\n\n[48] _Whitby_, _p._ 15. _Stillingfleet_, _p._ 506, 537.\n\n[49] \u00a7. 32. _n._ 5. & \u00a7. 33. _consid._ 5. _n._ 1.\n\n[50] _Dr. Ferne, Case between the Churches_, _p._ 48, 49.\n& _Division of Churches_, _p._ 45.\n\n[51] _p._ 666.\n\n[52] _A. B. Laud_ 245.\n\n[53] _Id._ _p._ 227.\n\n[54] _Stillingfl. p._ 479, 292.\n\n[55] _See before, Disc_. 3. \u00a7. 34, _&c._\n\n[56] _De Baptismo_, _l._ 2. _c._ 3.\n\n[57] _Stillingfl. p._ 542.\n\n[58] _Stillingfl. ibid._\n\n[59] _Id. p._ 526.\n\n\n\n\nCONFERENCE IV.\n\nHis Plea, for his not being guilty of _Heresie_.\n\n\n_That he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles, be accused\nas guilty of_ Heresie, _for several reasons._\n\n 1. _Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an_ obstinate _defence\n   of some error against a fundamental, he thinks from hence his\n   tenent freed from being an Heresie, as long as in silence he\n   retains it, unless he engage further, to a publick pertinacious\n   maintaining thereof._ \u00a7. 23.\n\n 2. _Fundamentals varying according to particular persons, and\n   sufficient proposal; none can conclude this point in the\n   affirmative, to be,_ as to him, _a fundamental, or, of the truth of\n   which he hath had a sufficient proposal._\n\n 3. _That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie,\n   doth not necessarily argue that it is so; because they may err in\n   Fundamentals; or at least in distinguishing them from other\n   points._ \u00a7. 26.\n\n 4. _That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting\n   from their Definitions, till he is either actually convinced, or at\n   least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such\n   point defined: that such Councils have authority to require\n   submission, of judgment, and assent to their Definitions: of which\n   conviction or sufficient proposal (that varies much, according to\n   the differing conditions of several persons) as to himself, none\n   can judge save himself: and, consequently, neither can they judge\n   of his guilt of Heresie._ Ib.\n\n\n\u00a7. 23.\n\n4. _Prot._ You know that all _Hereticks_ are most justly _anathematized_,\nand cut off from being any longer Members of the Catholick Church, and\nso do remain excluded also from Salvation. Now this _Tenent_ of yours\nhath always been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious\n_Heresie_.\n\n_Soc._ I confess _Heresie_ a most grievous Crime, dread and abhor it,\nand trust I am most free from such a guilt; and from this I have many\nways of clearing my self. For Heresie (as Mr. _Chillingworth_ defines\nit) [60]being not an erring, but an _obstinate_ defence of an Error;\nnot of any Error, but of one against a _necessary_ or _fundamental_\nArticle of the Christian Faith. First, Though this which I hold should\nbe an error, and that against a Fundamental, yet my silence practised\ntherein, can never be called an obstinate defence thereof, and\ntherefore not my tenent an _Heresie_. 2. Since Fundamentals vary\naccording to particular persons, and (as Mr. _Chillingworth_\nsaith[61])--_No Catalogue thereof, that can be given, can universally\nserve for all men; God requiring more of them, to whom he gives more,\nand less of them, to whom he gives less;--And that may be sufficiently\ndeclared to one (all things considered) which (all things considered)\nis not to another sufficiently declared: and variety of circumstances\nmakes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals,\nas to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes_: And (as Mr.\n_Stillingfleet_ follows him[62]) _since the measure of Fundamentals\ndepends on the sufficiency of the proposition; and none can assign\nwhat number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all\npersons, or set down the exact bounds, as to all individuals, when\ntheir ignorance is inexcusable, and when not; or tell what is the\nmeasure of their capacity; what allowance God makes for the prejudice\nof Education_, &c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie, in this\nmy opinion, on this score also; because though the contrary be to some\nothers a Fundamental truth, and to be explicitly believed by them; yet\nto me, as not having any sufficient proposal, or conviction thereof,\nbut rather of the contrary, it is no _Fundamental_, and consequently,\nmy tenent opposing it, if an _error_, yet no _Heresie_.\n\n\n\u00a7. 24.\n\n_Prot._ Do not deceive your self; for though according to different\nrevelations, to those that were without Law, or those under the Law,\nor those under the Gospel; _Fundamentals_ generally spoken of, might\nbe more to some than others; yet to all those who know and embrace the\nGospel, we say[63]; all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to\nall reasonable men, even the unlearned; and therefore the erring\ntherein, to all such, cannot but be obstinate and Heretical.\n\n_Soc._ Unless you mean only this, That all Fundamentals, (_i.e._ so\nmany as are required of any one) are clear to him in Scripture; but\nnot all the same Fundamentals, there clear to every one; but to some\nmore of them; to some fewer; I see not how this last said, accords\nwith that said before by the same person. But if you mean thus, then\n_Consubstantiality_, (the point we talk of) may be a Fundamental to\nyou, and clear in Scripture, but also not clear to me in Scripture,\nand so no Fundamental, and hence I think my self safe. For,----[64]_I\nbelieving all that is clear to me in Scripture, must needs believe all\nFundamentals; and so I cannot incurr Heresie, which is opposite to\nsome fundamental_----[65]_The Scripture sufficiently informing me\nwhat is the Faith, must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie:\nThat which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one\ncontrary cannot but manifest the other._\n\n\n\u00a7. 25.\n\n_Prot._ I pray you consider a little better what you said last; for\nsince Heresie as you grant it, is an obstinate defence of error only\nagainst some _necessary_ point of Faith; and all truth delivered in\nScripture is not such; unless you can also distinguish, in Scripture,\nthese points of necessary Faith from others, you can have no certain\nknowledge of Heresie, and the believing all that is delivered in\nScripture, though it may preserve you from _incurring_ Heresie, yet\ncannot direct you at all for _knowing_ or _discerning_ Heresie, or an\nerror against a fundamental or a necessary point of Faith, from other\nsimple and less dangerous errors, that are not so: nor, by this can\nyou ever know what errors are Heresies, what not; and so after all\nyour confidence, if by your neglect you happen not to believe some\nScriptures in their true sense, you can have no security in your\nFundamental, or necessary Faith; or of your not incurring _Heresie_.\nNeither, Secondly, according to your discourse, hath the Church any\nmeans to know any one to be an _Heretick_; because she can never know\nthe just latitude of his fundamentals. And so _Heresie_ will be a\ngrievous sin indeed; but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient\nproposal, as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish\nit. Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith, there\nhath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for\ndeclaring Heresie; and it may seem conviction enough to you, that her\n_most General Councils_ have defined the contrary position to what you\nmaintain; and received it for a _fundamental_. Of which Ecclesiastical\nAuthority for declaring Heresie, thus Dr. _Potter_, [66]----_The\nCatholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters\nof Faith, upon the divine authority of Gods written word. And\ntherefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded, is\njustly esteemed an Heretick; not properly because he disobeys the\nChurch; but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently\npropounded, or cleared unto him_ [i. e. by the Church.] Where the\nDoctor seems to grant these two things: That all that the Catholick\nChurch declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture; and\nthat all such as oppose her judgment are Hereticks: but only he adds,\nthat they are not Hereticks properly, or formally for this opposing\nthe Church, but for opposing the Scriptures. Whilst therefore the\n_formalis ratio_ of Heresie is disputed, that all such are Hereticks\nseems granted. And the same Dr. elsewhere concludes thus, [67]----_The\nmistaker will never prove, that we oppose any Declaration of the\nCatholick Church_, [he means such a Church as makes Declarations, and\nthat must be in her Councils]----_And therefore he doth unjustly\ncharge us with Heresie._ And again, he saith, [68]----_Whatsoever\nopinion these ancient writers_ [S. Austin, Epiphanius and others]\n_conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of\nChristians, that they called an Heresie, because it differed from the\nreceived opinion; not because it opposed any formal Definition of the\nChurch_: where, in saying, _not because it opposed any Definition_, he\nmeans, _not only because_. For, whilst that, which differed from the\nreceived opinion of the Church, was accounted an Heresie by them,\nthat, which differed from a formal definition of the Church, was so\nmuch more. Something I find also for your better information, in the\nLearned Dr. _Hammond_, [69]commenting on that notable Text in\n_Titus_----_A man that is an Heretick after the first and second\nadmonition, reject_, [a Text implying contrary to your discourse,\nHeresie discoverable, and censurable by the Church,] where he explains\n+autokatakritos+ _self-condemned; not to signifie a mans publick\naccusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices; for that\ncondemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Church's\nCensures. Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against Conscience, and\nthough he knows he be in the wrong, yet holds out in opposition to the\nChurch; for so, none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks; and he that\nstood against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest\ntimes_ [you may guess whom he means] _should not be an Heretick: and\nso no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church,\nfor no man would acknowledge of himself, that what he did was by him\ndone against his own Conscience_, [the plea which you also make here\nfor your self.] _But to be an expression of his separation from, and\ndisobedience to the Church; and so an evidence of the_ +exestraptai\nkai hamartanei+ _his being perverted, and sinning wilfully, and\nwithout excuse._ What say you to this?\n\n\n\u00a7. 26.\n\n_Soc._ What these Authors say, as you give their sense, seems to me\ncontrary to the _Protestant_ Principles, [_See D._ Potter, _p._ 165,\n167.----_D._ Hammond _of Heresie_, \u00a7. 7. _n._----\u00a7. 9. _n._ 8. _Def.\nof L. Falkl. c._ 1. _p._ 23.] and to their own positions elsewhere;\nneither, surely, will _Protestants_ tye themselves to this measure and\ntrial of _autocatacrisie_. For, since they say; That lawful General\nCouncils may err in Fundamentals; these Councils may also define, or\ndeclare something _Heresie_ that is not against a Fundamental; and if\nso, I, though in this self-convinced, that such is their Definition,\nyet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it, or (if they\nerr intollerably) in opposing it. Again, since Protestants say,\nCouncils may err in distinguishing Fundamentals, these Councils may\nerr also in discerning Heresie, which is an error against a\nFundamental, from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals.\nAgain: Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions,\nthus no Definition of a General Council may be receded from by me, for\nfear of my incurring Heresie; a consequence which Protestants allow\nnot. Again: Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in\nScripture, why should they place _autocatacrisie_, or self-conviction,\nin respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the\nScripture? But, to requite your former quotations, I will shew in\nplainer Language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning\nAutocatacrisie as to the Definitions of the Church, under which my\nopinion also finds sufficient shelter; _We have no assurance at all_\n(saith Bishop _Bramhall_[70]) _that all General Councils were, and\nalways shall be so prudently managed, and their proceedings always so\norderly and upright, that we dare make all their sentences a\nsufficient conviction of all Christians, which they are bound to\nbelieve under pain of damnation._ [I add, or under pain of\nHeresie]--And _Ib._ p. 102.----_I acknowledge_ (saith he) _that a\nGeneral Council, may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed\nby a Christian as a point of Faith, which formerly was not necessary\nto be believed; that is, whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth\nproduced by the Council, or the authority of the Council (which is,\nand always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians)\ndo convince a man in his Conscience of the truth of the Councils\nDefinitions_: which truth I am as yet not convinced of, neither from\nthe reasons nor authority of the Council of _Nice_. Or, if you had\nrather have it out of Dr. _Potter_----_It is not resisting_ (saith\nhe[71]) _the voice or definitive sentence, which makes an Heretick;\nbut an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently\ncleared unto him. And the Scripture may then be said to be\nsufficiently cleared when it is so opened, that a good and teachable\nmind_ (_loving and seeking truth_) [my Conscience convinceth me not,\nbut that such I am] _cannot gainsay it._--Again [72]----_It is\npossible_ (saith he) _that the sentence of a Council or Church may be\nerroneous, either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error\nagainst the Faith, in it self considered; or because the party so\ncondemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding (not\nclouded with prejudice, ambition, vain-glory, or the like passion)\nthat it is an error_ [one of these I account my self.] Or out of Dr.\n_Hammond_, [73]----_It must be lawful for the Church of God_, [any\nChurch, or any Christian, upon the Doctors reason,] _as well as for\nthe Bishop of_ Rome, _to enquire whether the Decrees of an Universal\nCouncil have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no; and if\nthey be found otherwise, to eject them out, or not to receive them\ninto their_ belief. _And then still it is the matter of the Decrees,\nand the Apostolicalness of them, and the force of the testification,\nwhereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such, which gives the\nauthority to the Council; and nothing else is sufficient, where that\nis not to be found._ And elsewhere he both denies in General an\nInfallibility of Councils, and grounds the Reverence due to the Four\nfirst Councils _on their setting down and convincing the truth of\ntheir Doctrin out of the Scripture words understood with piety,----and\nthe fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof, which\nthe General Churches had received down from the Apostles_.[74] [Upon\nwhich follows, that, in such case, where a Lawful General Council doth\nnot so, (as possibly it may, and Inferiors are to consider for\nthemselves, whether it doth not) there may be no Heretical\nAutocatacrisie in a dissent from it, nor this dissent _an evidence of\nthe_ +exestraptai+ _and_ +hamartanei+ _his being perverted and sinning\nwilfully, and without excuse._]----Lastly, thus Doctor _Stillingfleet_\nconcerning _Heresie_[75]----_The formal reason of Heresie is denying\nsomething supposed to be of divine Revelation; and therefore,_ 2ly.\n_None can reasonably be accused of Heresie, but such as have\nsufficient reason to believe, that that which they deny is revealed by\nGod. And therefore,_ 3ly. _None can be guilty of Heresie for denying\nany thing declared by the Church; unless they have sufficient reason\nto believe, that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by\nGod; and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any_ Hereticks,\n_but such as have reason to believe, that she cannot err in her\nDefinitions._ From hence also he gathers, _That Protestants are in\nless danger of Heresie than Papists, till these give them more\nsufficient reasons to prove, that whatever the Church declares, is\ncertainly revealed by God_. Thus he. Now such sufficient proving\nreasons as Protestants plead, that Papists have not yet given them\nconcerning this matter of Church-Authority, I alledge, that neither\nhave they nor others given me. To be _self-condemned_, therefore, in\nmy dissent from the definition of the Council of _Nice_, I must first\nhave sufficient reason proposed to me to believe, (and so remain\nself-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it) this point; _viz._\nThat the Church, or her Council, hath power to define matters of Faith\nin such manner, as to require my assent thereto. Which so long as I\nfind no sufficient reason to believe, I suppose I am freed (without\nobstinacy or Heresie, or being therein self-condemned,) from yielding\nassent to any particular matter of Faith, which the Church defines.\nAnd, had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point,\nyet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof, I become only\nguilty of a fault of _ignorance_, not _obstinacy_, or _autocatacrisie_,\nor _Heresie_; for, if I am self-condemned, or guilty of obstinacy in\ndisbelieving the foresaid points, [76]_Then I become so, either by\nthe Church's definition of this point, or without it. By reason of the\nChurch's definition of this it cannot be; for this very power of\ndefining is the thing in question, and therefore cannot be cleared to\nme by the Church's defining it_[77]: and thus, _That thing is proposed\nto me in the definition to be believed, which must be supposed to be\nbelieved by me already, before such proposal or definition, or else\nthe definition is not necessary to be believed_. [78]Nor _without_, or\n_before_ such definition, can I have an _autocatacrisie_; because this\nautocatacrisie, you say with Dr. _Hammond_, ariseth from my\ndisobedience to the Church.\n\n_Prot._ Methinks, you make the same plea for your self in this matter,\nas if one, that is questioned for not obeying the _divine precepts_,\nor not believing the divine Revelations delivered in _Scripture_,\nshould think to excuse himself by this answer; that indeed he doth not\nbelieve the _Scripture_ to be _God's Word_; and therefore he\nconceives, that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which\nis contained therein. And, as such a person hath as much reason\n(though this, not from the Scripture, yet from Apostolical Tradition)\nto believe that Scripture is Gods Word, as to believe what is written\nin it; so have you, though not from the _Nicene_ Council defining it,\nyet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it, as much reason to\nbelieve its authority of defining, as what is defined. It's true\nindeed; that had you not sufficient proposal, or sufficient reason to\nknow this your duty of _Assent_ to this definition of the Council of\n_Nice_, you were faultless in it; but herein lies your danger, that\nfrom finding a _non actual conviction_ of the truth, within, (hindred\nthere by I know not what supine negligence, or strong self-conceit,\n_&c._) you gather a _non-sufficient proposal_, without.\n\n\n\u00a7 27.\n\n_Soc._ It remains then to enquire, who shall judge concerning this\n_sufficient proposal_, or sufficient reason, which I am said to have,\nto believe what the _Nicene_ Council, or the Church hath declared in\nthis point. [79]Whether the Church's judgment is to be taken by me in\nthis, or my own made use of; If _her judgment_, the ground of my\nbelief and of Heresie lies still in the Church's _definition_; and\nthus it will be all one in effect, whether I believe what she\ndeclares, without sufficient reason; or learn this of her, when there\nis sufficient reason to believe so. It must be then, _my own\njudgment_, I am to be directed by in this matter[80]: and if so, then\nit is to be presumed, that God doth both afford me some means not to\nbe mistaken therein; and also some certain knowledge when I do use\nthis means aright: (for, without these two I can have no security in\nmy own judgment in a matter of so high concernment, as _Heresie_ and\n_fundamental Faith_ is.) Now this means, in this matter, I presume I\nhave daily used, in that I find my Conscience, after much examination,\ntherein to acquit me, unless you can prescribe me some other surer\nevidence, without sending me back again to the _authority_ of the\n_Church_.\n\n_Prot._ 1. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an _Heresie_\ndepends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so. And 2.\nThe judgment of your having, or not having sufficient reason to\nbelieve this, is left to your self, the Church hath no means to know\nyou or any other to be an Heretick, till they declare themselves to be\nso. And thus, in striving to free your self from Heresie, you have\nfreed all mankind from it, (as to any external discovery and\nconvincement thereof) and cancelled such a sin; unless we can find\none, that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own\nConscience.\n\n_Soc._ If I, so do the Protestants; for, they also hold none guilty of\n_Heresie_, for denying any thing declared by the Church, unless they\nhave reason to believe, that whatever is declared by the Church is\nrevealed by God; and of this sufficient reason they make not the\n_Church_ or _Superiors_, but _themselves_, the Judge.\n\n\n[60] _p._ 271.\n\n[61] _p._ 134.\n\n[62] _p._ 98. 99.\n\n[63] _Chillingw. p._ 92.\n\n[64] _Chillingw. p._ 367.\n\n[65] _Ib._ 101.\n\n[66] _p._ 97.\n\n[67] _p._ 132.\n\n[68] _p._ 103.\n\n[69] _Titus_ 3. 11.\n\n[70] _Reply to Chalced. p._ 105.\n\n[71] _p._ 128.\n\n[72] _p._ 129.\n\n[73] _Heresie_, _p._ 114.\n\n[74] _Of Heresie p._ 96.\n\n[75] _Rat. Account. p._ 73.\n\n[76] _Stillingfl. p._ 99.\n\n[77] _Stillingfl. p._ 74.\n\n[78] _Ib. p._ 99.\n\n[79] _Stillingfl. p._ 73.\n\n[80] _See Still. p._ 479.\n\n\n\n\nCONFERENCE V.\n\nHis Plea, for his not being guilty of _Schism_.\n\n\n 1. _That the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church\n   Catholick, or the external Communion of it: but only left one part\n   of it that was corrupted; and reformed another part,_ (i.e.)\n   _themselves. Or, that he, and the Socinian Churches, being a part\n   of the Catholick, they have not separated from the whole, because\n   not from themselves._ \u00a7. 28.\n\n 2. _That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon\n   them as a condition of Communion, the Schism is not theirs, who\n   made the separation; but theirs who caused it._ \u00a7. 29.\n\n _Besides that, whatever the truth of things be; yet so long as they\n   are required by any Church to profess they believe, what they do\n   not, their separation cannot be said causless, and so Schism._\n   \u00a7. 32.\n\n 3. _That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion\n   of all other Churches, yet not the internal; in which they remain\n   still united to them: both in that internal Communion of_ Charity,\n   _in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick; and in that\n   of_ Faith, _in all Essentials and Fundamentals, and in all such\n   points, wherein the Unity of the Church Catholick consists._ \u00a7. 30.\n\n 4. _That the doctrin of_ Consubstantiality _for which they departed,\n   is denyed by them to be any Fundamental; nor can the Churches, from\n   which they depart for it, be a competent Judge against them, that\n   it is so._ \u00a7. 34.\n\n 5. _That, though they are separaters from the Roman, yet not from the\n   Reformed Churches, which Churches leave men to the liberty of their\n   own judgment; nor require any internal assent to their doctrins (in\n   which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman_ Church) _save\n   only conditional, if any be convinced of the truth thereof; or, not\n   convinced of the contrary._ \u00a7. 35.\n\n 6. _In fine, that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant_\n   Communion _he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her\n   Doctrins as_ Mr. Chillingworth _hath done in several places of his\n   book, which yet was accepted as sufficient._ \u00a7. 41.\n\n\n\u00a7. 28.\n\n5. _Prot._ I have yet one thing more, about which to question you. If\nyou will not acknowledge your opinion _Heresie_ in opposing the\npublick judgment, and definition of the Catholick Church in that most\nreverend Council of _Nice_, upon pretence that you have not had a\nconvincing Proposal, that this Definition was therein made according\nto _God's Word_, or the _Scriptures_; yet, how will you clear your\nself, or your Socinian Congregations of _Schism_? avoidable upon no\nplea of adherence to Scripture, if it shall appear, that you have for\nthis opinion deserted the Communion of the _Catholick Church_; out of\nwhich Church is no Salvation.\n\n_Soc._ [81]_I grant there neither is, nor can be any just cause to\ndepart from the Church of_ Christ; _no more than from_ Christ\n_himself: therefore I utterly deny, that our Churches have made any\nseparation from the_ Church Catholick _at all: and this for many\nreasons. For_ 1st. [82]--_We have not forsaken the whole Church, or\nthe external Communion of it: but only that_ part _of it which is\ncorrupted, and still will be so; and have not forsaken, but only\nreformed another_ part _of it, which part_ we our selves _are: and I\nsuppose you will not go about to perswade us, that we have forsaken_\nour selves, _or our own Communion. And if you urge, that we joined our\nselves to no other part, therefore we separated from the whole: I say,\nit follows not, inasmuch as_ our selves _were a part of it, and still\ncontinued so, and therefore can no more separate from the whole, than\nfrom our selves._\n\n_Prot._ So then, it seems we need fear no _Schism_, from the _Church\nCatholick_ till a part can divide from it self, which can never be.\n\n\n\u00a7. 29.\n\n_Soc._ Next, As for our separating from all other particular Churches,\nthe ground of our Separation being an error, which hath crept into the\nCommunion of these Churches, and which is unjustly imposed upon us in\norder to this Communion, we conceive, in this case, if any, _They, not\nWe_, are the _Schismaticks_: for as the Arch-Bishop[83].----_The\nSchism is theirs, whose the Cause of it is; and he makes the\nseparation, who gives the first just cause of it, not he that makes\nactual separation, upon a just cause preceding._\n\n\n\u00a7. 30.\n\nAgain, Though we have made an actual Separation from them, as to the\nnot-conforming to, or also as to the reforming of an error: yet,\nFirst, _As to Charity_; we do still retain with the same Churches our\nformer Communion.----_Not dividing from them through the breach of\nCharity; Or condemning all other Churches, as no parts of the\nCatholick Church, and drawing the Communion wholly to our selves, as\ndid those famous Schismaticks, the Donatists._ [See Doctor _Ferne\nDivision of Churches_, p. 105. and 31, 32.]\n\n\n\u00a7. 31.\n\nNext, _as to matter of Faith_: We hold that all separation from all\nparticular Churches in such a thing, wherein the _unity_ of the\nCatholick Church doth not consist, is no separation from the whole\nChurch, nor is any thing more, than our suspension from the Communion\nof particular Churches, till such their error is reformed; For, as\nDoctor _Stillingfleet_[84]----_There can be no separation from the\nwhole Church, but in such things, wherein the unity of the whole\nChurch lies:--Whoso therefore separates from any particular Church as\nto things not concerning their being, is only separated from the\nCommunion of that Church, and not the Catholick._ Now, that for which\nwe have separated from other Churches, we conceive not such, as is\nessential, or concerns the being of a Church so, that without it we or\nthey cannot still retain the essence thereof; we declare also our\nreadiness to joyn with them again, if this error be corrected, or at\nleast not imposed: And [85](as Dr. _Stillingfleet_ saith)----_Where\nthere is this readiness of Communion, there is no absolute separation\nfrom the Church as such, but only suspending Communion, till such\nabuses be reformed_, [or not pressed upon us]. And as Bishop\nBramhall[86]----_When one part of the universal Church separateth it\nself from another part, not absolutely or in essentials, but\nrespectively in abuses, and innovations, not as it is a part of the\nuniversal Church, but only so far as it is corrupted and degenerated_\n[whether in doctrin or manners] _it doth still retain a Communion not\nonly with the Catholick Church, and with all the Orthodox members of\nthe Catholick Church, but even with that corrupted Church, from which\nit is separated, except only in such Corruptions._\n\n\n\u00a7. 32.\n\n_Prot._ Saving better Judgments, methinks a separation (if causeless)\nfrom the Communion of all other Churches, or from those who are our\nSuperiors, in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential\npoint of Christianity as destroys the being of a Church, should be\n_Schism_; and the smaller the point for which we separate, the greater\nthe guilt of our separation. Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in\nrejecting the Catholick Communion, requiring their conformity in such\na point, in which St. _Cyprian_'s error before the Church's defining\nthereof was very excusable; and the African Congregations in his time\nnot un-churched thereby?\n\n_Soc._ [87]----_But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ,\nand the hope of Salvation, the Church from which they separated, which\nis the property of Schismaticks._----And [88]----_They were justly\ncharged with Schism, because they confined the Catholick Church within\ntheir own bounds._ But as Dr. _Ferne_ saith[89]--_Had the Donatists\nonly used their liberty and judgment in that practice of re-baptizing\nHereticks, leaving other Churches to their liberty; and (though\nthinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks, without baptizing\nthem, yet) willing to have Communion with them, as parts of the\nCatholick Church (saving the practices wherein they differed), then\nhad they not been guilty of Schism._ In that which I hold I only\nfollow my Conscience, condemn not the Churches holding otherwise: On\nthe other side [90]_Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to\nprofess what I believe not_ [be it small or great] _and consequently\nunder the same penalty hath obliged me to leave the Communion, in\nwhich I cannot remain without the Hypocritical Profession of such a\nthing, which I am convinced to be erroneous._ [91]_At least this I\nknow, that the Doctrin which I have chosen, to me_ seems _true, and\nthe contrary, which I have forsaken,_ seems _false: and therefore,\nwithout remorse of Conscience, I may profess that, but this I cannot:\nand a separation, for preserving my Conscience, I hope will never be\njudged causeless._\n\n\n\u00a7. 33.\n\n_Prot._ At this rate none will be a Schismatick, but he who knows he\nerreth (_i. e._ not who holdeth, but only who professeth an error); or\nwho knows, that the point, for the non-conformity to which, required\nof him, he deserts the Church, is a _Truth_, and the contrary, which\nhe maintains, an error. But Doctor _Hammond_[92] tells you. _That he\nthat doth not communicate with those_ [I suppose he means Superiors]\n_the condition of whose Communion contains nothing really erroneous or\nsinful, though the doctrin so proposed as the condition of their\nCommunion, be apprehended by him, to whom it is thus proposed, to be\nfalse, remains in Schism._\n\n_Soc._ And at this rate, all those, who separate from the Church,\nrequiring their assent to what is indeed a truth, will be Schismaticks,\n(and that, whether in a point Fundamental, or not Fundamental,) though\nthey have used all the industry, all the means they can (except this,\nthe relying on their Superiors judgment) not to err; unless you will\nsay, that all truths, even not Fundamental, are in Scripture so clear,\nthat none using a right industry, can (neither) err in them; which no\n_Chillingworth_ hath maintained hitherto.\n\n\n\u00a7. 34.\n\n_Prot._ But we may let this pass; for, your separation was in a point\nperspicuous enough in Scripture (and so you void of such excuse): was\nin a point Essential and Fundamental, and in which a wrong belief\ndestroys any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church, with\nthe Catholick.\n\n_Soc._ This I utterly deny; nor see I by what way this can ever be\nproved against me, for you can assign no Ecclesiastical Judge that can\ndistinguish Fundamentals, Necessaries, or Essentials, from those\npoints that are not so, as hath been shewed already. And as Dr.\n_Stillingfleet_[93] urgeth concerning Heresie, so may I concerning\nSchism:----What are the measures whereby we ought to judge, what\nthings are Essential to the being of Christianity, or of the Church?\nWhether must the _Church's judgment_ be taken, or every _mans own\njudgment_? if the _former_, the Ground of Schism lies still in the\nChurch's definitions, contrary to what Protestants affirm: if _the\nlatter_; then no one can be a Schismatick, but he, that opposeth that\nof which _he is_, or _may be convinced_, that it is a Fundamental, or\nessential matter of Faith. If he be only a Schismatick, that opposeth\nthat, of which _he is convinced_; then no man is a Schismatick, but he\nthat goes against his present Judgment; and so there will be few\nSchismaticks in the world; If he, that opposeth that, which _he may be\nconvinced_ of; then again, it is that which _he may be convinced_ of,\neither in the Church's judgment or in his own: If in the Church's, it\ncomes to the same issue, as in the former: If _in his own_; how I\npray, shall I know, that I may be convinced of what, using a due\nindeavour, I am not convinced already? or, how shall I know, when a\ndue industry is used? and if I cannot know this, how should I ever\nsettle my self unless it be upon _Authority_, which you allow not.\nAgain, I am taught, that any particular, whether Person or Church,\nmay judge for themselves with the _Judgment_ of _Discretion_: And in\nthe matter of Christian Communion,----[94]_That nothing can be more\nunreasonable, than that the Society_ [suppose it be a Council]\n_imposing conditions of its Communion_ [suppose the Council of _Nice_\nimposing Consubstantiality so] _should be Judge, whether those\nconditions be just and equitable or no: And especially in this case,\nwhere a considerable Body of Christians judge such things required to\nbe unlawful conditions of Communion, what justice or reason is there,\nthat the party accused should sit judge in his own cause?_\n\n_Prot._ By this way no _Separatist_ can ever be a _Schismatick_, if he\nis constituted the judge, whether the reason of his separation is\njust.\n\n_Soc._ And in the other way, there can never be any just cause of\nseparation at all, if the Church-Governors, from whom I separate, are\nto judge, whether that be an error, for which I separate.\n\n\n\u00a7. 35.\n\n_Prot._ It seems something that you say: But yet, though upon such\nconsideration, a free use of your own _judgment_, as to providing for\nyour own Salvation is granted you; yet, methinks in this matter you\nhave some greater cause to suspect it, since several Churches, having\nof late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the\ncorrupt doctrins of former ages, yet these _reformed_, as well as the\nother _unreformed_, stand opposite to you; and neither those\nprofessing to follow the Scriptures, nor those professing to follow\nTradition, and Church-Authority; neither those requiring strict\nobedience and submission of judgment, nor those indulging Christian\nliberty, countenance your doctrin. But you stand also _Reformers_ of\nthe _Reformation_, and separated from all.\n\n_Soc._ Soft a little. Though I stand separated indeed from the present\nunreformed Churches; or also (if you will) from the whole Church that\nwas before _Luther_; yet I both enjoy the external Communion, and\nthink I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches\nReformed; and, as I never condemned them, or thought Salvation not\nattainable in them; so neither am I (that I know of) excluded by, or\nfrom them; so long as I retain my opinion in silence, and do not\ndisturb their peace; and I take my self also on these terms to be a\nmember, in particular, of the Church of _England_, wherein I have been\neducated. For, all these Churches (as confessing themselves _fallible_\nin their decree) do not require of their Subjects to yield any\n_internal assent_ to their Doctrins; or to profess any thing against\ntheir Conscience, and in Hypocrisie; and do forbear to use that\nTyranny upon any for enjoying their Communion, which they so much\ncondemn in that Church, from which, for this very thing, they were\nforced to part Communion, and to reform. Of this matter, thus, Mr.\n_Whitby_[95]--_Whom did our Convocation ever damn for not internally\nreceiving their decrees? Do they not leave every man to the liberty of\nhis judgment?--They do not require, that we should in all things\nbelieve, as they believe; but that we should submit to their\ndetermination, and not contradict them; their decisions are not\nobtruded as infallible Oracles, but only submitted to in order to\npeace and unity----So that their work is rather to silence, than to\ndetermine disputes,_ &c.----_and_ p. 438. _We grant a necessity, or at\nleast a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies, but how?\nNot by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to\nthese decrees, upon the sole authority of the Council; but by\nsilencing our disputes, and making us acquiesce in what is propounded\nwithout any publick opposition to it, keeping our opinions to our\nselves----A liberty of using private discretion in approving or\nrejecting any thing as delivered, or not, in Scripture, we think ought\nto be allowed; for faith cannot be compelled; and by taking away this\nliberty from men, we should force them to become Hypocrites, and so\nprofess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve._----And see Dr.\nStillingfleets Rational Account, p. 104. where, speaking of the\nobligation to the 39. Articles, he saith,----_That the Church of_\nEngland, _excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin, supposing\nher fallible; the Roman Church excommunicates all, who will not\nbelieve whatever she defines to be infallibly true._----_That the\nChurch of_ England _bindeth men to peace to her determinations,\nreserving to men the liberty of their judgments, on pain of\nexcommunication if they violate that peace. For it is plain on the one\nside, where a Church pretends infallibility, the excommunication is\ndirected against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to\nwhat she defines: But where a Church does not pretend to that, the\nexcommunication respects wholly that overt Act, whereby the Church's\npeace is broken. And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace, no\ndoubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds\nof it; which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her\nself in unity; but where it is given out, that the Church is\ninfallible, the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable,\nbecause it is against those internal acts of the mind, over which the\nChurch as such hath no direct power._----And p. 55. he quotes these\nwords out of Bishop _Bramhall_[96] to the same sense,--_We do not\nsuffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of_ England _at\nhis pleasure; yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving\nfaith, or legacies of Christ, and his Apostles; but, in a mean, as\npious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity; neither do we\noblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. By\nwhich we see what vast difference there is, between those things which\nare required by the Church of_ England _in order to peace, and those\nwhich are imposed by the Church of_ Rome, _&c._ Lastly, thus Mr.\n_Chillingworth_[97] of the just authority of Councils and Synods\n(beyond which the Protestant Synods, or Convocations pretend\nnot.)----_The Fathers of the Church_ (saith he) _in after times_\n[_i. e._ after the Apostles] _might have just cause to declare their\njudgment, touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed:\nbut to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of\ndamnation, what warrant they had, I know not: He, that can shew,\neither that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority; or,\nthat it continued in the Church for some ages, and then expired: He,\nthat can shew either of these things let him; for my part I cannot.\nYet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council, though not\ninfallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that_ (without\napparent reason to the contrary) _it may be sin to reject it, at least\nnot to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake._ [Thus\nmuch, as the Protestant Synods seem contented with, so I allow]--Again\np. 375. He saith----_Any thing besides Scripture, and the plain,\nirrefragable, indubitable consequences of it; Well may Protestants\nhold it as matter of opinion, but as matter of faith and religion,\nneither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it\nthemselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high\nand most schismatical presumption._ Thus he: now I suppose that either\nno Protestant Church or Synod will stile the Son's coequal God-head\nwith the Father a plain irrefragable, indubitable Scripture, or\nconsequence thereof, about which is, and hath been so much contest, or\nwith as much reason, they may call whatever points they please such,\nhowever controverted, and then, what is said here signifies nothing.\n\n\n\u00a7. 36.\n\n_Prot._ Be not mistaken, I pray: especially concerning the Church of\n_England_. For though she, for several Points, imposed formerly by the\nTyranny of the _Roman_ Church, hath granted liberty of Opinion, or at\nleast freed her Subjects from obligation to believe so in them, as the\nChurch formerly required; yet as to exclusion of your Doctrin, she\nprofesseth firmly to believe the three Creeds; and concerning the\nAdditions made in the two latter Creeds to the first, Dr. _Hammond_[98]\nacknowledgeth,----_That they being thus settled by the Universal\nChurch, were, and still are in all reason, without disputing, to be\nreceived and embraced by the Protestant Church, and every meek Member\nthereof, with that reverence that is due to Apostolick Truths; with\nthat thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions,\nfor their seasonable, and provident propugning our faith, with such\ntimely and necessary application to practice, that the Holy Ghost,\nspeaking to us now, under the times of the New Testament by the\nGovernors of the Christian Churches, (Christs mediate successors in\nthe Prophetick, Pastoral, Episcopal Office) as he had formerly spoken\nby the Prophets of the Old Testament, sent immediately by him, may\nfind a cheerful audience, and receive all uniform submission from us._\nThus, Dr. _Hammond_ of the Church of _England's_ assent to the three\nCreeds. She assenteth also to the definitions of the four first\nGeneral Councils: And the Act 1 _Eliz._[99] declares Heresie that,\nwhich hath been adjudged so by them; now in the definitions of these 4\nfirst General Councils your tenent hath received a Mortal wound. But\nlastly, _the 4th_ Canon in the English Synod held 1640.[100]\nparticularly stiles _Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie,\nand contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of_\nEngland: _and orders that any, convicted of it, be excommunicated and\nnot absolved, but upon his repentance and abjuration._ Now further\nthan this [_namely, excommunication upon conviction._] No other Church\nI suppose hath, or can proceed against your Heresie; It being received\nas a common Axiom in the Canon law; that _Ecclesia non judicat de\noccultis_,----And----_Cogitationis p\u00e6nam nemo patitur._----And----_Ob\npeccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest._ And in\nall Churches every one, of what internal perswasion soever, continues\nexternally at least a member thereof, till the Church's censures do\nexclude him.\n\n\n\u00a7. 37.\n\n_Soc._ The Church of _England_ alloweth, assenteth to, and teacheth,\nwhat she judgeth evident in the Scripture; for so she ought; what she\nbelieves, or assenteth to, I look not after, but what she enjoyns. Now\nI yield all that obedience in this point, that she requires from me;\nand so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son.\n\n_Prot._ What obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest, and most\nfundamental doctrins?\n\n_Soc._ If I mistake not her principles, she requires of me no internal\nbelief or assent to any of her doctrins, but only, 1st. _Silence_, or\n_non-contradiction_ or 2ly, a _conditional belief_, _i.e._ whenever I\nshall be convinced of the truth thereof. Now in both these I most\nreadily obey her. For the 1st, I have strictly observed it, kept my\nopinion to my self; unless this my discourse with you hath been a\nbreach of it; but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church\nat the beginning of our discourse; and for the 2d, whether _actual\nconviction_, or _sufficient proposal_, be made the condition of my\nassent, or submission of judgment, I am conscious to my self of no\ndisobedience, as to either of these; for an _actual conviction_ I am\nsure I have not: and, supposing, that I have had a _sufficient\nproposal_, and do not know it, my obedience, upon the Protestant\nprinciples, can possibly advance no further, than it now doth. The\n_Apostles Creed_ I totally embrace, and would have it the standing\nbound of a Christian Faith. For other _Creeds_: I suppose, no more\nbelief is necessary to the Articles of the _Nicene Creed_, than is\nrequired to those of the _Athanasian_. And, of what kind the necessity\nis of believing those, Dr. _Stillingfleet_ states on this\nmanner [101]----_That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary,\neither as to the matter, because the matter is to be believed in it\nself necessary; or because of the clear conviction of mens\nunderstandings; that, though the matters be not in themselves\nnecessary, yet being revealed by God, they must be explicitly\nbelieved: but then, the necessity of this belief doth extend no\nfurther, than the clearness of the conviction doth._ Again, _that the\nnecessity of believing any thing arising from the Church's definition_\n[upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of\n_Consubstantiality_] _doth depend upon the Conviction, that whatever\nthe Church defines is necessary to be believed. And, where that is not\nreceived as an antecedent principle, the other cannot be supposed._\n[Now this principle neither I, nor yet Protestants, accept]. Then he\nconcludes----_That as to the Athanasian Creed_ [and the same it is for\nthe _Nicene_.] _It is unreasonable to imagine, that the Church of_\nEngland _doth own this necessity, purely on the account of the\nChurch's definition of those things which are not fundamental, it\nbeing directly contrary to her sense in her 19th and 20th Articles._\n[Now, which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental, she defines\nnothing; nor do the 19, 20, or 21. Articles own a necessity of\nbelieving the Church's Definitions, even as to _Fundamentals_.] _And\nhence, that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of\nthe Athanasian Creed must, according to the sense of the Church of_\nEngland, _be resolved, either into the necessity of the matters, or\ninto that necessity, which supposeth clear conviction, that the things\ntherein contained are of divine Revelation._ Thus he. Now, for so many\nArticles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed, that\nit is in it self necessary; or, that they are divine Revelations, I do\nmost readily yield my Faith, and assent thereto. Now, to make some\nReply to the other things you have objected.\n\n\n\u00a7. 38.\n\nThe Act 1 _Eliz._ allows no Definitions of the First General Councils\nin declaring _Heresie_, but with this limitation, that, in such\nCouncils, such thing be declared _Heresie_ by the express and plain\nwords of the _Canonical Scripture_. On which terms I also accept them.\n\n\n\u00a7. 39.\n\nDr. _Hammond_'s affirming, _That all additions settled by the\nUniversal Church_ [he means General Councils] _are in all reason,\nwithout disputing, to be received as Apostolical Truths, that the Holy\nGhost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches,\nChrist's Successors, may receive all uniform submission from us_, suits\nnot with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned.[102]\nFor thus (if I rightly understand him) all the definitions of General\nCouncils, and of the Christian Governors in all ages, as these being\nstill Christ's Successors, are to be without disputing, embraced as\ntruths Apostolical.\n\n\n\u00a7. 40.\n\nIf the words of the fourth _Canon_ of the _English Synod_ 1640.\nsignifie any more, than this; That any person _convicted_ of\nSocinianism (_i. e._ by publishing his opinion) shall, upon such\nconviction, be excommunicated; and if it be understood adequate to\nthis, _Qui non crediderit filium esse_ +homoousion+ _Deo Patri,\nAnathema sit_, and, that the Church of _England_, for allowing her\nCommunion, is not content with _silence_ in respect of Socinianism,\nbut obligeth men also to _assent_ to the contrary; then, I see not\nupon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like\nAnathema's or exactions of assent required by that of _Trent_, or\nother late Councils, or by _Pius_ his Bull. If it be said here, the\nreason of such faulting them is, because these require assent, not\nbeing lawful _General Councils_, such reason will not pass; 1st.\nBecause, neither the English Synod, exacting assent in this point, is\na General Council. 2ly. Because, it is the Protestant tenent, that\nneither may lawful General Councils require _assent_ to all their\nDefinitions. Or, if it be affirmed (either of _General_ or\n_Provincial_ Councils) that they may require assent under Anathema to\nsome of their decrees; _viz._ Those evidently true, and divine\nRevelations; such as _Consubstantiality_ is; but may not to others;\n_viz._ Those not manifested by them to be such; then, before we can\ncensure any Council for its Anathema's, or its requiring of assent, we\nmust know, whether the point, to which assent is required, is, or is\nnot, evident divine Revelation. And then, by whom, or how, shall this\nthing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or\ndecided? for those that judge this, whoever they be, do sit now upon\nthe trial of the rightness, or mistake of the judgment of a General\nCouncil: Or when, think we, will those who judge this (_i.e._ every\nperson for himself) agree in their sentence? Again, If on the other\nside, the _former Church_ in her language, _Si quis non crediderit,\n&c. Anathema sit_, be affirmed (to which purpose the fore-mentioned\nAxioms are urged by you) to mean nothing more, than, _Si quis H\u00e6resin\nsuam palam profiteatur, & hujus professionis convictus fuerit,\nAnathema sit_, Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing\nsuch _Anathema's_ will be concluded causeless and unjust. But indeed,\nthough, (according to the former sentences,) her Anathema is not\nextended to the internal act of holding such an opinion, if wholly\nconcealed, so far as to render such person for it to stand\n_excommunicated_, and lie actually under this censure of the Church,\nbecause hitherto no contempt of her authority appears, nor is any\ndammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby? Yet her\n_Anathema_ also extends, even to the internal act, or tenet, after the\nChurch's contrary definition known (which tenet also then is not held\nwithout a disobedience, and contempt of her authority) so far, as to\nrender the delinquent therein guilty of a very great _mortal sin_; and\nso at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of\n_Christ's Body_; though externally he is not as yet so cut off. And\nthe Casuists further state him _ipso facto_ to be excommunicated,\nbefore, and without conviction, if externally he doth, or speaketh any\nthing, whereby he is convincible; and not if there be any thing\n_proved_ against him, but if any thing at least _provable_; and such a\none, upon this, to be obliged in Conscience, not only to confess his\nheretical opinion, for his being absolved from _mortal sin_; but also\nto seek a release from excommunication incurred, for his re-enjoying\nthe Church's Communion. Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards\nwhat it once accounted _Heresie_ much different from the more mild\nSpirit, and moderate temper of the _Reformed_.\n\n\n\u00a7. 41.\n\nTo conclude. For the enjoying the _Protestant_ Communion, I conceive\nthat, as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrins, it is\nsufficient for me to hold with Mr. _Chillingworth_ (as I\ndo[103])----_That the Doctrin of Protestants, though not that, of all\nof them, absolutely true, yet it is free from all impiety, and from\nall Error destructive to Salvation, or in it self damnable._ And\n[104]----_whatsoever hath been held necessary to Salvation by the\nconsent of Protestants, or even of the Church of_ England, [which\nindeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such _necessaries_],\n_that, against the Socinians, and all others whatsoever, I do verily\nbelieve, and embrace_----And (which is still the same) [105]--_I am\nperswaded, that the constant doctrin of the Church of_ England, _is so\npure and Orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to\nit, undoubtedly he shall be saved._ [For if all truths necessary to\nSalvation be held in it, then, so, is no error, opposite or\ndestructive to Salvation, held by it; and so, living according to the\ntruths it holds, I may be saved.] Again [106]----_I believe that there\nis no error in it, which may necessitate, or warrant any man to\ndisturb the peace, or renounce the Communion of it_, [For, though I\nbelieve _Antisocinianism_, an error; Yet if I hold it not such, as\nthat for it any man may disturb the peace, or ought to renounce the\nCommunion of the Church, I may profess all this, and yet hold\nSocinianism.] Lastly as he,[107] so I;----_Propose me any thing out of\nthe Bible, seem it never so incomprehensible, I will subscribe it with\nhand and heart. In other things_ [that I think not contained in this\nBook] _I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him, neither shall\nany man take mine from me; for I am fully assured, that God doth not,\nand therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than\nthis; To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word, to endeavour to find\nthe true sense of it; and to live according to it. Without pertinacy I\ncan be no Heretick; And[108], endeavouring to find the true sense of\nScripture, I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy, and be ready\nto forsake it, when a more true, and a more probable sense shall\nappear unto me.----And then, all necessary truth being plainly set\ndown in Scripture, I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all\nnecessary truth; and in doing so, my life being answerable to my\nFaith, how is it possible I should fail of Salvation?_ Thus Mr.\n_Chillingworth_ speaks perfectly my sense.\n\n_Prot._ I see no other cure for you; but that you learn _humility_ and\n_mortification_ of your _Understanding_ (in which lies the most subtle\nand perilous of all _Prides_): And, It will reduce you to _Obedience_:\nand this to _Truth_. That, with all the Church of God, you may give\nglory to _God the only begotten Son_, and _the Holy Ghost, coessential\nwith God the Father_. To which _Trinity_ in _Unity_, as it hath been\nfrom the beginning, and is now, so shall all Honour and Glory be given\nthroughout all future ages. _Amen._\n\n\n[81] _Dr. Potter p._ 75.\n\n[82] _Chillingw. p._ 274.\n\n[83] _Lawd. p._ 142.\n\n[84] _p._ 331.\n\n[85] _Stilling. ib._\n\n[86] _Vindic. of the Church of Eng._ _p._ 9.\n\n[87] _D. Potter p._ 76.\n\n[88] _Stillingfl. p._ 359.\n\n[89] _Division of Churches. p._ 106.\n\n[90] _Chillingw. p._ 278.\n\n[91] _Ib._ 279.\n\n[92] _Of Schism_, _p._ 23, 24, 25.\n\n[93] _p._ 73.\n\n[94] _Stillingfl. p._ 292.\n\n[95] _p._ 100.\n\n[96] _Schism guarded_, _p._ 192.\n\n[97] _p._ 200.\n\n[98] _Of Fundamentals. p._ 90.\n\n[99] _cap._ 1.\n\n[100] _Can._ 4.\n\n[101] _p._ 70, 71.\n\n[102] _See before_ \u00a7. 26.\n\n[103] _Chillingw. Pref._ \u00a7. 39.\n\n[104] _Ib._ \u00a7. 28.\n\n[105] _Ib._ \u00a7. 29.\n\n[106] _Ibid._\n\n[107] _Chillingw. p._ 376.\n\n[108] _Ib._ \u00a7. 57.\n\n\n_FINIS._\n\n\n\n\n_ERRATA._\n\nPage 19. lin. 18. read _Emperor_. p. 28. l. 1. dele [_See more\nProtestants cited to this purpose_, _Disc._ 3. \u00a7. 19.] pag. 31, l. 7.\nr. _there by_.","title":"The Protestants Plea for a Socinian: Justifying His Doctrine from Being Opposite to Scripture or Church Authority; and Him from Being Guilty of Heresie, or Schism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":20054}