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
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 ‖ §. 478. 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 Interessed 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 ‖ p. 60. 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 ‖ Ib. §. 10. or this Plea That the ordinary Judge that is assigned us is a Party must not be easily hearkned 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 ‖ Whitby p. 15. Stillingfleet p. 506 537. 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 †§. 32. n. 5. § 33. consid 5. n. 1. 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 ‖ Dr. Ferne Case between the Churches p. 48 49. Division of Churches p. 45. 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 †p. 666. 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 †A.B. Laud 245. That they are such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them ‖ Id. p. 227. 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
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
THE Protestants Plea FOR A SOCINIAN Justifying His Doctrine from being opposite to SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH-AUTHORITY And Him from being Guilty of HERESIE or SCHISM In Five Conferences Publish'd with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1686. THE First Conference The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures 1. THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitly believes those truths against which he errs § 2. 2. That also he useth his best endeavor to find the true sense of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his Faith or Salvation than doing his best endeavour for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite Faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Son's Consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their Faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their Writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way byass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient Authority § 9. Digress Where The Protestant's and Socinian's pretended Certainty of the sense of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their Faith against the sense of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. § 1 TO shew the invalidity of such a Guide as Protestants have framed to themselves for preserving the true Faith and suppressing Heresies hath for several years been the Subject of divers Modern Pens But because Instances and Examples seem to some more weighty and convincing it is thought fit the more to awaken and the better to satisfie him here to let the Reader see what Apology a Socinian who tho' denying the Trinity and our Saviors Deity yet most zealously urges Scripture and its plainness in all necessaries as if it justified his own Errors or that he Erred only in matters not necessary upon the Protestant Principles may return for himself to a Protestant endeavouring to reduce him to the true Faith and the Nicene Creed and using any of these five Motives thereto viz. The Testimony of 1. Scripture 2. Catholic-Church-Authority 3. Councils with the Danger and Guilt of 4. Heresie and 5. Schism Not intending hereby to equal all Protestant Opinions with the Socinian but inferring that these Pleas as relating to these Motives will as rationally justifie the Socinian as the Protestant For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian Faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of my faith Prot. But this secures you not unless you believe according to this Rule § 2 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 †p. 23 159 367. 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 †Chill p. 87. 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 Soc. § 3 †Chill p. 18. 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 †Chill Ib. I do my best endeavour to believe Scripture in the true sense thereof By my best endeavour I mean †Chill p. 19. 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 endeavour 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 endeavour used †Chillingw p. 102. 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 †Chill p. 18 92. For