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
Author: Woodhead, Abraham
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "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" ***


 Transcriber's Note:

 The text is divided into 5 "Conferences" and 41 sections.

 Marginal notes indicating the start of individual sections have been
 converted into section headings. Other notes have been numbered and
 moved to the end of each Conference. They often refer to the following
 (rather than preceding) passage, and if so are positioned accordingly.
 The locations of the marker for Note 13, and of the start of Section
 8, are unclear: they have been inserted in accordance with the sense
 of the text.

 Other markers that do not correspond to marginal notes have been
 removed. The "*" that are retained in sections 11, 13 and 18 do not
 indicate marginal notes, but instead function as bullet points.

 Variations in spelling have been retained with the exception of the
 following:

  Conference 1 Summary: "byass'd" changed to "bypass'd".

  Conference 2 Section 17: "be-belief" changed to "belief" and
  "absolure" to "absolute".

  Conference 5 Section 36 "enent" changed to "tenent"; Section 37
  "Athenasian" changed to "Athanasian".

 Obscured text has been transcribed as follows:

  Conference 1 Section 8: "?her" transcribed as "Luther".

  Conference 3 Section 18: the sentence beginning "But if it be said"
  has been reconstructed from the work cited.

  Conference 5 Section 30: the phrases "not-conforming to" and "As to
  Charity" have been reconstructed.

 At the beginning of Conference 1 a brace, extending over several
 lines, has been replaced by a column of individual braces.

 Italics are indicated by _underscores_ and Greek by +plus signs+.
 When a word in italics is followed by "'s" the latter may or may not
 be italicised. This inconsistency has been retained. Inconsistent
 hyphenation has also been retained.

 The Text has been corrected in accordance with the Errata section.
 Mismatched brackets and parentheses have been removed and apparent
 punctuation errors corrected.



 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.

 In Five Conferences.

 Publish'd with Allowance.

 _LONDON_,
 Printed by _Henry Hills_, Printer to the King's Most
 Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel. 1686.



 THE
 First Conference.

The _Socinian's_ Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing
contrary to the _Holy Scriptures_.


 1. _That he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's
   Word; and therefore implicitly believes those truths, against which
   he errs._ §. 2.

 2. _That also he useth his best endeavor to find the true sense of
   Scriptures: and, that more is not required of him from God for his
   Faith or Salvation, than doing his best endeavour for attaining
   it._ §. 3.

 3. _That, as for an explicite Faith required of some points
   necessary, he is sufficiently assured, that this point concerning
   the Son's Consubstantiality with the Father, as to the affirmative,
   is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be
   clear in Scripture, even to the unlearned; which this, in the
   affirmative, is not to him._ §. 4.

 4. _That several express, and plain Scriptures do perswade him,
   that the negative (if either) is necessary to be believed; and that
   from the clearness of Scriptures, he hath as much certainty in this
   point, as Protestants can have from them in some other, held
   against the common expressions of the former times of the
   Church._ §. 6, 8.

 5. _That, for the right understanding of Scriptures, either he may
   be certain of a just industry used; or else, that Protestants, in
   asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious;
   and then, that none are certain, when they have used a just
   industry, thus must still remain also uncertain in their Faith; as
   not knowing, whether some defect in this their industry causeth
   them not to mistake the Scriptures._

 6. _Lastly; That none have used more diligence in the search of
   Scripture, than the_ Socinians, _as appears by their Writings,
   addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God, and not suffering
   themselves to be any way bypass'd by any other humane, either
   modern, or ancient Authority._ §. 9.

          {Where, _The_ Protestant's, _and_ Socinian's _pretended_
          {_Certainty of the sense of Scripture apprehended by them,_
 Digress. {_and made the ground of their Faith against the sense of_
          {_the same Scripture declared by the major part of the_
          {_Church is examined_. §. 9.


§. 1.

To shew the invalidity of such a Guide as Protestants have framed to
themselves for preserving the true Faith, and suppressing Heresies,
hath for several years been the Subject of divers Modern Pens: But,
because Instances and Examples, seem to some, more weighty and
convincing, it is thought fit (the more to awaken, and the better to
satisfie him) here to let the Reader see what Apology a _Socinian_
(who tho' denying the Trinity, and our Saviors Deity, yet, most
zealously urges Scripture, and its plainness in all necessaries, as if
it justified his own Errors; or that he Erred only in matters not
necessary) upon the Protestant Principles may return for himself to a
Protestant endeavouring to reduce him to the true Faith and the
_Nicene_ Creed; and using any of these five Motives thereto, _viz._
The Testimony of 1. Scripture. 2. Catholic-Church-Authority. 3.
Councils, with the Danger and Guilt of 4. Heresie, and 5. Schism. Not
intending hereby to equal all Protestant Opinions with the _Socinian_;
but inferring that these Pleas as relating to these Motives will as
rationally justifie the _Socinian_ as the Protestant.

For, suppose a Protestant, first, concerning the _Scriptures_,
question a _Socinian_ in this manner.

_Prot._ Why do you, to the great danger of your soul, and salvation,
not believe, _God the Son to be of one, and the same essence, and
substance with God the Father_, it being so principal an Article of
the _Christian_ Faith, delivered in the _Holy Scriptures_?

_Soc._ To give you a satisfactory account of this matter. I do
believe, with other Christians, that the Scriptures are the Word of
God; and, with other Protestants, that they are a perfect _Rule_ of my
faith.


§. 2.

_Prot._ But, this secures you not, unless you believe according to
this _Rule_; which in this point, you do not.

_Soc._ However I believe in this point; truly, or falsly; I am secure
that my Faith is entire, as to all _necessary_ points of Faith.

_Prot._ How so?

_Soc._ Because, as M. _Chillingworth_ saith[1]--_He that believes all
that is in the_ Bible, _all that is in the_ Scriptures (_as I do_)
_believes all that is_ necessary _there_.

_Prot._ This must needs be true: but mean while, if there be either
some part of Scripture not known at all by you; or the true sense of
some part of that you know (for, _the Scripture_, as that Author
notes[2], _is not so much the words, as the sense_) be mistaken by
you, how can you say, you believe all the Scriptures? For, when you
say, you believe all the Scripture, you mean only this: that you
believe, that, whatsoever is the _true sense_ thereof, that is _God's
Word_; and most certainly true: which belief of yours doth very well
consist with your not believing, or also your believing the contrary
to the _true sense_ thereof: and then you, not believing the true
sense of some part of it at least, may also not believe the true sense
of something _necessary_ there; which is quite contrary to your
conclusion here.


§. 3.

_Soc._ [3]----_I believe, that that sense of them which God intendeth
whatsoever it is, is certainly true; And thus I believe implicitely
even those very truths, against which I err._ Next: [4]----_I do my_
best endeavour _to believe Scripture in the true sense thereof. By my
best endeavour I mean_[5], _such a measure of industry, as humane
prudence, and ordinary discretion_ (_my abilities, and opportunities,
my distractions, and hindrances, and all other things considered_)
_shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence._ Of _using_
which _endeavour_ also, I conceive, I may be sufficiently certain:
[for otherwise, I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from
this compleat Rule of Scriptures; this due endeavor being the
condition, which Protestants require, that I shall not be, as to all
necessaries, deceived in the sense of Scripture.] Now, being conscious
to my self of such a right endeavor used: [6]----_For me, to believe,
further, this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures; or to
believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not
necessary, either to my faith or salvation. For, if God would have had
his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with
his wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak
obscurely? Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to
know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not
revealed?_ [7]----_For my error or ignorance in what is not plainly
contained in Scripture, after my best endeavour used; to say that God
will damn me for such errors, who am a lover of him, and lover of
truth, is to rob man of his comfort, and God of his goodness; is to
make man desperate, and God a Tyrant._


§. 4.

_Prot._ But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of
Faith revealed in Scripture: for you ought to have of some points an
_express_ and _explicite_ Faith.

_Soc._ Of what points?

_Prot._ Of all those that are _fundamental_ and _necessary_.

_Soc._ Then if this point of _Consubstantiality of the Son with God
the Father_ be none of the _Fundamentals_, and necessaries, wherein I
am to have a right and an explicite Faith, the account I have given
you already, I hope, is satisfactory.


§. 5.

But next: I am secure, that this point, which is the subject of our
discourse, at least in the affirmative thereof, is no fundamental;
for, according to the Protestant principles [8]----_The Scripture is a
Rule, as sufficiently perfect, so sufficiently intelligible in things
necessary, to all that have understanding; whether learned, or
unlearned. Neither is any thing necessary to be believed, but what is
plainly revealed: for to say, that when a place of Scripture by reason
of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses, whereof one
is true, and the other false, that God obligeth men under pain of
damnation not to mistake through error, and humane frailty, is to make
God a Tyrant, and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain
that end, for the attaining whereof we have no certain means. In
fine,_ [9] _where Scriptures are plain, as they are in necessaries,
they need no infallible Interpreter, no further explanation_ [to me];
_and where they are not plain, there if I, using diligence to find the
truth, do yet miss of it, and fall into Error, there is no danger in
it._

_Prot._ True. Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned, using
a due Industry, void of a contrary interest, _&c._

_Soc._ And in such industry I may be assured, I have not been
deficient, having bestowed much study on this matter, read the
Controversie on both sides; compared Texts, _&c._ (as also appears in
the diligent writings of others of my perswasion); and after all this,
the sense of Scripture also, which I embrace, (a sense, you know,
decried and persecuted by most Christians) is very contrary to all my
secular relations, interest, and profit.


§. 6.

Now, after all this search I have used, I am so far satisfied, that
this point, on the affirmative side, is not clear, and evident in
Scripture (and therefore no Fundamental) that I can produce most clear
and evident places out of the Scriptures (if a man can be certain of
any thing from the perspicuity of its Expressions) that the contrary
of it is so.

[See _Crellius_ in the Preface to his Book _De uno Deo Patre_,----_Hæc
de uno Deo Patre sententia_ plurimis, _ac_ clarissimis _sacrarum
literarum testimoniis nititur_----Evidens _sententiæ veritas, &
rationum_ firmissimarum _è sacris literis spontè subnascentium_
multitudo, _ingenii nostri tenuitatem sublevat, &c._----_Argumenta,
quæ ex sacris literis deprompsimus, per se_ plana _sunt, ac_ facilia
_adeo quidem, ut eorum vim declinare aliâ ratione non possint
adversarii, quam ut â verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant, tum
nos abducere conentur._ And see the particular places of Scripture
which they urge (where, as to the expression, and other Texts being
laid aside, that seems to be said, as it were _totidem verbis_, which
the Socinians maintain), _Joh._ 14. 28. 17. 3. _Ep._ 1 _Cor._ 8.
6.----_Col._ 1. 15. _& Rev._ 3. 14. I set not down this to countenance
their Cause, but to shew their Confidence.]


§. 7.

_Prot._ O strange Presumption! And is not your judgment, then, liable
to mistake in the true sense of these Scriptures, because you strongly
persuade your self, they are most evident on your side?

_Soc._ 'Tis true, that I may _mistake_ in the sense of _some_
Scripture; but it follows not from hence, that I can be _certain_ of
the sense of _no_ Scriptures. To answer you in the words of Mr.
_Chillingworth_[10]----_Tho' I pretend not to certain means in
interpreting all Scripture, particularly such places as are obscure
and ambiguous; yet this methinks should be no impediment, but that we
may have certain means of not erring in, and about the sense of those
places which are so plain and clear, that they need no Interpreters;
and in such this my Faith is contained. If you ask me, how I can be
sure, that I know the true meaning of these places? I ask you again;
Can you be sure you understand what I, or any man else saith; They
that heard our Saviour and the Apostles Preach, can they have
sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would
have them do? If not, to what end did they hear them? If they could,
why may not I be as well assured, that I understand sufficiently, what
I conceive plain in their Writings?_ Again; I pray tell me, whether do
you certainly know the sense of these Scriptures, for the evidence of
which you separated from the Church that was before _Luther_,
requiring conformity to the contrary Doctrines, as a condition of her
Communion? _If you do, then give us leave to have the same means, and
the same abilities to know other plain places, which you have to know
these. For if all the Scripture be obscure, how can you know the sense
of these places? If some places of it be plain, why should I stay
here?_----[11] _If you ask, seeing I may possibly err, how can I be
assured I do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive
you, how can you be sure you see the Sun, when you do see it?_ [12] _A
Judge may possibly err in Judgment, can he therefore never have
assurance that he hath judged rightly? a Traveller may possibly
mistake his way; must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the
right way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our_ London _Carrier have
no certainty in the middle of the day, when he is sober, and in his
wits, that he is in his way to_ London?[13]--_This I am certain of,
that God will not require of me a certainly unerring belief, unless he
had given me a certain means to avoid error, and if I use those which
I have, will never require of me, that I use that which I have
not_[14].----This is Mr. _Chillingworth_'s solid Plea, against the
Papist's grand Objection, for the proving an uncertainty in the
Protestant's Faith upon any their pretence of _evident_ Scripture.


Sect. 8.

_Prot._ But the Scriptures, which you urge against _the Son's being
the same one only God with God the Father_, carry not the same
evidence and clearness, as those Scriptures do, whereon Protestants
build the certainty of their Faith against the Papists, or against the
common Church-Doctrines that were before _Luther_.

_Soc._ That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures, which you of
mine: I pray, what can be said more plain, or in what point, in your
Opinion, more fundamental (wherein we contend Scripture is most clear,
even to the unlearned), than this, in _Joh._ 17. 3.--_Ut cognoscant
te_ [Pater] _solum verum Deum; &, quem misisti, Jesum Christum_--And,
1 _Cor._ 8. 6. _Unus Deus, Pater; & unus Dominus, Jesus._ And, _Eph._
4. _ver._ 5. _Unus est Dominus_, [i. e. _Jesus_;] and then, _ver._ 6.
_Unus est Deus, & Pater omnium_--And, _Joh._ 14. 1. _Creditis in Deum,
& in me credite_----And _v._ 28. _Pater meus major me est._ I say,
what more clear for proving the Father his being the _true, most high_
God, and excluding the other Persons [the _Son_, or the _Holy Ghost_]
from being the very same God?

_Prot._ And 1. what more clear, on the other side, than these Texts,
_Rom._ 9. 5. _Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is
over all, God blessed for ever_----And, _Tit._ 2. 13. _The glorious
appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ._
And [15]--_we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life_, spoken by St. _John_, the
great vindicator, against _Ebion_, _Cerinthus_, _Carpocrates_ and
other, in his time, opposers of our Lord's Divinity[16]----And _Apoc._
1. 8. compared with 1. 17.----_I am_ Alpha _and_ Omega, _the beginning
and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty_? I say, what more clear than these Texts, for shewing the
_true Deity_ of Christ? 2. And then, how many other clear Texts are
there, asserting the _Eternity_ of our Lord; that he is nothing made
or created, but pre-existent before the constitution of the World;
equal with God; and that Heaven, and Earth, and all things were made
by him, that were made; and that he descended from Heaven from his
Father, when he took our nature upon him? See _Joh._ 1. 1. &c.--3. 13.
_Heb._ 1. 2, 3, 10 &c.--_Joh._ 17. 5, 24.--_Phil._ 2. 6.--_Joh._ 6.
38.----16. 28.----1. _Tim._ 3. 16.--_Heb._ 2. 14. And 3. then, his
_Deity_ and _Eternity_ thus cleared, his Deity can be no other, than,
in the total essence thereof, numerically the same with that of God
the Father. For, those of your own Sect, together with the whole
Christian world, do acknowledge, 1. That there is but one numerical
most high God, an inseparable attribute of whom is his Creating of the
world, and preexistence before it. And again; 2. That the substance or
essence of this most high God, is not any way divisible, partible or
multipliable; so that, _Si Christus ex Dei substantiâ generatus fuit,
tota ei Patris substantia, eadem numero, communicata fuit._ See
_Volkel. de vera Rel. l._ 5. _c._ 12. upon which consequence well
discerned, your predecessors were constrained to desert Arianism, or
semi-Arianism, and to take in other respects a more desperate way, of
denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation: To
return then to our business. All Scripture being equally true; you
know, no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sense, which
others, as clear contradict. The non-consideration of which by the
passionate or unlearned, is the mother of all errors. The Texts
therefore that you produce here so manifest on your side, that they
may not contradict many more others as clear against you, are to be
understood to speak of our Lord only according to his _Incarnation_,
_Messias_ and _Mediatorship_, in which he hath an inferiority to the
Father and is our _Lord_, by a special Redemption with his blood, in
another manner, than He together with his Father, in the same essence,
is the one true God.

_Soc._ All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently
considered, and answered by our party.

_Prot._ And your Answers are new, forced, absurd, as may clearly
appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing _Volkelius_ l.
5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter. But to omit this dispute, as now
beside my purpose. If your sense of the Scriptures, you have urged, be
so manifest and clear, as you pretend; how comes so great a part of
the Christian world (doubtless rational men), in the sense of these
very Scriptures so much to differ from you? Therefore here I cannot
but still suppose in you the defect of a _due industry_, well
comparing these Scriptures, and void of pride, passion, and other
interest.

_Soc._ And I return the like question to you. If, on the clearness of
the express sense of these Scriptures, I cannot infallibly ground my
faith, against many other rational men contradicting; on what
plainness of the sense of any other Scripture is it, that Protestants
can ground theirs against a contrary sense given by the learned; by
several Councils; by the whole Church of some ages, as they do; not
promising to the Councils, even to the four first, an absolute, but
conditional assent, _viz._ only so far, as their Decrees agree with
these clear Scriptures? If neither the plain words of Scripture can
afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter, which Scriptures,
you say, in fundamentals are to all perspicuous (and such do many deem
this point); nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbiast
industry in the understanding of these Scriptures, and also in the
comparing them with others, in which I am conscious to my self of no
neglect, I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any
other part of Scripture; and then, wherein can lye the assurance of a
Protestant's Faith, for his not erring in _Fundamentals_ at least?
Bishop _Lany_ tells me,[17] _That when we have certain knowledge of a
thing, we may safely learn from the Schools,_ viz. _Ubi non est
formido contrarii; that after diligent search and inquiry when there
remains no scruple, doubt, and fear of the contrary, when the
understanding is fixt, we are said to be certain--And that they who
will say it, and do think so too, may safely be absolved from the
guilt of disobedience._

_Prot._ [18]_You have a judgment of discretion I grant, and may
Interpret Scripture for your self: without the use of which Judgment
you cannot serve God with a reasonable service, who are also to give
account of your self, and are to be saved by your own Faith, and do
perish upon your own score._----[19]_None may usurp that royal
prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned,
but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws,
because each Member of this Society is bound to take care of his Soul,
and of all things that tend thereto_----[20]_In matters of Religion,
when the question is, whether any man be a fit judge, and chooser for
himself, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference
between a moment and eternity. And then I suppose that all the
necessary points in Religion are plain and easie, and consequently
every man in this case to be a compleat Judge for himself, because it
concerns himself to Judge aright, as much as eternal happiness is
worth: and if through his own default he Judge amiss, he alone shall
suffer for it._ To God's righteous Judgment therefore I must finally
remit you. At your own peril be it. This, of the Socinian's Plea
concerning the Scripture on his side.


§. 9.

Where the self-clearness of the sense of Scriptures, not mistakable in
Fundamentals, or necessaries, upon a due industry used (of which also
rightly used, men may be sufficiently assured,) being made the ground,
as you see, of the Protestants and Socinians Faith, before these two
proceed to any further conference, give me leave, to interpose a word
between them, concerning this certainty so much spoken of, and
presumed on.


§. 10.

And here first, from this way, lately taken by many Protestants, there
seems to be something necessarily consequent, which I suppose they
will by no means allow, _viz._ That instead of the Roman Church her
setting up some men, (the Church Governors,) as infallible in
necessaries, here is set up by them every Christian, if he will, both
infallible in all necessaries; and certain that he is so. For the
Scripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due
industry, and of this due industry they also affirm, men may be
certain, that they have used it; being not all, _possible_, endeavour,
but such a measure thereof _as ordinary discretion_, &c. _adviseth
to_. (See Mr. _Chillingworth_, p. 19.) And next, from this affirmed,
that every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals, it must be
maintained also, that their spiritual Guides, in a conjunction of
them, nay more, every single Prelate, or Presbyter, if they are not,
yet may be, an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary.
And therefore M. _Chillingworth_ freely speaks to this purpose[21]----_That
these also may be both in Fundamentals, and also in some points
unfundamental, both certain of the infallibility of their Rule, and
that they do manifestly proceed according to it: and then, in what
they are certain that they cannot be mistaken, they may_ (saith
he[22]) _lawfully decide the controversies about them, and without
rashness propose their decrees, as_ certain, divine _Revelations: and
excommunicate or anathematize any man persisting in the contrary
error._ And there seems reason in such _Anathema_; because all others
either do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same
certain means, as these Governors do. Now then; what certainty the
Guides of a particular Church may have, I hope may also those of the
Church Catholick: and then, obedience being yielded to these by all
their inferiors, this will restore all things to their right course.
All this follows upon certainty, 1. That Scriptures are plain in
Fundamentals; And 2. That due industry is used to understand them.
But, if you should deny that men can have a _certainty_ of their
industry _rightly used_; then again, is all the fair security these
men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite
vanished.

But now, to pass from this consequence, (to which I know not what can
be said), and to enquire a little after the true grounds of our
certainty in any thing, which is here so much pretended.

1. It cannot be denyed, that he that doth err in one thing, may be
certain, that he doth not err in some other; because he may have
sufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing, which he
hath not in another. Nor again denied, that he, who possibly may err,
yet in the same thing may be certain, that he doth not err, if not
neglecting some means, which he knows will certainly keep him from
error.


§. 11.

2. But notwithstanding these: This seems also necessary to be granted
on the other side (and is so by learned Protestants,) That in what
kind of knowledge soever it be (whether of our _Sense_ or _Reason_, in
whatever _Art_ or _Science_) one can never _rightly_ assure himself
concerning his own knowledge, that he is certain of any thing for a
_truth_, which all, or most others of the same or better abilities for
their cognoscitive faculties, in all the same external means, or
grounds of the knowledge thereof, do pronounce an _error_. Not, as if
truth were not so, though all the World oppose it; nor had certain
grounds to be proved so, though all the World should deny them; but
because the true knowledge of it, and them, cannot possibly appear to
one mans intellect, and, _omnibus paribus_, not to others. Now for any
disparity, as to defect, whether in the _instrument_, or in the
_means_ of knowledge, there, where all or most differ from me, it
seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self, rather
than them; especially, * whenas, all the grounds of my Science are
communicated to them; and * whenas, for my own mistakes, I cannot know
exactly the extent of supernatural delusions. I say, be this in what
knowledge we please; in that of sense, _seeing_, _hearing_,
_numbring_, or in any of Mr. _Chillingworth's_ former instances
mentioned, §. 7. So, I can never rationally assure my self of what I
see, when men, as well or better sighted, and all external
circumstances for any thing I know being the same, see no such matter.
And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep
every Fanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit. See
Arch-Bishop _Laud_ (§. 33. Consid. 5. n. 1.)----and _Hooker_ (Preface
§. 6.) their designing of a clear evidence, or demonstrative argument,
_viz._ _Such as proposed to_ any man, _and understood, the mind cannot
chuse but inwardly assent to it_; and therefore, surely, proposed to
many men, the mind of the most cannot dissent from it.


§. 12.

Consequently, in the Scripture; abstracting from the inward operations
of God's Holy Spirit, and any external infallible Guide, (which
infallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to _two_ men delivering a
contrary sense thereof:) I see not from whence any certainty can arise
to particular persons, for so many Texts or places thereof, concerning
the sense of which, the most, or the most learned, or their Superiors,
to whom also all their motives or arguments are represented, do differ
from them. From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical
construction of the words, such certainty cannot arise; unless no term
thereof can possibly be distinguished, or taken in a diverse or
unliteral sense; but, if it cannot be so taken, then all Expositors
must needs agree in one and the same sense. For Example, For the
_Literal_ and _Grammatical_ sense, what Text Plainer than [_Hoc est
corpus meum_]? and yet Protestants understand it otherwise. Very
deficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. _Chillingworth's_ to
_F. Knot_[23], urging, _That the first Reformers ought to have
doubted, whether their opinions were certain,--Which is to say_
(answers he), _that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of
Scripture; which_ in formal and express terms, _contains many of
their opinions_ [whenas the greater world of Catholicks sees no such
matter.] Besides, as there is no term almost in any sentence, but is
capable of several acceptions; so, since no falshood, no discord is in
the Scriptures, there is no sentence in it, however sounding for the
expression, but must be reconciled in its sense to all the rest; and
for this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary, to attain the
true meaning of many places, that seem at the first sight most clear
in what they say, but that there are also other places as clear that
seem to say the contrary: And some such places they were, (and that in
very necessary points too) of which St. _Peter_ saith; _That some
wrested them to their own damnation_[24]_: wrested them_, because they
wanted (not industry, but) learning; _which the unlearned_ (saith he)
_wrest_----And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the
strongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe,
because they know fewest reasons against it; whilst, by much study and
comparing several Revelations one with another, those come at last to
doubt, or deny that sense of some of them, which at the first they
took for most certainly and evidently true. Pardon this long
Parenthesis.


[1] _p._ 23, 159, 367.

[2] _Chill. p._ 87.

[3] _Chill. p._ 18.

[4] _Chill. Ib._

[5] _Chill. p._ 19.

[6] _Chillingw. p._ 102.

[7] _Chill. p._ 18, 92.

[8] _Chill. p._ 92.

[9] _Chill. p._ 59.

[10] _Chillingw. p._ 111.

[11] _Ib. p._ 112.

[12] _Ib. p._ 117.

[13] _Ib. p._ 112.

[14] _See also Chill. p._ 140, 366, 367.

[15] 1 _Joh._ 5. 20.

[16] _S. Hieron. de viris illust._

[17] _Serm. at Whitehall_, _March_ 12. 1664. _p._ 17.

[18] _Dr. Ferne, Division of Churches_, _p._ 46, 61. _Chillinw. p._ 57.

[19] _Stillingfl. p._ 1, 3.

[20] _Chillinw. p._ 59, 100.

[21] _p._ 140.

[22] _p._ 118. 140. & 166.

[23] _Chillingw. p._ 307.

[24] 2 _Pet._ 3. 16.



CONFERENCE II.

_The Socinians Protestant-Plea, For his not holding any thing contrary
to the unanimous sense of the Catholick Church, so far as this can
justly oblige._


 1st. _That an unanimous Consent of the_ whole _Catholick Church in
   all ages, such as the Protestants require for the proving of a
   point of faith to be necessary, can never be shewed, concerning
   this point of_ Consubstantiality. §. 14.

 _And that the consent, to such a doctrine of the_ major part _is no
   argument sufficient, since the Protestants deny the like consent
   valid for several other points._ §. 14.

 2. _That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of
   all ages in this point, yet from hence a Christian hath no security
   of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles, if this
   point, (whether way soever held) be a non-necessary; for that in
   such, it is said the_ whole _Church may err._ §. 15.

 3. _That this Article's being in the affirmative, put in the Creed
   proves it not (as to the affirmative) a Necessary._ §. 16.

   1st. _Because not originally in the Creed, but added by a Council;
     to which Creed if one Council may add, so may another of equal
     authority in any age, whatever restraint be made by a former
     Council._

   2. _Because several Articles of the latter Creeds are affirmed by
     Protestants not necessary to be believed, but upon a previous
     conviction, that they are divine revelation._ §. 16.

 4. _Lastly. That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any
   point, the contrary to that he holds, he is not obliged to resign
   his judgment to her's, except conditionally, and with this
   reservation, unless on the other side, there appear evidence to him
   in God's Word. Now, of the evidence of Scripture in this point on
   his side, that he hath no doubt._ §. 17.


§. 13.

2. Now to resume the _Conference_. The _Protestant_, better thinking
on it, will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of
his own sense of Scripture, but thus proceeds.

_Prot. Scriptures_ indeed are not so clear and perspicuous to every
one[25] _as that Art and subtilty may not be used to pervert the
Catholick doctrine, and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which
deliver it, so far from their proper meaning, that very few ordinary
capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast
before their eyes, even_ in the great Articles of the Christian faith.
Therefore why do not you submit your judgment, and assent to _the
sense of Scripture_, in this point _unanimously delivered by the
consent of the Catholick Church_; which also is believed always
unerrable in any necessary point of faith, as this is?

_Soc._ First, If you can shew me _an unanimous consent_ of the Church
Catholick of all ages in this point, and that as held necessary, I
will willingly submit to it. But this you can never do according to
such a proof thereof, as is required, _viz._ [26]_That all Catholick
Writers agree in the belief of it; and none of them oppose it: and
agree also in the belief of the necessity of it to all Christians. *
That no later Writers and Fathers, in opposition of Hereticks, or
heats of contention, judged then the Article so opposed to be more
necessary than it was judged before the contention. * That all
Writers, that give an account of the faith of Christians, deliver it;
And deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be
convinced that it is of divine Revelation, but with a necessity of its
being explicitely believed by all_[27]. Now, no such unanimous
consent can be pretended for the forementioned _Consubstantiality_.
For, not to speak of the times next following the Council of _Nice_,
nor yet of several expressions in the Ancients, _Justin Martyr_,
_Irenæus_, _Tertullian_, _Clemens Alexandrinus_, _Origen_, that seem
to favour our opinion[28]: Nor, of those Eastern Bishops, which
_Arrius_, in his Letter to _Eusebius Nicomed._[29] (numbers on his
side,) _Hilarius_[30] relates no less than Eighty Bishops before that
Council, to have disallowed the reception of the word +homousios+; and
in the Council also Seventeen, (some of note) at first to have
dissented from the rest.


§. 14.

_Prot._ Not yeilding what you say for truth; but for the present,
supposing it; yet the Judgment of so _small_ a _party_ may by no means
be adhered to by you, it being inconsiderable in respect of the _whole
Body_ of the Catholick Church declaring against you.

_Soc._ If the consent of the much major part is to be taken for the
whole, then the Reformed cannot maintain their dissent from the much
more numerous body of Christianity, that opposed their opinions, and
sense of Scriptures at the beginning of the Reformation, and do still
oppose them. But not to stand upon this, I would willingly conform to
the unanimous, or most general judgment of the Church Catholick; if I
were secure that she could not be mistaken in it. But [31]_The sense
of the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting
Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith--[32]Nor may
she usurp that royal Prerogative of Heaven, in prescribing infallibly
in matters questioned._

_Prot._ You may be secure, that she never erreth in any point
_necessary_.

_Soc._ But you tell me, that though she never err in necessaries, yet
it follows not, that she is an _unerring Guide or Witness_ therein[33]
or, _that she must unerringly declare what points are necessary and what
not_; and I must first learn, whether this point of _Consubstantiality_
is to be numbred among _necessaries_, before I can be assured, that the
sense of the Church Catholick errs not therein.


§. 15.

_Prot._ But [34]_It is a sufficient prescription against any thing
which can be alledged out of Scripture, that it ought not to be looked
on as the true meaning of Scripture, if it appear contrary to the
sense of the Church Catholick from the beginning; and therefore such
doctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of Faith, which
have been so unanimously condemned by the Church Catholick._

_Soc._ Why so?

_Prot._ [35]_Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of
Faith can be so held by the Catholick Church; for its very Being
depends on its belief of necessaries to salvation._

_Soc._ This last is most true; but then, if you mean to make your
discourse cohere, you must say, it is a sufficient prescription, _&c._
if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church, _viz. in a
point necessary_: for, the reason you give carries, and secures you no
further; and then that which you say is no great matter: For, here we
are still to seek, whether the point we discourse of is in the
affirmative such a _necessary_.


§. 16.

_Prot._ But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath
put in her Creeds.

_Soc._ From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed; and
though it should be granted that all points necessary are contained in
the Creeds, yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary:
[36]_Necessary so, as to be believed by any before a clear conviction
of the divine Revelation thereof_: which conviction I yet want.


§. 17.

_Prot._ But yet, though, first the Catholick Church may err in
_non-necessaries_; And 2ly. in what points are _necessary_, what not,
her judgment be not infallible, yet you have still great reason to
submit your judgment to hers; because, if it happen to be a point
necessary, she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in
it; not so, you. 2. If not necessary, and so both she and you therein
liable to error, yet you much the more; and she also in these things
is appointed by God for your Teacher and Guide.

_Soc._ Therefore I use the help and direction of my spiritual Guides;
consider their reasons; do not rashly depart from their judgment; but
yet [37]_The due submission of my assent, and belief to them is only
to be conditional, with reservation of evidence in God's Word. For in
matter of faith_ (as Dr. _Ferne_ saith) _I cannot submit to any
company of men by resignation of my judgment and belief to receive for
faith all that they shall define, for such resignation stands excluded
by the condition of the authority which is not infallible; and by the
condition of the matter, faith, of high concernment to our own souls,
and to be accounted for by_ our selves: _who therefore stand bound to
make present, and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration
from God's Word, upon which we may finally and securely stay our
belief_----And [38]_The Church determining matter of faith_ (saith
he) _ought to manifest it out of_ God's Word: _and we may expect such
Churches, proof, before we yield absolute assent of belief._ And so
Dr. _Stillingfleet_ saith[39]----_All men ought to be left to judge
according to the Pandects of the divine Laws, because each member of
this Society is bound to take care of his Soul, and of all things that
tend thereto._ Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the
Scripture for _Consubstantiality_, but rather for the contrary; which
several of our Writers have made appear to the world. And therefore
unless the Church were either infallible in all she determined, or at
least in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err from
the rest, it seems no way justifiable, that she puts this her
definition into the Creed; she, as I conceive, thus requiring from all
an absolute consent thereto; and not only (as some[40] would perswade
me) a conditional for some of them, _viz._ whenever I shall be clearly
convinced, that such point is of divine Revelation.


[25] _Stillingfl. p._ 58, 59.

[26] _Stillingfl. p._ 72.

[27] See before _Dis._ 3. §. 52.

[28] _See Petavius in Epipha. Hær._ 69.

[29] _Apud Epipha. Hær._ 69.--_Theodor. l._ 1. _c._ 5.

[30] _De Synod._

[31] _Still. p._ 59.

[32] _Stillingfl. p._ 133.

[33] _Stilling. p._ 154, 152.--_Chillingw. p._ 150.--_Dr. Hammond,
Defence of the Lord Falkl. p._ 23.

[34] _Stillingfl. p._ 59.

[35] _Stilling. ib._

[36] _Stillingfl. p._ 70, 71.

[37] _Dr. Ferne, Considerations_, _p._ 10.

[38] _The Case between the Churches_, _p._ 40.

[39] _p._ 133.

[40] _Still. p._ 70.



CONFERENCE III.

His Plea, for his not holding any thing contrary to the Definitions of
_lawful General Councils_, the just conditions thereof observed.


_That he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of_ Nice.

 1. _Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General
   Council with so much certainty, as is necessary for the ground of
   his Faith, as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr._
   Chillingworth, Stillingfleet, _and other Protestants, wherein he
   must first be satisfied, concerning it._

 2. _Because, though it were a General Council, yet it might err even
   in necessaries, if it were not universally accepted; as he can shew
   it was not._

 3. _That, though yielded to be generally accepted, it might err still
   in non-necessaries; and that Protestants cannot prove this point to
   be otherwise._

 4. _That the Leaders of this Council were plainly a party contesting
   this, for many years before, with the other side condemned by them;
   and were Judges in their own cause._

 5. _All these exceptions cancelled, and Obedience granted due to this
   Council; yet, that so, there is due to it not that of_ assent, _but
   only of_ silence. §. 19.

 6. _But yet not that of silence neither from him; considering his
   present perswasion, that indeed the affirmative in this point is an
   error_ manifest _and_ intolerable: _concerning which matter his
   party having long complained to their Superiors, and produced
   sufficient evidence; yet these have proceeded to no redress of
   it._ §. 20.

 7. _But yet that he will submit to the Judgment of a future Council,
   if it, rightly considering the reasons of his tenent, decree that
   which is according to God's Word, and he be convinced thereof._
   §. 22.


§. 18.

3. _Prot._ But do you not consider by what persons this Article was
long ago inserted into the Creed: Namely, by the _first General_, and
the most venerable Assembly of the _Fathers_ of the Church that hath
been convened since the _Apostles_ times; celebrated under the _first
Christian_ Emperor by a perfect Representative of the Catholick
Church; and by such persons, as came very much purified out of the
newly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution that the Church hath
suffered, that under _Dioclesian_; will not you then at least submit
your judgment to the Decree of this great and Holy Council; one and
the first of those four which St. _Gregory_ said he received with the
same reverence, as the four Gospels?

_Soc._ No, And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons, as I
conceive satisfactory. For 1. Had I an obligation of submission of
judgment to lawful General Councils, you cannot prove this such a one,
and those the decrees thereof which are now extant, with such a
certainty as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my Faith. For
to prove this, you must satisfie me in all those things questioned
concerning General Councils * by M. _Chillingworth_, p. 94. * By Dr.
_Pierce_ in his answer to Mr. _Cressy_, p. 18. &c. * By Mr. _Whitby_
from p. 428. to p. 433. [where he concludes: 1. _That we never had a
General Council._ 2. _That a General Council is a thing impossible_.]
* By Mr. _Stillingfleet_ p. 508. &c.----495. 119. 123. &c. Who also,
against the being of such a General Council as is the Representative
of the whole Church Catholick, thus disputes[41]----_The representation
of a Church_ (saith he) _by a General Council, is a thing not so
evident, from whence it should come: for if such representative of the
whole Church there be, it must either be so by some formal act of the
Church, or by a tacite consent. It could not be by any formal act of
the Church; for then there must be some such act of the universal
Church preceding the being of any General Council, by which they
receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church.
Now that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is
utterly impossible to be demonstrated, either that it could be, or
that it was. But if it be said, that such a formal act is not
necessary, but the tacite consent of the whole Church is sufficient
for it; then such a consent of the Church must be made evident, by
which, they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a_
Representative. _And all these must consent in that act whose power
the Council pretends to have; of which no footsteps appear----The
utmost then_ (saith he) _that can be supposed in this case, is, that
the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the
decrees of such a Council; and by that voluntary act, or by the
supreme authority enjoyning it, such decrees may become obligatory._
Thus he. But I suppose its Decrees obligatory then only to those parts
of the Church that voluntarily consent to accept of them, as the
_Arians_ did not to receive the _Decrees_ of _Nice_. Lastly, by *
Bishop _Taylor_ in the 2d. Part of his _Disswasive_, _l._ 1. §. 1. p.
29. _&c._ to the end of the Section. Where p. 31. he saith concerning
this of _Nice_, that makes for you, compared with that of _Ariminum_,
which makes for us----_That if a Catholick producing the Nicene
Council be rencountred by an Arian producing the Council of_ Ariminium
_which was far more numerous, here are_ aquilis aquilæ & pila minantia
pilis: _but who shall prevail? If a General Council be the rule and
guide, they will both prevail, that is, neither. And it ought not to
be said by the Catholick; Yea, but our Council determined for the
truth; but yours for error: For, the_ Arian _will say so too. But,
whether they do or no, yet it is plain that they may both say so: and
if they do, then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and
decision of a General Council; but we approve this General, because
upon other accounts we believe that what is there defined is true. And
therefore_ S. Austin's _way here is best_, Neque ego Nicænum
Concilium, neque tu Ariminense, _&c. both sides pretend to General
Councils: that which both equally pretend to, will help neither;
therefore let us go to Scripture._ And _p._ 32.----_What is the
reason_ (saith he of Councils in General) _that some Councils are
partly condemned: the Council of_ Sardis, _that in_ Trullo, _those of_
Frankford, Constance, _and_ Basil? _but that every man and every
Church accepts the Councils as far as they please, and no further? The
Greeks receive but seven General Councils, the Lutherans six, the
Eutychians three, Nestorians two_, &c.----Pro captu lectoris habent
sua fata. _It is as every one likes._ I spare to tell you what he
saith, _p._ 26.--_That in the first General Council of_ Jerusalem,
_which was the first precedent, and ought to be the true measure of
the rest, the Apostles were the Presidents, and the Presbyters
Assistants, but the Church_ [viz. _the converted brethren and the
Laity_, see p. 36.] _was the Body of the Council, and were Parties in
the Decree_, quoting _Acts_ 15, 22, 23. _and that we can have no other
warrant of an authentick Council than this._ 2. Though it be shewed a
lawful General Council, representing the whole Church (as it ought, if
such) yet what obligation can there lye upon me of consenting to it?
since it may _err_ even in _Fundamentals_, if it be not universally
accepted, as indeed this Council was not, for several Bishops there
were, that were dissenters in the Council, and many more
afterward.[42] 3. Were it universally accepted; yet unless you can
shew me by some means, that this point wherein I differ from its
judgment, is a fundamental or necessary point to salvation, both it,
and the Catholick Church also that accepts it may err therein. 4. The
judgment of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account.
That whereas the _Guides_ of the _Church_, many years before this
Council were divided in their opinion, _Alexander_ Patriarch of
_Alexandria_, and _Hosius_ a Favorite of the Emperor heading one
party; and _Arius_ and the Bishops adhering to him, whom I mentioned
formerly[43], heading another, and whereas afterward, in the
prosecution of this difference, both the foresaid _Alexander_ in one
_Provincial Council_ held in _Egypt_, and _Hosius_ sent thither by the
Emperor in another, had there condemned _Arius_, and his Confederates;
yet so it was ordered, that in this General Council assembled for an
equal hearing and decision of this Controversie of these two professed
Enemies to the other party, the one (_Hosius_) was appointed to sit as
President of this Council; and the other (_Alexander_) held in it the
next place to him; and poor _Arius_ excluded; and the Bishops who
favoured him in the Council, though at first freely declaring their
dissent, yet at last over-awed to a subscription; as also was _Arius_
himself chiefly by the Emperor _Constantine_'s overbearing authority;
who, before somewhat indifferent in the contest, yet upon Arius his
undutiful and too peremptory Letters, had some years before taken
great offence at him; and also (as he was very eloquent) publickly
written against him[44]. Which _overawing_ hence appears, in that the
same _Bishops_ that were adherents to _Arius_, when, this Emperor
being deceased, _Constantius_ his Son countenanced their Cause,
returned, I say not to their former Opinion only, but to their publick
profession of it. By which we may guess, that if the Controversie had
at that time been committed to equal and disengaged Judges, and such
as had not formerly shewed themselves a Party; or, if the Oriental
Bishops, without any fear of the Prince upon them, might have given
free Votes; and the _Arian_ Cause had then had a _Constantius_ instead
of a _Constantine_, (things wherein Protestants well understand me,
because on the same Grounds they have rejected the Council of _Trent_)
we may presume then the issue would have been under _Constantine_ the
same that it was under his Successor, I say before Judges equal and
indifferent, and not such as were before a Party, though this Party
should be compounded of the chief Superior Prelates of the Church.
For, as Dr. _Stillingfleet_ urgeth, [45]----_We must either absolutely,
and roundly assert, that it is impossible that the Superiors in the
Church may be guilty of any error or corruption; or, that if they be,
they must never be called to an account for it; or else, that it may
be just, in some Cases, to except against them as Parties: And if in
some Cases, then the Question comes to this, Whether the present_ [he
speaks of Idolatry, I of Consubstantiality] _be some of these Cases or
no? And here if we make those Superiors Judges again, what we granted
before comes to nothing._

_Prot._ No Person that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any
Controversie (as those Bishops you have mentioned were in the Cause of
_Arius_) can rightly or properly be said to be, on that Side for which
he gives Sentence, a Party. Nor doth their giving Sentence once
against any Side, prejudice them (as supposed Enemies, or Opposites,
or Interested) from sitting on the Bench, as oft as need requires, to
pass it again, alone, or with others. But, if every one may be
afterward called an Anti-party, who once declares himself of a
contrary Judgment, I perceive Mr. _Chillingworth_'s Observation is
right, [46]_That, in Controversies in Religion, it is in a manner
impossible to be avoided, but the Judge must be a Party._ I add also,
That in Matters of Religion, where every Man is concerned, and in
great Controversies, especially where is any division of Communion,
all, both _Laity_ and _Clergy_, speedily own, and range themselves on
one side or other; _Clergy_ interessing themselves for the necessary
direction of their _Subjects_; _Laity_, in obedience to their
_Superiors_; neither can such a Judge be nominated, that is not to one
side suspected. So that, in Controversies of Religion, we must deny
any Judge (as he did[47]); or this Plea, That the ordinary Judge, that
is assigned us, is a _Party_, must not be easily hearkened to. As for
that you urge out of Bishop _Taylor_, concerning the _Laity_ in the
first Council at _Jerusalem_ (the Pattern to all following) being
Parties in the Decree, I suppose it is meant no further, than that
also these may assist in the Council, and give there a consentient, or
attesting, but not a decisive Vote: which neither did the Emperors
claim, when they presided therein. _See Dr. Field of the Church, p._
646.


§. 19.

_Soc._ But I have not yet said all. For Fifthly, Were there none of
the forenamed defects in it, [48]_No Authority on Earth can oblige
to_ internal assent _in matters of Faith, or to any farther Obedience
than that of_ Silence.

_Prot._ Yes, you stand obliged to yield a _conditional_ assent, at
least to the Definitions of these highest Courts, _i. e._ unless you
can bring evident _Scripture_, or _Demonstration_ against them.

_Soc._ I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this. I find indeed
the Archbishop[49] requiring Evidence and Demonstration, for Inferiors
_contradicting_, or publishing their dissent from the Councils
Decrees, but not requiring thus much for their _denial_ of _assent_.
And I am told, [50]--_That in matters proposed by my Superiors, as_
God's Word, _and of_ Faith, _I am not tied to believe it such, till
they manifest it to me to be_ so; _and not that I am to believe it
such, unless I can manifest it to be_ contrary, _because my Faith can
rest on no Humane Authority, but only on God's Word, and Divine
Revelation._ And Dr. _Field_ saith,--[51]_It is not necessary
expresly to believe, whatsoever the Council hath concluded, though it
be true, unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true, and
we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare Determination
of the Council._ Till I am convinced then of my Error, the Obedience
of _Silence_ is the most that can be required of me.


§. 20

But sixthly, I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this
neither; considering my present persuasion, that this Council
_manifestly_ erred; and that, in an error of such high consequence
(concerning the _unity_ of the _most high God_) as is no way to be
tolerated; and I want not evident Scriptures, and many other
unanswerable Demonstrations, to shew it did so; and therefore being
admitted into the honourable Function of the Ministry, I conceive I
have a lawful Commission from an _higher Authority_, to publish this
great Truth of _God_, and to contradict the _Councils_ Decree.


§. 21.

_Prot._ But you may easily mistake that for _evident Scripture_, and
those for _Demonstrations_, that are not. Concerning which you know
what the Archbishop and Mr. _Hooker_ say[52]----_That they are such,
as proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot chuse but
inwardly assent to them_[53]. You ought therefore first to propose
these to your Superiors, or to the Church, desiring a redress of such
Error by her calling another Council. And, if these Superiors,
acquainted therewith, dislike your Demonstrations, which the
Definition saith, if they be right ones, they must be by all, and
therefore by them, assented to, methinks, (though this is not said by
the Archbishop) in humility you ought also to suspect these
Demonstrations, and remain in silence at least, and no further trouble
the Church.

_Soc._ May therefore no particular Person, or Church, proceed to a
Reformation of a former Doctrine, if these Superiors, first complained
to, declare the Grounds of such Persons or Churches for it, not
sufficient?

_Prot._ I must not say so. But if they neglect (as they may) to
consider their _just_ Reasons so diligently as they ought, and to call
a Council for the Correcting of such Error according to the weight of
these Reasons, then here is place for Inferiors to proceed to a
reformation of such Error without them.

_Soc._ And who then shall judge, whether the Reasons pretended are
_defective_, or rather the present Church _negligent_ in considering
them?

_Prot._ Here, I confess, to make _the Superiors_ Judges of this, is to
cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his Grievance,
these Superiors, whose Faith appears to adhere to the former Council,
being only Judges in their own Cause; and so the liberty of
complaining will come to nothing[54].

_Soc._ The Inferiors then, that complain, I suppose are to judge of
this. To proceed then. To these Superiors, in many diligent Writings,
we have proposed, as we think, many unanswerable Scriptures, and
Reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our Party to the
former _Nicene_ Council (and therefore from which Evidences of ours we
have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary Sentence);
and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a
reviewing this Point, we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a
Socinian Church, Pastor, or Bishop, to reform for themselves, and the
Souls committed to them, in an Error appearing to them _manifest_ and
_intolerable_, as for the Protestants, or for Dr. _Luther_, to have
done the same for Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, and other
Points that have been concluded, against the Truth, by several former
Councils.

_Prot._ But such were not _lawful General Councils_, as that of _Nice_
was.

_Soc._ Whatever these Councils were, this much matters not, as to a
_reformation_ from them; for, had they been lawfully General, yet
Protestants hold[55], these not universally accepted may err even in
_Fundamentals_; or, when so accepted, yet may err in Non-fundamentals;
Errors _manifest_, and _intolerable_, and so may be appealed from to
future; and those not called, their Error presently rectified by such
Parts of Christianity as discern it; and also S. _Austin_[56] is
frequently quoted by them, saying----_That past General Councils
erring, may be corrected by other Councils following_.


§. 22.

_Prot._ But I pray you consider, if that famous Council of _Nice_ hath
so erred, another Council called, may it also not err, notwithstanding
your Evidences proposed to it? For, though perhaps some new
demonstrative Proofs you may pretend from several Texts more
accurately compared and explained; yet you will not deny this
sufficient Evidence to have been extant for that most Learned Council
to have seen the Truth, having then the same entire Rule of Faith as
you now, the Scriptures, (in which, you say, your clearest Evidences
lie) for their direction. When a Future Council (then) is assembled,
and hath heard your Plea, will you _assent_ to it, and acquiesce in
the Judgment thereof?

_Soc._ Yes, interposing the Protestant-Conditions of Assent, _If its
Decree be according to God's Word, and we convinced thereof_.

_Prot._ Why, such a submission of Judgment and Assent I suppose you
will presently yield to me in any thing, whereof you are convinced by
me; may this future Council then challenge no further Duty from you?
why then should the Church be troubled to call it?

_Soc._ [57]_Though this Future Council also should err, yet it may
afford Remedy against Inconveniences; and one great Inconvenience
being, Breaking the Church's Peace; this is remedied by its
Authority_, if I only yield the Obedience of Silence thereto.

_Prot._ But if your Obedience oblige not to _silence_ concerning
Councils past, because of your new Evidences, neither will it to a
future, if you think it also doth err; and either these Evidences
remain still unsatisfied, or these satisfied, yet some other new ones
appear to call for a new Consideration.

_Soc._ [58]_Because it may also err, it follows not it must err; and
it is probable that it shall not err, when the former Error is thus
discovered, and if the Council proceed lawfully, be not overawed,_
&c.[59] But however, if I ought upon this review to be restrained to
_silence_, yet, I not convinced of the truth of its Decree, this
Silence is the uttermost that any future Council, after its rejecting
my Reasons, can justly exact of me; and not _belief_, or _assent_, at
all: It may not oblige me, that I should relinquish that you call
_Socinianism_ at all, but that, not divulge it; whereas now by the
Acts of _former_ Councils (I would gladly know upon what rational
ground) an _Anathema_ is pronounced against me, if I do not believe
the contrary, and I am declared to stand guilty of _Heresie_ meerly
for retaining this Opinion; which retaining it is called _obstinacy_
and _contumacy_ in me, after the Councils contrary _Definition_.


[41] _p._ 515, 516.

[42] _See before_, §. 13.

[43] §. 13.

[44] _See Baronius._ A. D. 318, 319.

[45] §. 478.

[46] _p._ 60.

[47] _Ib._ §. 10.

[48] _Whitby_, _p._ 15. _Stillingfleet_, _p._ 506, 537.

[49] §. 32. _n._ 5. & §. 33. _consid._ 5. _n._ 1.

[50] _Dr. Ferne, Case between the Churches_, _p._ 48, 49.
& _Division of Churches_, _p._ 45.

[51] _p._ 666.

[52] _A. B. Laud_ 245.

[53] _Id._ _p._ 227.

[54] _Stillingfl. p._ 479, 292.

[55] _See before, Disc_. 3. §. 34, _&c._

[56] _De Baptismo_, _l._ 2. _c._ 3.

[57] _Stillingfl. p._ 542.

[58] _Stillingfl. ibid._

[59] _Id. p._ 526.



CONFERENCE IV.

His Plea, for his not being guilty of _Heresie_.


_That he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles, be accused
as guilty of_ Heresie, _for several reasons._

 1. _Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an_ obstinate _defence
   of some error against a fundamental, he thinks from hence his
   tenent freed from being an Heresie, as long as in silence he
   retains it, unless he engage further, to a publick pertinacious
   maintaining thereof._ §. 23.

 2. _Fundamentals varying according to particular persons, and
   sufficient proposal; none can conclude this point in the
   affirmative, to be,_ as to him, _a fundamental, or, of the truth of
   which he hath had a sufficient proposal._

 3. _That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie,
   doth not necessarily argue that it is so; because they may err in
   Fundamentals; or at least in distinguishing them from other
   points._ §. 26.

 4. _That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting
   from their Definitions, till he is either actually convinced, or at
   least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such
   point defined: that such Councils have authority to require
   submission, of judgment, and assent to their Definitions: of which
   conviction or sufficient proposal (that varies much, according to
   the differing conditions of several persons) as to himself, none
   can judge save himself: and, consequently, neither can they judge
   of his guilt of Heresie._ Ib.


§. 23.

4. _Prot._ You know that all _Hereticks_ are most justly _anathematized_,
and cut off from being any longer Members of the Catholick Church, and
so do remain excluded also from Salvation. Now this _Tenent_ of yours
hath always been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious
_Heresie_.

_Soc._ I confess _Heresie_ a most grievous Crime, dread and abhor it,
and trust I am most free from such a guilt; and from this I have many
ways of clearing my self. For Heresie (as Mr. _Chillingworth_ defines
it) [60]being not an erring, but an _obstinate_ defence of an Error;
not of any Error, but of one against a _necessary_ or _fundamental_
Article of the Christian Faith. First, Though this which I hold should
be an error, and that against a Fundamental, yet my silence practised
therein, can never be called an obstinate defence thereof, and
therefore not my tenent an _Heresie_. 2. Since Fundamentals vary
according to particular persons, and (as Mr. _Chillingworth_
saith[61])--_No Catalogue thereof, that can be given, can universally
serve for all men; God requiring more of them, to whom he gives more,
and less of them, to whom he gives less;--And that may be sufficiently
declared to one (all things considered) which (all things considered)
is not to another sufficiently declared: and variety of circumstances
makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals,
as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes_: And (as Mr.
_Stillingfleet_ follows him[62]) _since the measure of Fundamentals
depends on the sufficiency of the proposition; and none can assign
what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all
persons, or set down the exact bounds, as to all individuals, when
their ignorance is inexcusable, and when not; or tell what is the
measure of their capacity; what allowance God makes for the prejudice
of Education_, &c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie, in this
my opinion, on this score also; because though the contrary be to some
others a Fundamental truth, and to be explicitly believed by them; yet
to me, as not having any sufficient proposal, or conviction thereof,
but rather of the contrary, it is no _Fundamental_, and consequently,
my tenent opposing it, if an _error_, yet no _Heresie_.


§. 24.

_Prot._ Do not deceive your self; for though according to different
revelations, to those that were without Law, or those under the Law,
or those under the Gospel; _Fundamentals_ generally spoken of, might
be more to some than others; yet to all those who know and embrace the
Gospel, we say[63]; all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to
all reasonable men, even the unlearned; and therefore the erring
therein, to all such, cannot but be obstinate and Heretical.

_Soc._ Unless you mean only this, That all Fundamentals, (_i.e._ so
many as are required of any one) are clear to him in Scripture; but
not all the same Fundamentals, there clear to every one; but to some
more of them; to some fewer; I see not how this last said, accords
with that said before by the same person. But if you mean thus, then
_Consubstantiality_, (the point we talk of) may be a Fundamental to
you, and clear in Scripture, but also not clear to me in Scripture,
and so no Fundamental, and hence I think my self safe. For,----[64]_I
believing all that is clear to me in Scripture, must needs believe all
Fundamentals; and so I cannot incurr Heresie, which is opposite to
some fundamental_----[65]_The Scripture sufficiently informing me
what is the Faith, must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie:
That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one
contrary cannot but manifest the other._


§. 25.

_Prot._ I pray you consider a little better what you said last; for
since Heresie as you grant it, is an obstinate defence of error only
against some _necessary_ point of Faith; and all truth delivered in
Scripture is not such; unless you can also distinguish, in Scripture,
these points of necessary Faith from others, you can have no certain
knowledge of Heresie, and the believing all that is delivered in
Scripture, though it may preserve you from _incurring_ Heresie, yet
cannot direct you at all for _knowing_ or _discerning_ Heresie, or an
error against a fundamental or a necessary point of Faith, from other
simple and less dangerous errors, that are not so: nor, by this can
you ever know what errors are Heresies, what not; and so after all
your confidence, if by your neglect you happen not to believe some
Scriptures in their true sense, you can have no security in your
Fundamental, or necessary Faith; or of your not incurring _Heresie_.
Neither, Secondly, according to your discourse, hath the Church any
means to know any one to be an _Heretick_; because she can never know
the just latitude of his fundamentals. And so _Heresie_ will be a
grievous sin indeed; but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient
proposal, as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish
it. Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith, there
hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for
declaring Heresie; and it may seem conviction enough to you, that her
_most General Councils_ have defined the contrary position to what you
maintain; and received it for a _fundamental_. Of which Ecclesiastical
Authority for declaring Heresie, thus Dr. _Potter_, [66]----_The
Catholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters
of Faith, upon the divine authority of Gods written word. And
therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded, is
justly esteemed an Heretick; not properly because he disobeys the
Church; but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently
propounded, or cleared unto him_ [i. e. by the Church.] Where the
Doctor seems to grant these two things: That all that the Catholick
Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture; and
that all such as oppose her judgment are Hereticks: but only he adds,
that they are not Hereticks properly, or formally for this opposing
the Church, but for opposing the Scriptures. Whilst therefore the
_formalis ratio_ of Heresie is disputed, that all such are Hereticks
seems granted. And the same Dr. elsewhere concludes thus, [67]----_The
mistaker will never prove, that we oppose any Declaration of the
Catholick Church_, [he means such a Church as makes Declarations, and
that must be in her Councils]----_And therefore he doth unjustly
charge us with Heresie._ And again, he saith, [68]----_Whatsoever
opinion these ancient writers_ [S. Austin, Epiphanius and others]
_conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of
Christians, that they called an Heresie, because it differed from the
received opinion; not because it opposed any formal Definition of the
Church_: where, in saying, _not because it opposed any Definition_, he
means, _not only because_. For, whilst that, which differed from the
received opinion of the Church, was accounted an Heresie by them,
that, which differed from a formal definition of the Church, was so
much more. Something I find also for your better information, in the
Learned Dr. _Hammond_, [69]commenting on that notable Text in
_Titus_----_A man that is an Heretick after the first and second
admonition, reject_, [a Text implying contrary to your discourse,
Heresie discoverable, and censurable by the Church,] where he explains
+autokatakritos+ _self-condemned; not to signifie a mans publick
accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices; for that
condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Church's
Censures. Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against Conscience, and
though he knows he be in the wrong, yet holds out in opposition to the
Church; for so, none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks; and he that
stood against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest
times_ [you may guess whom he means] _should not be an Heretick: and
so no Heretick could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church,
for no man would acknowledge of himself, that what he did was by him
done against his own Conscience_, [the plea which you also make here
for your self.] _But to be an expression of his separation from, and
disobedience to the Church; and so an evidence of the_ +exestraptai
kai hamartanei+ _his being perverted, and sinning wilfully, and
without excuse._ What say you to this?


§. 26.

_Soc._ What these Authors say, as you give their sense, seems to me
contrary to the _Protestant_ Principles, [_See D._ Potter, _p._ 165,
167.----_D._ Hammond _of Heresie_, §. 7. _n._----§. 9. _n._ 8. _Def.
of L. Falkl. c._ 1. _p._ 23.] and to their own positions elsewhere;
neither, surely, will _Protestants_ tye themselves to this measure and
trial of _autocatacrisie_. For, since they say; That lawful General
Councils may err in Fundamentals; these Councils may also define, or
declare something _Heresie_ that is not against a Fundamental; and if
so, I, though in this self-convinced, that such is their Definition,
yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it, or (if they
err intollerably) in opposing it. Again, since Protestants say,
Councils may err in distinguishing Fundamentals, these Councils may
err also in discerning Heresie, which is an error against a
Fundamental, from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals.
Again: Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions,
thus no Definition of a General Council may be receded from by me, for
fear of my incurring Heresie; a consequence which Protestants allow
not. Again: Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in
Scripture, why should they place _autocatacrisie_, or self-conviction,
in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the
Scripture? But, to requite your former quotations, I will shew in
plainer Language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning
Autocatacrisie as to the Definitions of the Church, under which my
opinion also finds sufficient shelter; _We have no assurance at all_
(saith Bishop _Bramhall_[70]) _that all General Councils were, and
always shall be so prudently managed, and their proceedings always so
orderly and upright, that we dare make all their sentences a
sufficient conviction of all Christians, which they are bound to
believe under pain of damnation._ [I add, or under pain of
Heresie]--And _Ib._ p. 102.----_I acknowledge_ (saith he) _that a
General Council, may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed
by a Christian as a point of Faith, which formerly was not necessary
to be believed; that is, whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth
produced by the Council, or the authority of the Council (which is,
and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians)
do convince a man in his Conscience of the truth of the Councils
Definitions_: which truth I am as yet not convinced of, neither from
the reasons nor authority of the Council of _Nice_. Or, if you had
rather have it out of Dr. _Potter_----_It is not resisting_ (saith
he[71]) _the voice or definitive sentence, which makes an Heretick;
but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently
cleared unto him. And the Scripture may then be said to be
sufficiently cleared when it is so opened, that a good and teachable
mind_ (_loving and seeking truth_) [my Conscience convinceth me not,
but that such I am] _cannot gainsay it._--Again [72]----_It is
possible_ (saith he) _that the sentence of a Council or Church may be
erroneous, either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error
against the Faith, in it self considered; or because the party so
condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding (not
clouded with prejudice, ambition, vain-glory, or the like passion)
that it is an error_ [one of these I account my self.] Or out of Dr.
_Hammond_, [73]----_It must be lawful for the Church of God_, [any
Church, or any Christian, upon the Doctors reason,] _as well as for
the Bishop of_ Rome, _to enquire whether the Decrees of an Universal
Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no; and if
they be found otherwise, to eject them out, or not to receive them
into their_ belief. _And then still it is the matter of the Decrees,
and the Apostolicalness of them, and the force of the testification,
whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such, which gives the
authority to the Council; and nothing else is sufficient, where that
is not to be found._ And elsewhere he both denies in General an
Infallibility of Councils, and grounds the Reverence due to the Four
first Councils _on their setting down and convincing the truth of
their Doctrin out of the Scripture words understood with piety,----and
the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof, which
the General Churches had received down from the Apostles_.[74] [Upon
which follows, that, in such case, where a Lawful General Council doth
not so, (as possibly it may, and Inferiors are to consider for
themselves, whether it doth not) there may be no Heretical
Autocatacrisie in a dissent from it, nor this dissent _an evidence of
the_ +exestraptai+ _and_ +hamartanei+ _his being perverted and sinning
wilfully, and without excuse._]----Lastly, thus Doctor _Stillingfleet_
concerning _Heresie_[75]----_The formal reason of Heresie is denying
something supposed to be of divine Revelation; and therefore,_ 2ly.
_None can reasonably be accused of Heresie, but such as have
sufficient reason to believe, that that which they deny is revealed by
God. And therefore,_ 3ly. _None can be guilty of Heresie for denying
any thing declared by the Church; unless they have sufficient reason
to believe, that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by
God; and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any_ Hereticks,
_but such as have reason to believe, that she cannot err in her
Definitions._ From hence also he gathers, _That Protestants are in
less danger of Heresie than Papists, till these give them more
sufficient reasons to prove, that whatever the Church declares, is
certainly revealed by God_. Thus he. Now such sufficient proving
reasons as Protestants plead, that Papists have not yet given them
concerning this matter of Church-Authority, I alledge, that neither
have they nor others given me. To be _self-condemned_, therefore, in
my dissent from the definition of the Council of _Nice_, I must first
have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe, (and so remain
self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it) this point; _viz._
That the Church, or her Council, hath power to define matters of Faith
in such manner, as to require my assent thereto. Which so long as I
find no sufficient reason to believe, I suppose I am freed (without
obstinacy or Heresie, or being therein self-condemned,) from yielding
assent to any particular matter of Faith, which the Church defines.
And, had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point,
yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof, I become only
guilty of a fault of _ignorance_, not _obstinacy_, or _autocatacrisie_,
or _Heresie_; for, if I am self-condemned, or guilty of obstinacy in
disbelieving the foresaid points, [76]_Then I become so, either by
the Church's definition of this point, or without it. By reason of the
Church's definition of this it cannot be; for this very power of
defining is the thing in question, and therefore cannot be cleared to
me by the Church's defining it_[77]: and thus, _That thing is proposed
to me in the definition to be believed, which must be supposed to be
believed by me already, before such proposal or definition, or else
the definition is not necessary to be believed_. [78]Nor _without_, or
_before_ such definition, can I have an _autocatacrisie_; because this
autocatacrisie, you say with Dr. _Hammond_, ariseth from my
disobedience to the Church.

_Prot._ Methinks, you make the same plea for your self in this matter,
as if one, that is questioned for not obeying the _divine precepts_,
or not believing the divine Revelations delivered in _Scripture_,
should think to excuse himself by this answer; that indeed he doth not
believe the _Scripture_ to be _God's Word_; and therefore he
conceives, that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which
is contained therein. And, as such a person hath as much reason
(though this, not from the Scripture, yet from Apostolical Tradition)
to believe that Scripture is Gods Word, as to believe what is written
in it; so have you, though not from the _Nicene_ Council defining it,
yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it, as much reason to
believe its authority of defining, as what is defined. It's true
indeed; that had you not sufficient proposal, or sufficient reason to
know this your duty of _Assent_ to this definition of the Council of
_Nice_, you were faultless in it; but herein lies your danger, that
from finding a _non actual conviction_ of the truth, within, (hindred
there by I know not what supine negligence, or strong self-conceit,
_&c._) you gather a _non-sufficient proposal_, without.


§ 27.

_Soc._ It remains then to enquire, who shall judge concerning this
_sufficient proposal_, or sufficient reason, which I am said to have,
to believe what the _Nicene_ Council, or the Church hath declared in
this point. [79]Whether the Church's judgment is to be taken by me in
this, or my own made use of; If _her judgment_, the ground of my
belief and of Heresie lies still in the Church's _definition_; and
thus it will be all one in effect, whether I believe what she
declares, without sufficient reason; or learn this of her, when there
is sufficient reason to believe so. It must be then, _my own
judgment_, I am to be directed by in this matter[80]: and if so, then
it is to be presumed, that God doth both afford me some means not to
be mistaken therein; and also some certain knowledge when I do use
this means aright: (for, without these two I can have no security in
my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment, as _Heresie_ and
_fundamental Faith_ is.) Now this means, in this matter, I presume I
have daily used, in that I find my Conscience, after much examination,
therein to acquit me, unless you can prescribe me some other surer
evidence, without sending me back again to the _authority_ of the
_Church_.

_Prot._ 1. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an _Heresie_
depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so. And 2.
The judgment of your having, or not having sufficient reason to
believe this, is left to your self, the Church hath no means to know
you or any other to be an Heretick, till they declare themselves to be
so. And thus, in striving to free your self from Heresie, you have
freed all mankind from it, (as to any external discovery and
convincement thereof) and cancelled such a sin; unless we can find
one, that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own
Conscience.

_Soc._ If I, so do the Protestants; for, they also hold none guilty of
_Heresie_, for denying any thing declared by the Church, unless they
have reason to believe, that whatever is declared by the Church is
revealed by God; and of this sufficient reason they make not the
_Church_ or _Superiors_, but _themselves_, the Judge.


[60] _p._ 271.

[61] _p._ 134.

[62] _p._ 98. 99.

[63] _Chillingw. p._ 92.

[64] _Chillingw. p._ 367.

[65] _Ib._ 101.

[66] _p._ 97.

[67] _p._ 132.

[68] _p._ 103.

[69] _Titus_ 3. 11.

[70] _Reply to Chalced. p._ 105.

[71] _p._ 128.

[72] _p._ 129.

[73] _Heresie_, _p._ 114.

[74] _Of Heresie p._ 96.

[75] _Rat. Account. p._ 73.

[76] _Stillingfl. p._ 99.

[77] _Stillingfl. p._ 74.

[78] _Ib. p._ 99.

[79] _Stillingfl. p._ 73.

[80] _See Still. p._ 479.



CONFERENCE V.

His Plea, for his not being guilty of _Schism_.


 1. _That the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church
   Catholick, or the external Communion of it: but only left one part
   of it that was corrupted; and reformed another part,_ (i.e.)
   _themselves. Or, that he, and the Socinian Churches, being a part
   of the Catholick, they have not separated from the whole, because
   not from themselves._ §. 28.

 2. _That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon
   them as a condition of Communion, the Schism is not theirs, who
   made the separation; but theirs who caused it._ §. 29.

 _Besides that, whatever the truth of things be; yet so long as they
   are required by any Church to profess they believe, what they do
   not, their separation cannot be said causless, and so Schism._
   §. 32.

 3. _That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion
   of all other Churches, yet not the internal; in which they remain
   still united to them: both in that internal Communion of_ Charity,
   _in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick; and in that
   of_ Faith, _in all Essentials and Fundamentals, and in all such
   points, wherein the Unity of the Church Catholick consists._ §. 30.

 4. _That the doctrin of_ Consubstantiality _for which they departed,
   is denyed by them to be any Fundamental; nor can the Churches, from
   which they depart for it, be a competent Judge against them, that
   it is so._ §. 34.

 5. _That, though they are separaters from the Roman, yet not from the
   Reformed Churches, which Churches leave men to the liberty of their
   own judgment; nor require any internal assent to their doctrins (in
   which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman_ Church) _save
   only conditional, if any be convinced of the truth thereof; or, not
   convinced of the contrary._ §. 35.

 6. _In fine, that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant_
   Communion _he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her
   Doctrins as_ Mr. Chillingworth _hath done in several places of his
   book, which yet was accepted as sufficient._ §. 41.


§. 28.

5. _Prot._ I have yet one thing more, about which to question you. If
you will not acknowledge your opinion _Heresie_ in opposing the
publick judgment, and definition of the Catholick Church in that most
reverend Council of _Nice_, upon pretence that you have not had a
convincing Proposal, that this Definition was therein made according
to _God's Word_, or the _Scriptures_; yet, how will you clear your
self, or your Socinian Congregations of _Schism_? avoidable upon no
plea of adherence to Scripture, if it shall appear, that you have for
this opinion deserted the Communion of the _Catholick Church_; out of
which Church is no Salvation.

_Soc._ [81]_I grant there neither is, nor can be any just cause to
depart from the Church of_ Christ; _no more than from_ Christ
_himself: therefore I utterly deny, that our Churches have made any
separation from the_ Church Catholick _at all: and this for many
reasons. For_ 1st. [82]--_We have not forsaken the whole Church, or
the external Communion of it: but only that_ part _of it which is
corrupted, and still will be so; and have not forsaken, but only
reformed another_ part _of it, which part_ we our selves _are: and I
suppose you will not go about to perswade us, that we have forsaken_
our selves, _or our own Communion. And if you urge, that we joined our
selves to no other part, therefore we separated from the whole: I say,
it follows not, inasmuch as_ our selves _were a part of it, and still
continued so, and therefore can no more separate from the whole, than
from our selves._

_Prot._ So then, it seems we need fear no _Schism_, from the _Church
Catholick_ till a part can divide from it self, which can never be.


§. 29.

_Soc._ Next, As for our separating from all other particular Churches,
the ground of our Separation being an error, which hath crept into the
Communion of these Churches, and which is unjustly imposed upon us in
order to this Communion, we conceive, in this case, if any, _They, not
We_, are the _Schismaticks_: for as the Arch-Bishop[83].----_The
Schism is theirs, whose the Cause of it is; and he makes the
separation, who gives the first just cause of it, not he that makes
actual separation, upon a just cause preceding._


§. 30.

Again, Though we have made an actual Separation from them, as to the
not-conforming to, or also as to the reforming of an error: yet,
First, _As to Charity_; we do still retain with the same Churches our
former Communion.----_Not dividing from them through the breach of
Charity; Or condemning all other Churches, as no parts of the
Catholick Church, and drawing the Communion wholly to our selves, as
did those famous Schismaticks, the Donatists._ [See Doctor _Ferne
Division of Churches_, p. 105. and 31, 32.]


§. 31.

Next, _as to matter of Faith_: We hold that all separation from all
particular Churches in such a thing, wherein the _unity_ of the
Catholick Church doth not consist, is no separation from the whole
Church, nor is any thing more, than our suspension from the Communion
of particular Churches, till such their error is reformed; For, as
Doctor _Stillingfleet_[84]----_There can be no separation from the
whole Church, but in such things, wherein the unity of the whole
Church lies:--Whoso therefore separates from any particular Church as
to things not concerning their being, is only separated from the
Communion of that Church, and not the Catholick._ Now, that for which
we have separated from other Churches, we conceive not such, as is
essential, or concerns the being of a Church so, that without it we or
they cannot still retain the essence thereof; we declare also our
readiness to joyn with them again, if this error be corrected, or at
least not imposed: And [85](as Dr. _Stillingfleet_ saith)----_Where
there is this readiness of Communion, there is no absolute separation
from the Church as such, but only suspending Communion, till such
abuses be reformed_, [or not pressed upon us]. And as Bishop
Bramhall[86]----_When one part of the universal Church separateth it
self from another part, not absolutely or in essentials, but
respectively in abuses, and innovations, not as it is a part of the
universal Church, but only so far as it is corrupted and degenerated_
[whether in doctrin or manners] _it doth still retain a Communion not
only with the Catholick Church, and with all the Orthodox members of
the Catholick Church, but even with that corrupted Church, from which
it is separated, except only in such Corruptions._


§. 32.

_Prot._ Saving better Judgments, methinks a separation (if causeless)
from the Communion of all other Churches, or from those who are our
Superiors, in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential
point of Christianity as destroys the being of a Church, should be
_Schism_; and the smaller the point for which we separate, the greater
the guilt of our separation. Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in
rejecting the Catholick Communion, requiring their conformity in such
a point, in which St. _Cyprian_'s error before the Church's defining
thereof was very excusable; and the African Congregations in his time
not un-churched thereby?

_Soc._ [87]----_But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ,
and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which they separated, which
is the property of Schismaticks._----And [88]----_They were justly
charged with Schism, because they confined the Catholick Church within
their own bounds._ But as Dr. _Ferne_ saith[89]--_Had the Donatists
only used their liberty and judgment in that practice of re-baptizing
Hereticks, leaving other Churches to their liberty; and (though
thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks, without baptizing
them, yet) willing to have Communion with them, as parts of the
Catholick Church (saving the practices wherein they differed), then
had they not been guilty of Schism._ In that which I hold I only
follow my Conscience, condemn not the Churches holding otherwise: On
the other side [90]_Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to
profess what I believe not_ [be it small or great] _and consequently
under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave the Communion, in
which I cannot remain without the Hypocritical Profession of such a
thing, which I am convinced to be erroneous._ [91]_At least this I
know, that the Doctrin which I have chosen, to me_ seems _true, and
the contrary, which I have forsaken,_ seems _false: and therefore,
without remorse of Conscience, I may profess that, but this I cannot:
and a separation, for preserving my Conscience, I hope will never be
judged causeless._


§. 33.

_Prot._ At this rate none will be a Schismatick, but he who knows he
erreth (_i. e._ not who holdeth, but only who professeth an error); or
who knows, that the point, for the non-conformity to which, required
of him, he deserts the Church, is a _Truth_, and the contrary, which
he maintains, an error. But Doctor _Hammond_[92] tells you. _That he
that doth not communicate with those_ [I suppose he means Superiors]
_the condition of whose Communion contains nothing really erroneous or
sinful, though the doctrin so proposed as the condition of their
Communion, be apprehended by him, to whom it is thus proposed, to be
false, remains in Schism._

_Soc._ And at this rate, all those, who separate from the Church,
requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth, will be Schismaticks,
(and that, whether in a point Fundamental, or not Fundamental,) though
they have used all the industry, all the means they can (except this,
the relying on their Superiors judgment) not to err; unless you will
say, that all truths, even not Fundamental, are in Scripture so clear,
that none using a right industry, can (neither) err in them; which no
_Chillingworth_ hath maintained hitherto.


§. 34.

_Prot._ But we may let this pass; for, your separation was in a point
perspicuous enough in Scripture (and so you void of such excuse): was
in a point Essential and Fundamental, and in which a wrong belief
destroys any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church, with
the Catholick.

_Soc._ This I utterly deny; nor see I by what way this can ever be
proved against me, for you can assign no Ecclesiastical Judge that can
distinguish Fundamentals, Necessaries, or Essentials, from those
points that are not so, as hath been shewed already. And as Dr.
_Stillingfleet_[93] urgeth concerning Heresie, so may I concerning
Schism:----What are the measures whereby we ought to judge, what
things are Essential to the being of Christianity, or of the Church?
Whether must the _Church's judgment_ be taken, or every _mans own
judgment_? if the _former_, the Ground of Schism lies still in the
Church's definitions, contrary to what Protestants affirm: if _the
latter_; then no one can be a Schismatick, but he, that opposeth that
of which _he is_, or _may be convinced_, that it is a Fundamental, or
essential matter of Faith. If he be only a Schismatick, that opposeth
that, of which _he is convinced_; then no man is a Schismatick, but he
that goes against his present Judgment; and so there will be few
Schismaticks in the world; If he, that opposeth that, which _he may be
convinced_ of; then again, it is that which _he may be convinced_ of,
either in the Church's judgment or in his own: If in the Church's, it
comes to the same issue, as in the former: If _in his own_; how I
pray, shall I know, that I may be convinced of what, using a due
indeavour, I am not convinced already? or, how shall I know, when a
due industry is used? and if I cannot know this, how should I ever
settle my self unless it be upon _Authority_, which you allow not.
Again, I am taught, that any particular, whether Person or Church,
may judge for themselves with the _Judgment_ of _Discretion_: And in
the matter of Christian Communion,----[94]_That nothing can be more
unreasonable, than that the Society_ [suppose it be a Council]
_imposing conditions of its Communion_ [suppose the Council of _Nice_
imposing Consubstantiality so] _should be Judge, whether those
conditions be just and equitable or no: And especially in this case,
where a considerable Body of Christians judge such things required to
be unlawful conditions of Communion, what justice or reason is there,
that the party accused should sit judge in his own cause?_

_Prot._ By this way no _Separatist_ can ever be a _Schismatick_, if he
is constituted the judge, whether the reason of his separation is
just.

_Soc._ And in the other way, there can never be any just cause of
separation at all, if the Church-Governors, from whom I separate, are
to judge, whether that be an error, for which I separate.


§. 35.

_Prot._ It seems something that you say: But yet, though upon such
consideration, a free use of your own _judgment_, as to providing for
your own Salvation is granted you; yet, methinks in this matter you
have some greater cause to suspect it, since several Churches, having
of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the
corrupt doctrins of former ages, yet these _reformed_, as well as the
other _unreformed_, stand opposite to you; and neither those
professing to follow the Scriptures, nor those professing to follow
Tradition, and Church-Authority; neither those requiring strict
obedience and submission of judgment, nor those indulging Christian
liberty, countenance your doctrin. But you stand also _Reformers_ of
the _Reformation_, and separated from all.

_Soc._ Soft a little. Though I stand separated indeed from the present
unreformed Churches; or also (if you will) from the whole Church that
was before _Luther_; yet I both enjoy the external Communion, and
think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches
Reformed; and, as I never condemned them, or thought Salvation not
attainable in them; so neither am I (that I know of) excluded by, or
from them; so long as I retain my opinion in silence, and do not
disturb their peace; and I take my self also on these terms to be a
member, in particular, of the Church of _England_, wherein I have been
educated. For, all these Churches (as confessing themselves _fallible_
in their decree) do not require of their Subjects to yield any
_internal assent_ to their Doctrins; or to profess any thing against
their Conscience, and in Hypocrisie; and do forbear to use that
Tyranny upon any for enjoying their Communion, which they so much
condemn in that Church, from which, for this very thing, they were
forced to part Communion, and to reform. Of this matter, thus, Mr.
_Whitby_[95]--_Whom did our Convocation ever damn for not internally
receiving their decrees? Do they not leave every man to the liberty of
his judgment?--They do not require, that we should in all things
believe, as they believe; but that we should submit to their
determination, and not contradict them; their decisions are not
obtruded as infallible Oracles, but only submitted to in order to
peace and unity----So that their work is rather to silence, than to
determine disputes,_ &c.----_and_ p. 438. _We grant a necessity, or at
least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies, but how?
Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to
these decrees, upon the sole authority of the Council; but by
silencing our disputes, and making us acquiesce in what is propounded
without any publick opposition to it, keeping our opinions to our
selves----A liberty of using private discretion in approving or
rejecting any thing as delivered, or not, in Scripture, we think ought
to be allowed; for faith cannot be compelled; and by taking away this
liberty from men, we should force them to become Hypocrites, and so
profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve._----And see Dr.
Stillingfleets Rational Account, p. 104. where, speaking of the
obligation to the 39. Articles, he saith,----_That the Church of_
England, _excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin, supposing
her fallible; the Roman Church excommunicates all, who will not
believe whatever she defines to be infallibly true._----_That the
Church of_ England _bindeth men to peace to her determinations,
reserving to men the liberty of their judgments, on pain of
excommunication if they violate that peace. For it is plain on the one
side, where a Church pretends infallibility, the excommunication is
directed against the persons for refusing to give internal assent to
what she defines: But where a Church does not pretend to that, the
excommunication respects wholly that overt Act, whereby the Church's
peace is broken. And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace, no
doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds
of it; which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her
self in unity; but where it is given out, that the Church is
infallible, the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable,
because it is against those internal acts of the mind, over which the
Church as such hath no direct power._----And p. 55. he quotes these
words out of Bishop _Bramhall_[96] to the same sense,--_We do not
suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of_ England _at
his pleasure; yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving
faith, or legacies of Christ, and his Apostles; but, in a mean, as
pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity; neither do we
oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. By
which we see what vast difference there is, between those things which
are required by the Church of_ England _in order to peace, and those
which are imposed by the Church of_ Rome, _&c._ Lastly, thus Mr.
_Chillingworth_[97] of the just authority of Councils and Synods
(beyond which the Protestant Synods, or Convocations pretend
not.)----_The Fathers of the Church_ (saith he) _in after times_
[_i. e._ after the Apostles] _might have just cause to declare their
judgment, touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed:
but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of
damnation, what warrant they had, I know not: He, that can shew,
either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority; or,
that it continued in the Church for some ages, and then expired: He,
that can shew either of these things let him; for my part I cannot.
Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council, though not
infallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that_ (without
apparent reason to the contrary) _it may be sin to reject it, at least
not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake._ [Thus
much, as the Protestant Synods seem contented with, so I allow]--Again
p. 375. He saith----_Any thing besides Scripture, and the plain,
irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it; Well may Protestants
hold it as matter of opinion, but as matter of faith and religion,
neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it
themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high
and most schismatical presumption._ Thus he: now I suppose that either
no Protestant Church or Synod will stile the Son's coequal God-head
with the Father a plain irrefragable, indubitable Scripture, or
consequence thereof, about which is, and hath been so much contest, or
with as much reason, they may call whatever points they please such,
however controverted, and then, what is said here signifies nothing.


§. 36.

_Prot._ Be not mistaken, I pray: especially concerning the Church of
_England_. For though she, for several Points, imposed formerly by the
Tyranny of the _Roman_ Church, hath granted liberty of Opinion, or at
least freed her Subjects from obligation to believe so in them, as the
Church formerly required; yet as to exclusion of your Doctrin, she
professeth firmly to believe the three Creeds; and concerning the
Additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first, Dr. _Hammond_[98]
acknowledgeth,----_That they being thus settled by the Universal
Church, were, and still are in all reason, without disputing, to be
received and embraced by the Protestant Church, and every meek Member
thereof, with that reverence that is due to Apostolick Truths; with
that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions,
for their seasonable, and provident propugning our faith, with such
timely and necessary application to practice, that the Holy Ghost,
speaking to us now, under the times of the New Testament by the
Governors of the Christian Churches, (Christs mediate successors in
the Prophetick, Pastoral, Episcopal Office) as he had formerly spoken
by the Prophets of the Old Testament, sent immediately by him, may
find a cheerful audience, and receive all uniform submission from us._
Thus, Dr. _Hammond_ of the Church of _England's_ assent to the three
Creeds. She assenteth also to the definitions of the four first
General Councils: And the Act 1 _Eliz._[99] declares Heresie that,
which hath been adjudged so by them; now in the definitions of these 4
first General Councils your tenent hath received a Mortal wound. But
lastly, _the 4th_ Canon in the English Synod held 1640.[100]
particularly stiles _Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie,
and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of_
England: _and orders that any, convicted of it, be excommunicated and
not absolved, but upon his repentance and abjuration._ Now further
than this [_namely, excommunication upon conviction._] No other Church
I suppose hath, or can proceed against your Heresie; It being received
as a common Axiom in the Canon law; that _Ecclesia non judicat de
occultis_,----And----_Cogitationis pænam nemo patitur._----And----_Ob
peccatum mere internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest._ And in
all Churches every one, of what internal perswasion soever, continues
externally at least a member thereof, till the Church's censures do
exclude him.


§. 37.

_Soc._ The Church of _England_ alloweth, assenteth to, and teacheth,
what she judgeth evident in the Scripture; for so she ought; what she
believes, or assenteth to, I look not after, but what she enjoyns. Now
I yield all that obedience in this point, that she requires from me;
and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son.

_Prot._ What obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest, and most
fundamental doctrins?

_Soc._ If I mistake not her principles, she requires of me no internal
belief or assent to any of her doctrins, but only, 1st. _Silence_, or
_non-contradiction_ or 2ly, a _conditional belief_, _i.e._ whenever I
shall be convinced of the truth thereof. Now in both these I most
readily obey her. For the 1st, I have strictly observed it, kept my
opinion to my self; unless this my discourse with you hath been a
breach of it; but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church
at the beginning of our discourse; and for the 2d, whether _actual
conviction_, or _sufficient proposal_, be made the condition of my
assent, or submission of judgment, I am conscious to my self of no
disobedience, as to either of these; for an _actual conviction_ I am
sure I have not: and, supposing, that I have had a _sufficient
proposal_, and do not know it, my obedience, upon the Protestant
principles, can possibly advance no further, than it now doth. The
_Apostles Creed_ I totally embrace, and would have it the standing
bound of a Christian Faith. For other _Creeds_: I suppose, no more
belief is necessary to the Articles of the _Nicene Creed_, than is
required to those of the _Athanasian_. And, of what kind the necessity
is of believing those, Dr. _Stillingfleet_ states on this
manner [101]----_That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary,
either as to the matter, because the matter is to be believed in it
self necessary; or because of the clear conviction of mens
understandings; that, though the matters be not in themselves
necessary, yet being revealed by God, they must be explicitly
believed: but then, the necessity of this belief doth extend no
further, than the clearness of the conviction doth._ Again, _that the
necessity of believing any thing arising from the Church's definition_
[upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of
_Consubstantiality_] _doth depend upon the Conviction, that whatever
the Church defines is necessary to be believed. And, where that is not
received as an antecedent principle, the other cannot be supposed._
[Now this principle neither I, nor yet Protestants, accept]. Then he
concludes----_That as to the Athanasian Creed_ [and the same it is for
the _Nicene_.] _It is unreasonable to imagine, that the Church of_
England _doth own this necessity, purely on the account of the
Church's definition of those things which are not fundamental, it
being directly contrary to her sense in her 19th and 20th Articles._
[Now, which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental, she defines
nothing; nor do the 19, 20, or 21. Articles own a necessity of
believing the Church's Definitions, even as to _Fundamentals_.] _And
hence, that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of
the Athanasian Creed must, according to the sense of the Church of_
England, _be resolved, either into the necessity of the matters, or
into that necessity, which supposeth clear conviction, that the things
therein contained are of divine Revelation._ Thus he. Now, for so many
Articles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed, that
it is in it self necessary; or, that they are divine Revelations, I do
most readily yield my Faith, and assent thereto. Now, to make some
Reply to the other things you have objected.


§. 38.

The Act 1 _Eliz._ allows no Definitions of the First General Councils
in declaring _Heresie_, but with this limitation, that, in such
Councils, such thing be declared _Heresie_ by the express and plain
words of the _Canonical Scripture_. On which terms I also accept them.


§. 39.

Dr. _Hammond_'s affirming, _That all additions settled by the
Universal Church_ [he means General Councils] _are in all reason,
without disputing, to be received as Apostolical Truths, that the Holy
Ghost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches,
Christ's Successors, may receive all uniform submission from us_, suits
not with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned.[102]
For thus (if I rightly understand him) all the definitions of General
Councils, and of the Christian Governors in all ages, as these being
still Christ's Successors, are to be without disputing, embraced as
truths Apostolical.


§. 40.

If the words of the fourth _Canon_ of the _English Synod_ 1640.
signifie any more, than this; That any person _convicted_ of
Socinianism (_i. e._ by publishing his opinion) shall, upon such
conviction, be excommunicated; and if it be understood adequate to
this, _Qui non crediderit filium esse_ +homoousion+ _Deo Patri,
Anathema sit_, and, that the Church of _England_, for allowing her
Communion, is not content with _silence_ in respect of Socinianism,
but obligeth men also to _assent_ to the contrary; then, I see not
upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like
Anathema's or exactions of assent required by that of _Trent_, or
other late Councils, or by _Pius_ his Bull. If it be said here, the
reason of such faulting them is, because these require assent, not
being lawful _General Councils_, such reason will not pass; 1st.
Because, neither the English Synod, exacting assent in this point, is
a General Council. 2ly. Because, it is the Protestant tenent, that
neither may lawful General Councils require _assent_ to all their
Definitions. Or, if it be affirmed (either of _General_ or
_Provincial_ Councils) that they may require assent under Anathema to
some of their decrees; _viz._ Those evidently true, and divine
Revelations; such as _Consubstantiality_ is; but may not to others;
_viz._ Those not manifested by them to be such; then, before we can
censure any Council for its Anathema's, or its requiring of assent, we
must know, whether the point, to which assent is required, is, or is
not, evident divine Revelation. And then, by whom, or how, shall this
thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or
decided? for those that judge this, whoever they be, do sit now upon
the trial of the rightness, or mistake of the judgment of a General
Council: Or when, think we, will those who judge this (_i.e._ every
person for himself) agree in their sentence? Again, If on the other
side, the _former Church_ in her language, _Si quis non crediderit,
&c. Anathema sit_, be affirmed (to which purpose the fore-mentioned
Axioms are urged by you) to mean nothing more, than, _Si quis Hæresin
suam palam profiteatur, & hujus professionis convictus fuerit,
Anathema sit_, Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing
such _Anathema's_ will be concluded causeless and unjust. But indeed,
though, (according to the former sentences,) her Anathema is not
extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion, if wholly
concealed, so far as to render such person for it to stand
_excommunicated_, and lie actually under this censure of the Church,
because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears, nor is any
dammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby? Yet her
_Anathema_ also extends, even to the internal act, or tenet, after the
Church's contrary definition known (which tenet also then is not held
without a disobedience, and contempt of her authority) so far, as to
render the delinquent therein guilty of a very great _mortal sin_; and
so at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of
_Christ's Body_; though externally he is not as yet so cut off. And
the Casuists further state him _ipso facto_ to be excommunicated,
before, and without conviction, if externally he doth, or speaketh any
thing, whereby he is convincible; and not if there be any thing
_proved_ against him, but if any thing at least _provable_; and such a
one, upon this, to be obliged in Conscience, not only to confess his
heretical opinion, for his being absolved from _mortal sin_; but also
to seek a release from excommunication incurred, for his re-enjoying
the Church's Communion. Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards
what it once accounted _Heresie_ much different from the more mild
Spirit, and moderate temper of the _Reformed_.


§. 41.

To conclude. For the enjoying the _Protestant_ Communion, I conceive
that, as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrins, it is
sufficient for me to hold with Mr. _Chillingworth_ (as I
do[103])----_That the Doctrin of Protestants, though not that, of all
of them, absolutely true, yet it is free from all impiety, and from
all Error destructive to Salvation, or in it self damnable._ And
[104]----_whatsoever hath been held necessary to Salvation by the
consent of Protestants, or even of the Church of_ England, [which
indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such _necessaries_],
_that, against the Socinians, and all others whatsoever, I do verily
believe, and embrace_----And (which is still the same) [105]--_I am
perswaded, that the constant doctrin of the Church of_ England, _is so
pure and Orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to
it, undoubtedly he shall be saved._ [For if all truths necessary to
Salvation be held in it, then, so, is no error, opposite or
destructive to Salvation, held by it; and so, living according to the
truths it holds, I may be saved.] Again [106]----_I believe that there
is no error in it, which may necessitate, or warrant any man to
disturb the peace, or renounce the Communion of it_, [For, though I
believe _Antisocinianism_, an error; Yet if I hold it not such, as
that for it any man may disturb the peace, or ought to renounce the
Communion of the Church, I may profess all this, and yet hold
Socinianism.] Lastly as he,[107] so I;----_Propose me any thing out of
the Bible, seem it never so incomprehensible, I will subscribe it with
hand and heart. In other things_ [that I think not contained in this
Book] _I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him, neither shall
any man take mine from me; for I am fully assured, that God doth not,
and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than
this; To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word, to endeavour to find
the true sense of it; and to live according to it. Without pertinacy I
can be no Heretick; And[108], endeavouring to find the true sense of
Scripture, I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy, and be ready
to forsake it, when a more true, and a more probable sense shall
appear unto me.----And then, all necessary truth being plainly set
down in Scripture, I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all
necessary truth; and in doing so, my life being answerable to my
Faith, how is it possible I should fail of Salvation?_ Thus Mr.
_Chillingworth_ speaks perfectly my sense.

_Prot._ I see no other cure for you; but that you learn _humility_ and
_mortification_ of your _Understanding_ (in which lies the most subtle
and perilous of all _Prides_): And, It will reduce you to _Obedience_:
and this to _Truth_. That, with all the Church of God, you may give
glory to _God the only begotten Son_, and _the Holy Ghost, coessential
with God the Father_. To which _Trinity_ in _Unity_, as it hath been
from the beginning, and is now, so shall all Honour and Glory be given
throughout all future ages. _Amen._


[81] _Dr. Potter p._ 75.

[82] _Chillingw. p._ 274.

[83] _Lawd. p._ 142.

[84] _p._ 331.

[85] _Stilling. ib._

[86] _Vindic. of the Church of Eng._ _p._ 9.

[87] _D. Potter p._ 76.

[88] _Stillingfl. p._ 359.

[89] _Division of Churches. p._ 106.

[90] _Chillingw. p._ 278.

[91] _Ib._ 279.

[92] _Of Schism_, _p._ 23, 24, 25.

[93] _p._ 73.

[94] _Stillingfl. p._ 292.

[95] _p._ 100.

[96] _Schism guarded_, _p._ 192.

[97] _p._ 200.

[98] _Of Fundamentals. p._ 90.

[99] _cap._ 1.

[100] _Can._ 4.

[101] _p._ 70, 71.

[102] _See before_ §. 26.

[103] _Chillingw. Pref._ §. 39.

[104] _Ib._ §. 28.

[105] _Ib._ §. 29.

[106] _Ibid._

[107] _Chillingw. p._ 376.

[108] _Ib._ §. 57.


_FINIS._



_ERRATA._

Page 19. lin. 18. read _Emperor_. p. 28. l. 1. dele [_See more
Protestants cited to this purpose_, _Disc._ 3. §. 19.] pag. 31, l. 7.
r. _there by_.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "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" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.