THE
Protestants Plea
FOR A
SOCINIAN:

THE
First Conference.

§. 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 he 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.

CONFERENCE II.

§. 13.

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 ὁμούσιος; 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.

CONFERENCE III.

§. 18.

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.

CONFERENCE IV.

§. 23.

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 αυτοκατάκριτος 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 εξέστραπται καὶ ἁμαρτάνει 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 εξέστραπται and ἁμαρτάνει 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.

CONFERENCE V.

§. 28.

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 ὁμοούσιον 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.

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.