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
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
with God the Father carry not the same evidence and clearness as those Scriptures do whereon Protestants build the certainty of their Faith against the Papists or against the common Church-Doctrines that were before Luther Soc. That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures which you of mine I pray what can be said more plain or in what point in your Opinion more fundamental wherein we contend Scripture is most clear even to the unlearned than this in Joh. 17.3 Ut cognoscant te Pater solum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum And 1 Cor. 8.6 Unus Deus Pater unus Dominus Jesus And Eph. 4. ver 5. Unus est Dominus i. e. Jesus and then ver 6. Unus est Deus Pater omnium And Joh. 14.1 Creditis in Deum in me credite And v. 28. Pater meus major me est I say what more clear for proving the Father his being the true most high God and excluding the other Persons the Son or the Holy Ghost from being the very same God Prot. And 1. what more clear on the other side than these Texts Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever And Tit. 2.3 The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And †1 Joh. 5.20 we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternal life spoken by St. John the great vindicator against Ebion Cerinthus Carpocrates and other in his time opposers of our Lord's Divinity †S. Hieron de viris illust And Apoc. 1.8 compared with 1.17 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty I say what more clear than these Texts for shewing the true Deity of Christ 2. And then how many other clear Texts are there asserting the Eternity of our Lord that he is nothing made or created but pre-existent before the constitution of the World equal with God and that Heaven and Earth and all things were made by him that were made and that he descended from Heaven from his Father when he took our nature upon him See Joh. 1.1 c. 3.13 Heb 1.2 3 10 c. Joh. 17.5 24. Phil. 2.6 Joh. 6.38 16.28 1. Tim. 3.16 Heb. 2.14 And 3. then his Deity and Eternity thus cleared his Deity can be no other than in the total essence thereof numerically the same with that of God the Father For those of your own Sect together with the whole Christian world do acknowledge 1. That there is but one numerical most high God an inseparable attribute of whom is his Creating of the world and preexistence before it And again 2. That the substance or essence of this most high God is not any way divisible partible or multipliable so that Si Christus ex Dei substantiâ generatus fuit tota ei Patris substantia eadem numero communicata fuit See Volkel de vera Rel. l. 5. c. 12. upon which consequence well discerned your predecessors were constrained to desert Arianism or semi-Arianism and to take in other respects a more desperate way of denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation To return then to our business All Scripture being equally true you know no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sense which others as clear contradict The non-consideration of which by the passionate or unlearned is the mother of all errors The Texts therefore that you produce here so manifest on your side that they may not contradict many more others as clear against you are to be understood to speak of our Lord only according to his Incarnation Messias and Mediatorship in which he hath an inferiority to the Father and is our Lord by a special Redemption with his blood in another manner than He together with his Father in the same essence is the one true God Soc. All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently considered and answered by our party Prot. And your Answers are new forced absurd as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing Volkelius l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter But to omit this dispute as now beside my purpose If your sense of the Scriptures you have urged be so manifest and clear as you pretend how comes so great a part of the Christian world doubtless rational men in the sense of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a due industry well comparing these Scriptures and void of pride passion and other interest Soc. And I return the like question to you If on the clearness of the express sense of these Scriptures I cannot infallibly ground my faith against many other rational men contradicting on what plainness of the sense of any other Scripture is it that Protestants can ground theirs against a contrary sense given by the learned by several Councils by the whole Church of some ages as they do not promising to the Councils even to the four first an absolute but conditional assent viz. only so far as their Degrees agree with these clear Scriptures If neither the plain words of Scripture can afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter which Scriptures you say in fundamentals are to all perspicuous and such do many deem this point nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbiast industry in the understanding of these Scriptures and also in the comparing them with others in which I am conscious to my self of no neglect I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any other part of Scripture and then wherein can lye the assurance of a Protestant's Faith for his not erring in Fundamentals at least Bishop Lany tells me * Serm. at Whitehall March 12. 1664. p. 17. That when we have certain knowledge of a thing we may safely learn from the Schools viz. Ubi non est formido contrarii that after diligent search and inquiry when there remains no scruple doubt and fear of the contrary when the understanding is fixt we are said to be certain And that they who will say it and do think so too may safely be absolved from the guilt of disobedience Prot. †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 46.61 Chillinw p. 57. You have a judgment of discretion I grant and may Interpret Scripture for your self without the use of which Judgment you cannot serve God with a reasonable service who are also to give account of your self and are to be saved by your own Faith and do perish upon your own score †Stillingfl p. 1 3. None may usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each Member of this Society is bound to take care of his Soul
and of all things that tend thereto * Chillinw p. 59 100. In matters of Religion when the question is whether any man be a fit judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity And then I suppose that all the necessary points in Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this case to be a compleat Judge for himself because it concerns himself to Judge aright as much as eternal happiness is worth and if through his own default he Judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it To God's righteous Judgment therefore I must finally remit you At your own peril be it This of the Socinian's Plea concerning the Scripture on his side § 9 Where the self-clearness of the sense of Scriptures not mistakable in Fundamentals or necessaries upon a due industry used of which also rightly used men may be sufficiently assured being made the ground as you see of the Protestants and Socinians Faith before these two proceed to any further conference give me leave to interpose a word between them concerning this certainty so much spoken of and presumed on And here first from this way lately taken by many Protestants there seems to be something necessarily consequent § 10 which I suppose they will by no means allow viz. That instead of the Roman Church her setting up some men the Church Governors as infallible in necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both infallible in all necessaries and certain that he is so For the Scripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due industry and of this due industry they also affirm men may be certain that they have used it being not all possible endeavour but such a measure thereof as ordinary discretion c. adviseth to See Mr. Chillingworth p. 19. And next from this affirmed that every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals it must be maintained also that their spiritual Guides in a conjunction of them nay more every single Prelate or Presbyter if they are not yet may be an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary And therefore M. Chillingworth freely speaks to this purpose †p. 140. That these also may be both in Fundamentals and also in some points unfundamental both certain of the infallibility of their Rule and that they do manifestly proceed according to it and then in what they are certain that they cannot be mistaken they may saith he ‖ p. 118.140 166. lawfully decide the controversies about them and without rashness propose their decrees as certain divine Revelations and excommunicate or anathematize any man persisting in the contrary error And there seems reason in such Anathema because all others either do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same certain means as these Governors do Now then what certainty the Guides of a particular Church may have I hope may also those of the Church Catholick and then obedience being yielded to these by all their inferiors this will restore all things to their right course All this follows upon certainty 1. That Scriptures are plain in Fundamentals And 2. That due industry is used to understand them But if you should deny that men can have a certainty of their industry rightly used then again is all the fair security these men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite vanished But now to pass from this consequence to which I know not what can be said and to enquire a little after the true grounds of our certainty in any thing which is here so much pretended 1. It cannot be denyed that he that doth err in one thing may be certain that he doth not err in some other because he may have sufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing which he hath not in another Nor again denied that he who possibly may err yet in the same thing may be certain that he doth not err if not neglecting some means which he knows will certainly keep him from error § 11 2. But notwithstanding these This seems also necessary to be granted on the other side and is so by learned Protestants That in what kind of knowledge soever it be whether of our Sense or Reason in whatever Art or Science one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge that he is certain of any thing for a truth which all or most others of the same or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties in all the same external means or grounds of the knowledge thereof do pronounce an error Not as if truth were not so though all the World oppose it nor had certain grounds to be proved so though all the World should deny them but because the true knowledge of it and them cannot possibly appear to one mans intellect and omnibus paribus not to others Now for any disparity as to defect whether in the instrument or in the means of knowledge there where all or most differ from me it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self rather than them especially * whenas all the grounds of my Science are communicated to them and * whenas for my own mistakes I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions I say be this in what knowledge we please in that of sense seeing hearing numbring or in any of Mr. Chillingworth's former instances mentioned § 7. So I can never rationally assure my self of what I see when men as well or better sighted and all external circumstances for any thing I know being the same see no such matter And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep every Fanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit See Arch-Bishop Laud § 33. Confid 5. n. 1. and Hooker Preface § 6. their designing of a clear evidence or demonstrative argument viz. Such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it and therefore surely proposed to many men the mind of the most cannot dissent from it Consequently in the Scripture abstracting from the inward operations of God's Holy Spirit § 12 and any external infallible Guide which infallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to two men delivering a contrary sense thereof I see not from whence any certainty can arise to particular persons for so many Texts or places thereof concerning the sense of which the most or the most learned or their Superiors to whom also all their motives or arguments are represented do differ from them From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical construction of the words such certainty cannot arise unless no term thereof can possibly be distinguished or taken in a diverse or unliteral sense but if it cannot be so taken then all Expositors must needs agree in one and the same sense For Example For the Literal and Grammatical sense
yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points ‖ Stillingfl p. 99. Then I become so either by the Church's definition of this point or without it By reason of the Church's definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Church's defining it †Stillingfl p. 74. and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisie you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your self in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine Revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be God's Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicene Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what is defined It 's true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non-sufficient proposal without § 27 Soc. It remains then to enquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicene Council or the Church hath declared in this point ‖ Stillingfl p. 73. Whether the Church's judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgment the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Church's definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Still p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledge when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental Faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I find my Conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. 1. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2. The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your self from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can find one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own Conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge CONFERENCE V. His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i.e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that whatever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of Charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the Unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrin of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent Judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrins in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her Doctrins as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient § 41. 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you § 28 If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publick judgment and definition of the Catholick Church in that most reverend Council of Nice upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal that this Definition was therein made according to God's Word or the Scriptures yet how will you clear your self or your Socinian Congregations of Schism avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture if it
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
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
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