the standing bound of a Christian Faith For other Creeds I suppose no more belief is necessary to the Articles of the Nicene Creed than is required to those of the Athanasian And of what kind the necessity is of believing those Dr. Stillingfleet states on this manner †p. 70 71. That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary either as to the matter because the matter is to be believed in it self necessary or because of the clear conviction of mens understandings that though the matters be not in themselves necessary yet being revealed by God they must be explicitly believed but then the necessity of this belief doth extend no further than the clearness of the conviction doth Again that the necessity of believing any thing arising from the Church's definition upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of Consubstantiality doth depend upon the Conviction that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed And where that is not received as an antecedent principle the other cannot be supposed Now this principle neither I nor yet Protestants accept Then he concludes That as to the Athenasian Creed and the same it is for the Nicene It is unreasonable to imagine that the Church of England doth own this necessity purely on the account of the Church's dâ—finition of those things which are not fundamental it being directly contrary to her sense in her 19th and 20th Articles Now which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental she defines nothing nor do the 19 20 or 21. Articles own a necessity of believing the Church's Definitions even as to Fundamentals And hence that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must according to the sense of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear conviction that the things therein contained are of divine Revelation Thus he Now for so many Articles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed that it is in it self necessary or that they are divine Revelations I do most readily yield my Faith and assent thereto Now to make some Reply to the other things you have objected § 38 The Act 1 Eliz. allows no Definitions of the First General Councils in declaring Heresie but with this limitation that in such Councils such thing be declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scripture On which terms I also accept them § 39 Dr. Hammond's affirming That all additions settled by the Universal Church he means General Councils are in all reason without disputing to be received as Apostolical Truths that the Holy Ghost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christ's Successors may receive all uniform submission from us suits not with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned †for thus if I rightly understand him all the definitions of General Councils See before §. 26. and of the Christian Governors in all ages as these being still Christ's Successors are to be without disputing embraced as truths Apostolical § 40 If the words of the fourth Canon of the English Synod 1640. signifie any more than this That any person convicted of Socinianism i. e. by publishing his opinion shall upon such conviction be excommunicated and if it be understood adequate to this Qui non crediderit filium esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo Patri Anathema sit and that the Church of England for allowing her Communion is not content with silence in respect of Socinianism but obligeth men also to assent to the contrary then I see not upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like Anathema's or exactions of assent required by that of Trent or other late Councils or by Pius his Bull. If it be said here the reason of such faulting them is because these require assent not being lawful General Councils such reason will not pass 1st Because neither the English Synod exacting assent in this point is a General Council 2ly Because it is the Protestant tenent that neither may lawful General Councils require assent to all their Definitions Or if it be affirmed either of General or Provincial Councils that they may require assent under Anathema to some of their decrees viz. Those evidently true and divine Revelations such as Consubstantiality is but may not to others viz. Those not manifested by them to be such then before we can censure any Council for its Anathema's or its requiring of assent we must know whether the point to which assent is required is or is not evident divine Revelation And then by whom or how shall this thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or decided for those that judge this whoever they be do sit now upon the trial of the rightness or mistake of the judgment of a General Council Or when think we will those who judge this i. e. every person for himself agree in their sentence Again If on the other side the former Church in her language Si quis non crediderit c. Anathema sit be affirmed to which purpose the fore-mentioned Axioms are urged by you to mean nothing more than Si quis Haeresin suam palam profiteatur hujus professionis convictus fuerit Anathema sit Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing such Anathema's will be concluded causeless and unjust But indeed though according to the former sentences her Anathema is not extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion if wholly concealed so far as to render such person for it to stand excommunicated and lie actually under this censure of the Church because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears nor is any dammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby Yet her Anathema also extends even to the internal act or tenet after the Church's contrary definition known which tenet also then is not held without a disobedience and contempt of her authority so far as to render the delinquent therein guilty of a very great mortal sin and so at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of Christ's Body though externally he is not as yet so cut off And the Casuists further state him ipso facto to be excommunicated before and without conviction if externally he doth or speaketh any thing whereby he is convincible and not if there be any thing proved against him but if any thing at least provable and such a one upon this to be obliged in Conscience not only to confess his heretical opinion for his being absolved from mortal sin but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred for his re-enjoying the Church's Communion Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresie much different from the more mild Spirit and moderate temper of the Reformed § 41 To conclude For the enjoying the Protestant Communion I conceive that as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrins it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth as I do †Chillingw Pref. §. 39. That the Doctrin of Protestants though not that of all of them absolutely true yet it is free from all impiety and from all Error destructive to Salvation or in it self damnable And †Ib. §. 28. whatsoever hath been held necessary Salvation by the consent of Protestants or even of the Church of England which indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace And which is still the same †Ib. §. 29. I am perswaded that the constant doctrin of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it then so is no error opposite or destructive to Salvation held by it and so living according to the truths it holds I may be saved Again †Ibid. I believe that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it For though I believe Antisocinianism an error Yet if I hold it not such as that for it any man may disturb the peace or ought to renounce the Communion of the Church I may profess all this and yet hold Socinianism Lastly as he ‖ Chillingw p. 376. so I Propose me any thing out of the Bible seem it never so incomprehensible I will subscribe it with hand and heart In other things that I think not contained in this Book I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him neither shall any man take mine from me for I am fully assured that God doth not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it Without pertinacy I can be no Heretick And †Ib. §. 57. endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth and in doing so my life being answerable to my Faith how is it possible I should fail of Salvation Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sense Prot. I see no other cure for you but that you learn humility and mortification of your Understanding in which lies the most subtle and perilous of all Prides And It will reduce you to Obedience and this to Truth Thaâ— with all the Church of God you may give glory to God the only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost coessential with God the Father To which Trinity in Unity as it hath been from the beginning and is now so shall all Honour and Glory be given throughout all future ages Amen FINIS ERRATA PAge 19. lin 18. read Emperor p. 28. l. 1. dele See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. § 19. pag. 31. l. 7. r. there by
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
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
my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such errors who am a lover of him and lover of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness is to make man desperate and God a Tyrant Prot. § 4 But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of Faith revealed in Scripture for you ought to have of some points an express and explicite Faith Soc. Of what points Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals and necessaries wherein I am to have a right and an explicite Faith the account I have given you already I hope is satisfactory § 5 But next I am secure that this point which is the subject of our discourse at least in the affirmative thereof is no fundamental for according to the Protestant principles †Chill p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently perfect so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed for to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means In fine †Chill p. 59 where Scriptures are plain as they are in necessaries they need no infallible Interpreter no further explanation to me and where they are not plain there if I using diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into Error there is no danger in it Prot. True Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned using a due Industry void of a contrary interest c. Soc. And in such industry I may be assured I have not been deficient having bestowed much study on this matter read the Controversie on both sides compared Texts c. as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my perswasion and after all this the sense of Scripture also which I embrace a sense you know decried and persecuted by most Christians is very contrary to all my secular relations interest and profit Now after all this search I have used I am so far satisfied § 6 that this point on the affirmative side is not clear and evident in Scripture and therefore no Fundamental that I can produce most clear and evident places out of the Scriptures if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its Expressions that the contrary of it is so See Crellius in the Preface to his Book De uno Deo Patre Haec de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis ac clarissimis sacrarum-literarum testimoniis nititur Evidens sententiae veritas rationum firmissimarum è sacris literis spontè subnascentium multitudo ingenii nostri tenuitatem sublevat c. Argumenta quae ex sacris literis deprompsimus per se plana sunt ac facilio adeo quidem ut eorum vim deolinare aliâ ratione non possint adversarii quam ut â verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant tum nos abducere conentur And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge where as to the expression and other Texts being laid aside that seems to be said as it were totidem verbis which the Socimans maintain Job 14.28.17.3 Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6 Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 I set not down this to countenance their Cause but to shew their Confidence Prot. § 7 O strange Presumption And is not your judgment then liable to mistake in the true sense of these Scriptures because you strongly persuade your self they are most evident on your side Soc. 'T is true that I may mistake in the sense of some Scripture but it follows not from hence that I can be certain of the sense of no Scriptures To answer you in the words of Mr. Chillingworth †Chillingw p. 111. Tho' I pretend not to certain means in interpreting all Scripture particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous yet this methinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no Interpreters and in such this my Faith is contained If you ask me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places I ask you again Can you be sure you understand what I or any man else saith They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles Preach can they have sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them do If not to what end did they hear them If they could why may not I be as well assured that I understand sufficiently what I conceive plain in their Writings Again I pray tell me whether do you certainly know the sense of these Scriptures for the evidence of which you separated from the Church that was before Luther requiring conformity to the contrary Doctrines as a condition of her Communion If you do then give us leave to have the same means and the same abilities to know other plain places which you have to know these For if all the Scripture be obscure how can you know the sense of these places If some places of it be plain why should I stay here †Ib. p. 112. If you ask seeing I may possibly err how can I be assured I do not I ask you again seeing your eye-sight may deceive you how can you be sure you see the Sun when you do see it †Ib. p. 117. A Judge may possibly err in Judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged rightly a Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in his way to London †Ib. p. 112. This I am certain of that God will not require of me a certainly unerring belief unless he had given me a certain means to avoid error and if I use those which I have will never require of me that I use that which I have not †See also Chill p. 140 366 367. Sect. 8. This is Mr. Chillingworth's solid Plea against the Papist's grand Objection for the proving an uncertainty in the Protestant's Faith upon any their pretence of evident Scripture Prot. But the Scriptures which you urge against the Son's being the same one only God
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
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
could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own Conscience the plea which you also make here for your self But to be an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. § 19. What say you to this Soc. § 26 What these Authors say as you give their sense seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles See D. Potter p. 165 167. D. Hammond of Heresie § 7. n. § 9. n. 8. Def. of L. Falkl. c. 1. p. 23. and to their own positions elsewhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisie For since they say That lawful General Councils may err in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intollerably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councils may err in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councils may err also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Council may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisie or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer Language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning Autocatacrisie as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also finds sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramhall †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and always shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings always so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his Conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not resisting saith he ‖ p. 128. the voice definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my Conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my self Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Doctors reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to enquire whether the Decrees of an Universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to eject them out or not to receive them into their belief And then still it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils ‖ and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth of their Doctrin out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles ‖ Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical Autocatacrisie in a dissent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Doctor Stillingfleet concerning Heresie ‖ Rat. Account p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-Authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yielding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point
requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point Fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroys any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assign no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Dr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are Essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Church's judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Church's definitions contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present Judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Church's judgment or in his own If in the Church's it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether Person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingfl p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantiality so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of Communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judge in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposite to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church-Authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also Reformers of the Reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both enjoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches Reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturb their peace and I take my self also on these terms to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decree do not require of their Subjects to yield any internal assent to their Doctrins or to profess any thing against their Conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that Tyranny upon any for enjoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 102. Whom did our Convocation ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Dr. Stillingfleets Rational Account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly true That the Church of England bindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for