not by forcing of Assent destroy the Nature and Virtue of it and he hath declar'd that he will permit Heresies that those who are approved and excellent Christians may be distinguished from those who are not This Expedient of the Romanists is like that of the Atheist Spinoza who has left the following Maxim to the World as his Legacy for Peace viz. That the Object of Faith is not Truth but Obedience and the quiet of human Society And they say in effect Shut all your Eyes and agree in one who shall lead you all and you will all go one way But the difficulty lies in getting them to agree It is not difficult to say a great deal more upon this Subject but in stead of that which might be here offer'd from myself I will refer the Reader to a Book lately publish'd and call'd A Discourse concerning a Iudge in Controversies if he be not satisfi'd with that which Mr. Chillingworth hath said long ago and to which this Author has here said nothing You say again confidently That if this Infallibility be once impeach'd every Man is given over to his own Wit and Discourse By which if you mean Discourse not guiding itself by Scripture but only by Principles of Nature or perhaps by Prejudices and popular Errors and drawing Consequences not by Rule but by Chance is by no means true If you mean by Discourse Right Reason grounded on Divine Revelation and common Notions written by God in the Hearts of all Men and deducing according to the never-failing Rules of Logick consequent Deductions from them If this be it which you mean by Discourse it is very meet and reasonable and necessary that Men as in all their Actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to Happiness should be left unto it And he that follows this in all Opinions and Actions and does not only seem to do so follows always God whereas he that followeth a Company of Men may oft-times follow a Company of Beasts And in saying this I say no more than S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no And the Rule he gives them to make this tryal by is to consider whether they Confess IESUS to be Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their Action not Whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more than S. Paul in exhorting all Christians To try all things and hold fast that which is good Than S. Peter in commanding all Christians To be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them Then our Saviour himself in forewarning all his Followers that if they blindly followed blind Guides both Leaders and Followers should fall into the Ditch And again in saying even to the People Yea and why of your selves judge ye not what is right And though by Passion or Precipitation or Prejudice by want of Reason or not using what they have Men may be and are oftentimes lead into Error and Mischief yet that they cannot be misguided by Discourse truly so called such as I have described you yourself have given them security For what is Discourse but drawing Conclusions out of Premises by good Consequence Now the Principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be Infallibly true And you have told us in the Fourth Chapter of this Pamphlet That from Truth no Men can by good Consequence infer Falshood Therefore by Discourse no Man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his Conclusions he must of Necessity either err in his Principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his Discourse that is indeed not Discourse but seem to do so 13. You say Thirdly with sufficient confidence That if the true Church may err in defining what Scriptures be Canonical or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the private Spirit or else natural Wit and Iudgment and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or false Doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proof of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly err in her Judgment touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the private Spirit and the Examination of the Contents which latter way may conclude the Negative very strongly to wit that such or such a Book cannot come from God because it contains irreconcileable Contradictions but the Affirmative it cannot conclude because the Contents of a Book may be all true and yet the Book not Written by Divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three and that is the Testimony of the Primitive Christians 14. You say Fourthly with convenient boldness that this Infallible Authority of the Church being denied no Man can be assured that any parcel of the Scripture was Written by Divine Inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proof is pretended and besides void of Modesty and full of Iniquity The First because the Experience of Innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assured that the Scripture is Divinely inspired and yet deny the Infallible Authority of your Church or any other The Second because if I have not ground to be assured of the Divine Authority of Scripture unless I first believe your Church Infallible then can I have no ground at all to believe it Because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe the Church Infallible unless I first believe the Scripture Divine 15. Fifthly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the Infallible Authority of your Church but he must abandon all infused Faith and True Religion if he do but understand himself Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of the Heart you speak very often that all Christians besides you are open Fools or concealed Atheists All this you say with notable Confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their Confidence of Prevailing in their Confident manner of Speaking but then for the Evidence you promis'd to maintain this Confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible Hitherto I have been arguing against our Author but now in the close I cannot but joyn with him in his Protestants Exhortation to Humility It is an Admirable Virtue and may God grant to me and to all Men a greater Measure of it It is a Virtue proper even for Guides in Religion that they may humbly help the Faith of others and not exercise Dominion over it And because a late Writer has been pleas'd to suffer this severe censure to drop from his Pen it is the less to be admir'd that our Author is such a stranger to that Spirit of
was conceiv'd in the Body of the Virgin That the Question Whether Christ was before the World or after it is of no moment That his Blood is not a proper Sacrifice That the Holy Spirit is not any Person at all either Divine or Created That those who are not Ordained by others may step forth and preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments That although Officers are generally employ'd in those Functions yet other Christians are not under Obligation to forbear the performance of them That Baptism is none of Christ's perpetual Precepts in his Church That it may be used in admitting those of riper years into a Church but not as a necessary Christian Rite That to hold it to be such is to add to the Scriptures That it is an indifferent Ceremony and if to be us'd it is to be us'd in the admission of those who come from some other Religion to Christianity That in the words of Christ This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood which is shed for you there is a Solaecism or false Grammar and that there are many such Incongruities in the New Testament That it is an abuse of the Lords Supper to believe that it confers any benefit upon us conveighs any Grace from God or give us any further assurance of his favour That it is Idolatry to kneel at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that it may be Celebrated with the Head cover'd If these Doctrines be the results of due Industry in searching the Scriptures Prejudâ—…ce and Negligence may likewise put in their Plea as Preparatives to true Interpretation But farther in the very manner of Socinian Exposition there is apparent failure For though the Holy Writers express the same thing very differently and without respect to nicety of Words as is evident from the several forms of Words us'd in representing Christs Institution of the Lords Supper yet the Socinians make Interpretations of places which relate to the great Articles of Christian Faith to turn upon subtleties of Grammatical construction For Example sake they perplex the most comfortable Doctrine of Christs satisfaction with curious observations about the Particle For Whereas our Churchmen make the Old Testament the Key of the New and finding plainly that the Sacrifices of Attonement under the Law were the Types of the Offering the Blood of Jesus upon the Cross they conclude that God with respect to Christs Death in the quality of the great Expiation did admit the guilty World into a reconcileable Estate I might add that by coming to particulars the Socinian Prejudice and insincere Artifice in expounding such places of Holy Writ as concern their Scheme will appear to all unbyassed Readers I will instance in the Interpretation of that place in S. Iohn No Man hath Ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heaven Socinus for the avoiding a twofold nature in Christ by which he might be both in Heaven and in Earth and exist before he was born of a Virgin sets down a twofold Evasion in the place of an Explication First he interprets Ascending into Heaven by seeking after Heavenly things and Descending from Heaven by having Learned such Celestial things And to make all sure he takes the hardiness to say in the Second Place that as S. Paul was snatch'd up into the third Heavens and let down again so the Man Christ Jesus was taken up into Heaven somewhile before his Death and made some stay there And by his coming down again he explaineth his going forth from the Father his Ascending into Heaven his being in Heaven If this be Interpreting what is Perverting Sixthly Whereas in the end of this first-Conference the Author himself speaks as a third Person and a Romanist and raises a doubt about the certainty any Man can arrive at in having rightly used his Industry I would only ask him Whether a Man cannot be as sure of his industry in consulting his Reason and the Scriptures as in attending on Councils Fathers Decrees of Popes and the Method of the Major part of Church-Governors in the Universal Church of all Ages For the Argument of the Second Conference this is the Substance of it THE Socinians Plead that they ought not to receive the Article of the Divinity of Christ from the Major part of Church-Governors That it was not originally in the Creed That no Article ought to be receiv'd from church-Church-Authority till Men are convinc'd that it is grounded on the Scripture which Conviction they want Now unless the Church were Infallible in all she determin'd or at least in distinguishing those necessaries in which she cannot err from Points which are not of such necessity she cannot justifie her self in putting her Definitions into a Creed Protestants not withstanding they own the Article of Christs Divinity and urge the whole Creed into which it is put do yet argue after the manner of the Socinians against church-Church-Authority and plead the Scripture as their Ground and a necessity of Conviction therefore whilst they continue this kind of Plea they cannot by church-Church-Authority either justifie themselves or confute their Adversaries All this reasoning may be confuted by these distinct Answers 1. We have no need of confuting Arians and Socinians by church-Church-Authority seeing we can do it more effectually out of the Scriptures and if they say that the Scriptures are on their side their saying so does not alter the Nature of Truth And the Romanists allow that they say not true and they may be confuted when they are not silenc'd Protestants decline not a disputation with Socinians by the Rule of Primitive Church-Authority But if they undervalue this rule it is discretion in Protestants to debate the matter with them in a way which they themselves best like of seeing that is also a more certain as well as a more speedy way to Victory 2. Protestants do not well understand what Romanists mean by Church-Authority for some of their Doctors can by a new figure of their own make a part and the whole of the Church to be the same They do not think that the present Major part of Church-Governors throughout the Church can be their Rule because the People cannot always know which is that Part or that it ought to be their Rule because in some Ages the Minor part is the wiser and better Let not the Roman Church be griev'd at this as said from me Vincentius Lirinensis said it long ago that in the Arian times there was a general darkness even over the face of the Latin Church In the mean time they are made to suppose by this Author what they do not suppose that the judgment of the Catholick Church is not Infallible in judging what points are necessary what are not For though this or that Church or party of Christians may fail yet all cannot at once for then the Church
inclined to believe that the way to Socinianism has been much open'd and widen'd by the Popish Doctors who have so vehemently urg'd the Obscureness of the Scriptures in the Doctrine of the Trinity and who at this very time furnish the Hawkers with their little Dialogues endeavouring to equal the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation with that of Three Persons in one incomprehensible Essence For to say that that invention of Paschasius is as reasonable to be believ'd as the great Mystery of the Trinity by all good Catholicks is in effect to say that neither of them is reasonable CHAP. II. Considerations touching the General Argument of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian shewing the weakness of it and that it is not of force enough to overthrow the Plea of the Reformed LET that which hath been said suffice for the Quality of this Writing I will proceed to the General Argument of it which may in brief be thus represented The Protestants and Socinians agree in their Plea they alledge Scripture they measure Faith by it as by a compleat and clear Rule They reject Councils and the Major part of Church Authority if they are not convinc'd that they are founded on the Scriptures in finding out the sense of which both sides profess due Industry Both parties excuse themselves whatsoever Doctrines they advance whatsoever Wounds they open in the Church as uninfected with Hâ—…si and free from Schisan till their private Spirit be satisfi'd and before the Tribunal they erect in their own Heads they are self-accus'd and self-condemned Therefore Protestants make Apology for Socinians and are neither able to confute them upon these Principles and Methods nor to justifie themselves but are oblig'd to appeal to the Infallible Iudge or the Major part of the Bench of Iudges in the Roman Church where all such Controversies may be effectually ended The force of this specious Argument will be abated as all such Arguments may easily be whose force lays only in plausible appearance by a few plain Considerations First the Socinians will not allow their Plea to be perfectly the same with that of the Protestants especially those of the Established Church of England The Socinian Author of the Brief Disquisition proceeds upâ—…n a supposed difference and he endeavours to shew that unless the Evangelical quitted their own way of Resolving Faith and made use of the Methods of Socinus they could not Solidly and Evidently refute the Romanists and particularly the Judgment of Valerianus Magnus concerning the Protestant Rule of Believing Secondly Both Arians and Socinians plead Tradition though their Plea is not manag'd exactly after our better manner And when they plead Tradition why is not theirs then as much the Popish Plea as when they plead Scripture it is the Protestants for neither do they plead that just as this Church does Two Assertions may be here advanc'd First that the Arians and Socinians plead Tradition Secondly that some Papists have help'd the more Modern of them to Materials for the making of that Plea. First Arians and Socinians plead Tradition against the Divine Nature of Christ as the Romanists plead Tradition for it Artemon taught the Heresie of our Saviours being a meer Man. And we are assured by an unnamed but an antient and as appeareth by his Fragments a very sagacious Author that his Party declared that they follow'd Antiquiry that their Ancestors and the Apostles themselves were of the same belief that to the time of Pope Victor the true Doctrine of the Apostles was preserved and that it was corrupted in the times of his Successor Zephyrin These how unjust soever were their Allegations Socinus takes the boldness to affirm That the Romanists are not able to defend their Principles about the Trinity by the Authority of the Fathers And on the contrary that the Earlier Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice were firm in his belief He cites the Council of Ariminum Iustin the Martyr and S. Hilary He promiseth upon supposition of leisure to write a Tract on this Subject for the satisfaction of those who are moved with such Authority Crellius pretends that during 300 years after Christ the Doctors of the Church consented in this Faith That the Father was the most High God whilst the Son was a Diety different from the Creator of the World. He says of Grotius in upbraiding manner That he must needs know of this Historical Truth being a Man conversant in the Fathers He quotes Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho as Evidence on his side He has the Confidence to say That the Men of his Way have demonstrated this and that the very Adversaries of the Unitarians have confessed this to be true in Tertullian and Origen He introduceth S. Hilary as a Patron of that Doctrine which denies the Divinity of the Spirit of God. He presumes to say That the nearer approaches we make to the Anti-Trinitarians the higher we come to the Apostolical Faith. Moscâ—…rovius charges his Adversaries with misrepresenting of the first Fathers when they bring them in as Witnesses of that Faith concerning the Trinity which they profess And he proceeds in telling of them That Ignatius the most antient of those Church-Doctors whose Writings are extant does openly say the contrary in his Epistle to those of Tarsus affirming that Christ is not the Deity who is God over all but only the Son of God. He goes on in citing Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Origen how much to the purpose it is not my business here to determine It is true Ignatius is not the most antient of those Doctors whose Writings are extant but when he wrote this Mr. Young had not published Clements Epistle nor Mâ—…rdus that of Barnabas It is also confess'd that he cites a spurious Piece of Tradition for Ignatius wrote not that Epistle Ad Tarsenses but in the mean time to Tradition he in part appeals Lubieniecius spends a Chapter in Demonstrating as he imagin'd that God had not left his Church from the Apostles times to his without Witnesses of the Doctrine which denies the Trinity He glories in Artemon Samosatenus Photinus and others for Men are apt in all Factions to pretend to Number and Antiquity Christopher Sandius wrote his indigested Heap of Church-Story with this very design that in the several Centuries he might take especial notice of the Favourers of the Arian Doctrine And under the borrowed Name of Cingallus he gives himself the Honour of having made a most solid proof concerning all the Fathers of the three first Ages that they believed as Arius believ'd Mr. Biddle in the Appendix to his Book against the Holy Trinity endeavours to strengthen his Plea with the Testimonies of Irenaeus Iustin Martyr Novatian Theophilus Origen Arnobius Lactantius Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poictiers He pretends to the Fathers though he is guilty of false mustering Monsieur-Aubert du Versoy tells the World with great assurance That all
divided from them and rather Glories that he gives light to all the World than borrows from it The Author of the Brief Disquisition blames the Protestants for the great deference they pay to unwritten Tradition meaning by it that which is not Written in the Scriptures but in the Fathers although at the same time he makes them to ascribe to Councils and single Fathers a greater Authority than they really do notwithstanding they are very just to them Ruarus though he was a Man of extraordinary Candor yet in his Letters to Bergius he does not barely refuse but reject with derision his Catholick Interpretation of Scripture according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis which admitteth That Sense which was every where always and of all beleived A Rule by which we help our selves And he further professeth that he should be much concern'd if the Interpretations of Calvin and Luther were not more solid and acute than those of the Fathers We of this Church consider in the Interpretations of the Fathers not so much the acuteness though in S. Chrysostome for instance sake and in Theodoret it is not wanting as we do the History and the light which they may give us into the consent of the Churches in the Primitive times We are not apt to believe that there was such an Universal Corruption and Apostacy as Socinians speak of immediately after the Apostles times We are not Strangers to the Testimony of Hegesippus of which they make use for the blackning of the Primitive Church He does not say that the Leprosy was spread throughout the Church but that it began early We do not undervalue the Fathers but proceed in the method of the Antients who begun first with the Holy Scriptures and then descended to those who wrote next after the Holy Pen-Men The Calvinists themselves Radon and Silvius in a Disputation at Petricow in Poland did not plead just after the manner of the Socinians They pleaded the Scriptures together with Councils and Fathers as Subordinate Witnesses Their Socinian Adversaries Gregorius Pauli and Gentilis mock'd at their way of arguing They profess'd they would admit of nothing but the pure Word of God as shiing sufficiently by its own Light. And they denied that there was contain'd in formal terms in the Holy Scriptures the Doctrine of Three Persons in one Divine Essence Again the Members of our Church do not imitate the Socinians in traducing Constantine the Great and preferring Constantius the Arian before him They celebrate his Memory as a Defender of the Faith so far are they from reviling him as a Perverter of it They do not joyn with Socinians in reproaching the Fathers of Nice as Mercinary and Flexible Men whom Constantine had gained to his party by interest or force They do not with Gregorius Pauli call the Explication of the Nicene Faith the Creed of Sathanasius They hate the irreverence as much as they despise the jingle They do not beleive that the Nicene Creed is forg'd as some Socinians do though at the same time they take this upon the modern Authority of Laurentius Valla whom they make to say that he read it in very Antient Books of Isidore who in his time was a Collector of Councils Such a Collector of Councils as Varillas of History a Father and a Collector together The truth is it is Valla's business to elude the sense of Isidore and to ascribe a twofold Creed to the Nicene Fathers the Apostolical and that which bears their Name Whereas Isidorâ—… distinguishes betwixt their Creed and that of the Apostles The Protestants repeat in their Liturgy the Creed of Nice in the form agreed on in the Council of Constantinople and would not do so if they did not beleive it Orthodox They do not say with some modern Arians that it was framed by Marcellus Ancyranus a Heretick or joyn with those Spanish Iesuites who it seems charg'd this Creed with the Heresie of Photinus the Master of Marcellus They pay a more just Duty to the Emperour and the Nicene Fathers than to say with the Enemies of the Holy Trinity that setting Council against Council they chuse rather to follow those of Sirmium and Rimini than those of Nice Our Church-Men do not with the Socinians disregard the Fathers who liv'd after that famous Council and acknowledge that those Fathers are against it and bid defiance to their opposition But so does Socinus so does Crellius so does Pisecius for thus he discourseth Do they say Theology knows nothing of this It is enough if the Apostles do S. Austin damns this Christ approves it The same Pisecius is more severe in his censure than Socinus himself and he agrees with Scaliger if Scaliger be by him rightly cited in accusing all the Fathers up to S. Austins time of ignorance in another Doctrine about the Receipt of departed Souls not Martyrs and in affirming that the Errours of the first Fathers prepared the way for Antichrist In fine Though the Church of England does not make the Councils her Rule of Faith or make her last Appeal to them yet she believes that in times of Controversie when the Heads of Men are apt to be disturb'd even in Matters otherwise plain enough by the Heats and Distempers of the Age they live in they are of special use The Authority of them tends to the quelling of the Party And then when the Faction cools it tends to the fixing and further strengthning of the weak and interrupted Faith of many For as in a Ballance one Scale may descend more or less below the Level so there may be Faith and Assent without adding the weight of Fathers and Councils and yet in unquiet Times especially and disputing Ages such Testimonies may give some further strength to Minds made feeble either by publick Distractions or the private Attacks of Crafty Seducers Thus our Church gives to the Scripture the things that belong to the Scripture and to Tradition the Dues of Tradition And it gives more even to the former than generally Socinians do and more also to the latter though with just Caution and Subordination So that their Plea and ours is not in a strict way of speaking the very same But Fourthly If we admit that the Plea of the Protestant and Socinian is the same for the general nature of it we cannot be truly said to plead for them unless the general Plea be with Truth and Pertinence as well as Boldness applied to the very merit of the Cause If two Men will plead the same thing with equal Assurance but not with equal Reason in Truth and Merit 't is not the same If the Confidence of Men in pleading might weigh against the Right of others they that were in the wrong would be in the right For what was wanting in the Reason of the Case would be supply'd by Impudence But is it said by any of the Robe
would fail 3. This Article of the Divinity of the Son of God was originally in the Creed for that the Fathers meant when in the Apostolical Creed they confessed Christ to be Gods only Son. And this they grounded on the Gospel of S. Iohn who wrote his Gospel which begins with Christs Divinity with this intention that Men should beleive Jesus to be the Son of God. 4. Protestants admit of no Article of Faith which is not grounded on the Scripture which was never known before and never oblig'd before yet in the mean time they see no reason why an Article assaulted by Hereticks and Sophists may not be explained or why the form of Confession design'd for Baptism might not be enlarged for the benefit of the Church and made a Sum of the Necessaries to be believ'd It sufficed at the first Incorporation of Persons to be Baptiz'd that they profess'd to believe the Religion which owneth Father Son and Holy Ghost 5. A particular Church may put an Article of Faith into a Creed without pretending to Infallibility She has Ability to do it because she has an Infallible Rule by which she can go But she ought not to say it is impossible any Church should do otherwise because a Party of Men may do that which they ought not to do and to which they were not constrain'd Prejudice Mis-attention Corruption may so prevail as to clap a false Byass upon Makers of Creeds Else how came we by those of Sirmium and Rimini And for instance sake in the Infallible Science of the Mathematicks the perverseness of the Temper of the Leviathan would not permit him to agree with a Learned Professor of that Science even in the first Elements of Geometry and a Controversie was maintain'd not only about the squaring of the Circle but about the Dimensions of a Point and a Line The Force of the Third Conference may be set down on this manner A Protestant submits to the Decrees of a Council no further than he is convinc'd that the same Council is rightly constituted and that her Definitions are founded on the Word of God. He believes that it may err in things not Necessary and in Necessaries too if it be not a truly General Council He can scarce give to it the Obedience of silence in that which he believes contrary to the Scripture The Socinian says the same things and denies the Council of Nice to be constituted rightly Therefore the Protestant justifies the Socinian Our Author should have gone on and said for so a Romanist is by the Tenor of his Faith oblig'd to say That the Protestant with reference to the Council of Nice has the Reason on his side A Son of the Church of England reverenceth the Four General Councils of which Nice is the First He believes its Faith to be bottom'd on the Scriptures and so did the Council itself and so does the Church of Rome He receives it as a General Council rightly Constituted though no Pope call'd it or otherwise confirm'd it than the rest of the Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops He believes its Dâ—…ctrine to be in the Phrase of Vincentius 〈◊〉 well-founded Antiquity and he offers to prove it A Socinian therefore if he has retain'd him will as soon as he hears such a Plea as this desire him to return his Fee. But what if a Socinian be found perverse and being a Disputer of this World will have his own way of arguing May not the Protestant wave the Council of Nice and enter the Lists with Reason and Scripture He that will not have him do it is not of the same mind either with the Fathers of Nice on with the Celebrated Latin Doctor S. Austin The Council of Nice disputed with the Arians out of the Scripture and confuted them by it The Bishops of it by Eusebius cite against them the words of St. Iohn In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. They argue from the words themselves as words clear and plain in their signification They take notice of the Word was as contrary to was not and was God as contrary to was not God. S. Austin observing the perverseness of Maximine lays aside Councils not as useless but as of lesser Authority than the Holy Scripture the force of which his Adversary could not with the same ease and readiness have avoided Neither ought I saith S. Austin to alledge the Council of Nice nor you that of Ariminum for neither am I bound to the Authority of the one nor you to that of the other Let us both dispute with the Authorities of Scripture which are Witnesses common to us both Our Author puts this Citation into the Socinians Mouth and takes it from Dr. Taylor 's Dissâ—…asive from Popery but seeing it is the Method of S. Austin why does he not justifie a Protestant in using of it The Sum of the Fourth Conference is this A Protestant excuseth himself from Heresie by saying A Heretick is what he himself is not an Obstinate Maintainer of a Fundamental Error None can be such Hereticks to whom the Truth is not sufficiently proposed Councils may not always rightly distinguish betwixt Fundamentals and not Fundamentals He is not oblig'd to receive their Definitions till he is convinc'd of the truth of them He himself is Judge whether the Article be sufficiently propos'd and whether he is convinc'd by that which is offer'd to him The Socinian says the same thing for himself Our Author should have added that he says it with equal Reason if he would have made the one plead for the other But the Protestant in this point of the Divinity of the Son of Gon which is the Authors Instance does acknowledge that the Doctrine is sufficiently propos'd does receive the Council of Nice does own that he is convinc'd And the Romanist confesseth that thus far he is in the right and the Socinian in the wrong This comes to the same thing which was said before and the Answer is repeated because the Objection is brought again And indeed there is but one Argument strictly so call'd in all the Five Conferences which turn upon the same Hinge and one Answer suffices viz. That when Two say the same things concerning contrary Doctrines one of them only can have Truth on his side And that if both be equally confident the Confidence of the Persons does not make the Contradiction true The Plea is his not who barely offers it but who can make it good In this Point of the Divinity the Protestant makes his Plea good by the Scripture and the Council of Nice as a true General Council And if his Plea be true surely it does not cease to be so because he has not had it allow'd before a Roman Judge A Man is sure that all the Articles in the New Covenant are genuine though they be not confirm'd under the Lead of the Fisher. I come
to the last Conference where our Author reasons to this effect THE Protestants imagine they excuse themselves from Schism by alledging that they left a Corrupt part of the Church meaning the Roman and Reform'd themselves That the Schism is theirs who caus'd it that they are united to all Churches in Charity and in the unity of the Catholick Church being with them in all things in which they are obliged to be with them And in the rest they are hindred from external Communion by the sinful Conditions which a particular Church puts upon them The Socinians say the same thing for themselves with reference to other Communions besides the Roman therefore the Protestant justifies the Plea of the Socinian in Relation to Schism The same Answer serves for the same Objection Socinians say as Protestants do but the reason is on the side of the latter and not on the former And our Author himself with respect to his Instance of the Divinity of the Son of God will by no means say that the Sociâ—…ians who make that Article where impos'd a sinful condition of Communion can by saying so excuse themselves from Schism whilst they any where refuse external Communion upon the pretence of that Article as not Christian. A Romanist cannot say that it is not sufficiently propos'd to the Socinians and that it was never in their power to be convinc'd If they will turn this upon us with reference to our not separating from them but standing where we were after having in Christian and Legal manner also thrown off the Corruptions which were unagreeable to the Primitive Christianity we will try it over again with them by Scripture Antiquity and Reason and the Impartial World shall judge if it pleases Whether the Additional Articles in the Creed of Pope Pius are of God or Men. For this point of Schism as here manag'd the reasoning of this Fifth Conference was long ago confuted by Mr. Chillingworth But our Author did not condescend to take notice of it though he cites many other Words of Mr. Chillingworth not far from these But a Cunning Marks-Man will not put that into his Gun which may make it Recoil However I shall be bold to produce the Words which he in all probability did studiously omit Whereas D. Potter says there is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of ourselves This you say is a quaint Subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your Judgment that Thieves and Adulterers and Murtherers and Traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they do no hurt to others but only Reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism And that to this day never any Thief or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apology And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who Excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the Peace of the Church presently upon the Intercession of the Confessors whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not Excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the Sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to Tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Error in Doctrine neither pernicious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches Unity and Obedience because their Opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious Conversation they are impatient of their Churches Censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any Face or without extream Impudency put in this Plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own Defence falsly doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to employ'd by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a Reformation of ourselves This you reply is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same Words as any Rebel that makes Conscience the Cloak of his impious Disobedience may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn We must obey God rather than Men But then the Question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this Question you say just nothing But conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should have said S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an Answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their Disobedience and Rebellion against the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority The Conclusion AFter all this causeless finding fault with the Plea of the Protestant what is it that the Romanists aim at and after what manner would they mend this Plea They will tell you This seems to be the Consequence of the late way taken up by many Protestants viz. That in stead 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 They will endeavour to persuade you that the Great Ends they aim at are Truth and Peace And that these Blessed Ends are never to be universally attain'd without an Infallible Church to which all may submit their Judgments in Religion and by such submission preserve Unity They will continue their discourse and say Without such a Judge every Mans Reason is Reason and every Mans Scripture is Scripture and he is left to run wild after his own Imaginations And though a Man is not in the right he will not yield he is so till it is given against him by an Infallible Judge But Men must first be satisfi'd that there is such a Judge and who he is and where and how to be found and how far Men will follow him When there was such a Judge on Earth the most Infallible High-Priest the Blessed IESUS prejudic'd and perverse Men would neither be of One Faith nor of One Heart The Wisdom of God will