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 ‖ Stillingfl p. 99. 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 †Stillingfl p. 74. 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 †Ib. p. 99. 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 ‖ Stillingfl p. 73. 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 †See Still p. 479. 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. His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i.e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that whatever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of Charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the Unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrin of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent Judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrins in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her Doctrins as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient § 41. 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you § 28 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. †Dr. Potter p. 75. 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 †Chillingw p. 274. 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 ‖ Lawd p. 142. The Schism is theirs whose the Cause of it is and be makes the separation who gives the first just cause of it not he that makes actual separation upon a just cause preceding Again Though we have made an actual Separation from them § 30 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 ‖ p. 331. 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 ‖ Stilling ib. 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 †Vindic. of the Church of Eng. p 9. 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. ‖ D. Potter p. 76. 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 †Stillingfl p. 359. They were justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds But as Dr. Ferne saith ‖ Division of Churches p. 106. 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 ‖ Chillingw p. 278. 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 †Ib. 279. At least this I know that the Doctrine 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 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick but he who knows he erreth i. e. not who holdeth § 33 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 †Of Schism p. 23 24 25. 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
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 ‖ Chillingw p. 307. 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 ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 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. The Socinians Protestant-Plea For his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sense of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige 1st THat an unanimous Consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 14. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a Necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age whatever restraint be made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the latter Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to her's except conditionally and with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. § 13 2. NOw to resume the Conference The Protestant better thinking on it will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of his own sense of Scripture but thus proceeds Prot. Scriptures indeed are not so clear and perspicuous to every one ‖ Stillingfl p. 58 59. 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. ‖ Stillingfl p. 72. 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 ‖ See before Dis 3. §. 52. 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 Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen that seem to favour our opinion †See Petavius in Epipha Haer. 69. Nor of those Eastern Bishops which Arrius in his Letter to Eusebius Nicomed ‖ Apud Epipha Haer. 69 Theodor. l. 1 c. 5. numbers on his side Hilarius * De Synod relates no less than Eighty Bishops before that Council to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Council also Seventeen some of note at first to have dissented from the rest Prot. § 14 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 †Still p. 59. The sense of the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith * Stillingfl p. 133. 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 ‖ Stilling p. 154 152. Chillingw p. 150. Dr. Hammond Defence of the Lord Falkl. p. 23. 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 Prot. § 15 But ‖ Stillingfl p. 59. 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. ‖ Stilling ib. Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith can be held by the Catholick Church for it s 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 Prot. § 16 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 †Stillingfl p. 70 71. Necessary so as to be believed by any before a clear conviction of the divine Revelation thereof which conviction I yet want Prot. § 17 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 ‖ Dr. Ferne Considerations p. 10. 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 bebelief And ‖ The Case between the Churches p. 40. The Church determining matter of faith saith he ought to manifest it out of God's Word and we may expect such proof before we yield absolute assent of belief And so Dr. Stillingfleet saith ‖ p. 133. 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 ‖ Still p. 70. 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. His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his Faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chillingworth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the Leaders of this Council were plainly a party contesting this for many years before with the other side condemned by them and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and Obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present perswasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the Judgment of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. 3. PRot. But do you not consider by what persons this Article was long ago inserted into the Creed § 18 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 ‖ p. 515 516 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 Ariminum which was far more numerous here are aquilis aquilae 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 Nicaenum 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 ‖ See before §. 13. 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's heading one party and Arius and the Bishops adhering to him whom I mentioned formerly ‖ §. 13. 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 over-hearing 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 ‖ See Baronius A. D. 318 319. Which overawing hence appears in that the same Bishops that were adherents to
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 ‖ Stillingfl p. 479 292. 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 ‖ See before Disc 3. these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals or when so accepted yet may err in Non-fundamentals Errors manifest and intolerable §. 34 c. 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 ‖ De Baptismo l. 2. c. 3. 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. †Stillingfl p. 542. 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. †Stillingfl ibid. 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. ‖ Id. p. 526. 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. His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth of which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgment and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. § 23 4. PRot. You know that all Hereticks are most justly anathematized and cut off from being any longer Members of the Catholick Church and so do remain excluded also from Salvation Now this Tenent of yours hath always been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious Heresie Soc. I confess Heresie a most grievous Crime dread and abhor it and trust I am most free from such a guilt and from this I have many ways of clearing my self For Heresie as Mr. Chillingworth defines it ‖ p. 271. 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 ‖ p. 134. N
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 †p. 98.99 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 Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations to those that were without Law §. 24. 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 ‖ Chillingw p. 92. 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 ‖ Chillingw p. 367. 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 * Ib. 101. 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 ‖ p. 97. 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 suffientntly 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 ‖ p. 132. 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 †p. 103. 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 †Titus 3.11 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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