Part 3

_Soc._ No, And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons, as I conceive satisfactory. For 1. Had I an obligation of submission of judgment to lawful General Councils, you cannot prove this such a one, and those the decrees thereof which are now extant, with such a certainty as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my Faith. For to prove this, you must satisfie me in all those things questioned concerning General Councils * by M. _Chillingworth_, p. 94. * By Dr. _Pierce_ in his answer to Mr. _Cressy_, p. 18. &c. * By Mr. _Whitby_ from p. 428. to p. 433. [where he concludes: 1. _That we never had a General Council._ 2. _That a General Council is a thing impossible_.] * By Mr. _Stillingfleet_ p. 508. &c.----495. 119. 123. &c. Who also, against the being of such a General Council as is the Representative of the whole Church Catholick, thus disputes[41]----_The representation of a Church_ (saith he) _by a General Council, is a thing not so evident, from whence it should come: for if such representative of the whole Church there be, it must either be so by some formal act of the Church, or by a tacite consent. It could not be by any formal act of the Church; for then there must be some such act of the universal Church preceding the being of any General Council, by which they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church. Now that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated, either that it could be, or that it was. But if it be said, that such a formal act is not necessary, but the tacite consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it; then such a consent of the Church must be made evident, by which, they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a_ Representative. _And all these must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have; of which no footsteps appear----The utmost then_ (saith he) _that can be supposed in this case, is, that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council; and by that voluntary act, or by the supreme authority enjoyning it, such decrees may become obligatory._ Thus he. But I suppose its Decrees obligatory then only to those parts of the Church that voluntarily consent to accept of them, as the _Arians_ did not to receive the _Decrees_ of _Nice_. Lastly, by * Bishop _Taylor_ in the 2d. Part of his _Disswasive_, _l._ 1. §. 1. p. 29. _&c._ to the end of the Section. Where p. 31. he saith concerning this of _Nice_, that makes for you, compared with that of _Ariminum_, which makes for us----_That if a Catholick producing the Nicene Council be rencountred by an Arian producing the Council of_ Ariminium _which was far more numerous, here are_ aquilis aquilæ & pila minantia pilis: _but who shall prevail? If a General Council be the rule and guide, they will both prevail, that is, neither. And it ought not to be said by the Catholick; Yea, but our Council determined for the truth; but yours for error: For, the_ Arian _will say so too. But, whether they do or no, yet it is plain that they may both say so: and if they do, then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council; but we approve this General, because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defined is true. And therefore_ S. Austin's _way here is best_, Neque ego Nicænum Concilium, neque tu Ariminense, _&c. both sides pretend to General Councils: that which both equally pretend to, will help neither; therefore let us go to Scripture._ And _p._ 32.----_What is the reason_ (saith he of Councils in General) _that some Councils are partly condemned: the Council of_ Sardis, _that in_ Trullo, _those of_ Frankford, Constance, _and_ Basil? _but that every man and every Church accepts the Councils as far as they please, and no further? The Greeks receive but seven General Councils, the Lutherans six, the Eutychians three, Nestorians two_, &c.----Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata. _It is as every one likes._ I spare to tell you what he saith, _p._ 26.--_That in the first General Council of_ Jerusalem, _which was the first precedent, and ought to be the true measure of the rest, the Apostles were the Presidents, and the Presbyters Assistants, but the Church_ [viz. _the converted brethren and the Laity_, see p. 36.] _was the Body of the Council, and were Parties in the Decree_, quoting _Acts_ 15, 22, 23. _and that we can have no other warrant of an authentick Council than this._ 2. Though it be shewed a lawful General Council, representing the whole Church (as it ought, if such) yet what obligation can there lye upon me of consenting to it? since it may _err_ even in _Fundamentals_, if it be not universally accepted, as indeed this Council was not, for several Bishops there were, that were dissenters in the Council, and many more afterward.[42] 3. Were it universally accepted; yet unless you can shew me by some means, that this point wherein I differ from its judgment, is a fundamental or necessary point to salvation, both it, and the Catholick Church also that accepts it may err therein. 4. The judgment of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account. That whereas the _Guides_ of the _Church_, many years before this Council were divided in their opinion, _Alexander_ Patriarch of _Alexandria_, and _Hosius_ a Favorite of the Emperor heading one party; and _Arius_ and the Bishops adhering to him, whom I mentioned formerly[43], heading another, and whereas afterward, in the prosecution of this difference, both the foresaid _Alexander_ in one _Provincial Council_ held in _Egypt_, and _Hosius_ sent thither by the Emperor in another, had there condemned _Arius_, and his Confederates; yet so it was ordered, that in this General Council assembled for an equal hearing and decision of this Controversie of these two professed Enemies to the other party, the one (_Hosius_) was appointed to sit as President of this Council; and the other (_Alexander_) held in it the next place to him; and poor _Arius_ excluded; and the Bishops who favoured him in the Council, though at first freely declaring their dissent, yet at last over-awed to a subscription; as also was _Arius_ himself chiefly by the Emperor _Constantine_'s overbearing authority; who, before somewhat indifferent in the contest, yet upon Arius his undutiful and too peremptory Letters, had some years before taken great offence at him; and also (as he was very eloquent) publickly written against him[44]. Which _overawing_ hence appears, in that the same _Bishops_ that were adherents to _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, [45]----_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 Interested) 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, [46]_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[47]); or this Plea, That the ordinary Judge, that is assigned us, is a _Party_, must not be easily hearkened 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, [48]_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[49] 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, [50]--_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,--[51]_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[52]----_That they are such, as proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them_[53]. 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 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[54].

_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[55], these not universally accepted may err even in _Fundamentals_; or, when so accepted, yet may err in Non-fundamentals; Errors _manifest_, and _intolerable_, 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_[56] 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._ [57]_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._ [58]_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.[59] 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_.

[41] _p._ 515, 516.

[42] _See before_, §. 13.

[43] §. 13.

[44] _See Baronius._ A. D. 318, 319.

[45] §. 478.

[46] _p._ 60.

[47] _Ib._ §. 10.

[48] _Whitby_, _p._ 15. _Stillingfleet_, _p._ 506, 537.

[49] §. 32. _n._ 5. & §. 33. _consid._ 5. _n._ 1.

[50] _Dr. Ferne, Case between the Churches_, _p._ 48, 49. & _Division of Churches_, _p._ 45.

[51] _p._ 666.

[52] _A. B. Laud_ 245.

[53] _Id._ _p._ 227.

[54] _Stillingfl. p._ 479, 292.

[55] _See before, Disc_. 3. §. 34, _&c._

[56] _De Baptismo_, _l._ 2. _c._ 3.

[57] _Stillingfl. p._ 542.

[58] _Stillingfl. ibid._

[59] _Id. p._ 526.

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) [60]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[61])--_No 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[62]) _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_.

§. 24.

_Prot._ Do not deceive your self; for though according to different revelations, to those that were without Law, 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[63]; 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,----[64]_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_----[65]_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.