Transcriber's Note:
The text is divided into 5 "Conferences" and 41 sections.
Marginal notes indicating the start of individual sections have been
converted into section headings. Other notes have been numbered and
moved to the end of each Conference. They often refer to the following
(rather than preceding) passage, and if so are positioned accordingly.
The locations of the marker for Note 13, and of the start of Section
8, are unclear: they have been inserted in accordance with the sense
of the text.
Other markers that do not correspond to marginal notes have been
removed. The "*" that are retained in sections 11, 13 and 18 do not
indicate marginal notes, but instead function as bullet points.
Variations in spelling have been retained with the exception of the
following:
Conference 1 Summary: "byass'd" changed to "bypass'd".
Conference 2 Section 17: "be-belief" changed to "belief" and
"absolure" to "absolute".
Conference 5 Section 36 "enent" changed to "tenent"; Section 37
"Athenasian" changed to "Athanasian".
Obscured text has been transcribed as follows:
Conference 1 Section 8: "?her" transcribed as "Luther".
Conference 3 Section 18: the sentence beginning "But if it be said"
has been reconstructed from the work cited.
Conference 5 Section 30: the phrases "not-conforming to" and "As to
Charity" have been reconstructed.
At the beginning of Conference 1 a brace, extending over several
lines, has been replaced by a column of individual braces.
Italics are indicated by _underscores_ and Greek by +plus signs+.
When a word in italics is followed by "'s" the latter may or may not
be italicised. This inconsistency has been retained. Inconsistent
hyphenation has also been retained.
The Text has been corrected in accordance with the Errata section.
Mismatched brackets and parentheses have been removed and apparent
punctuation errors corrected.
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 bypass'd by any other humane, either
modern, or ancient Authority._ §. 9.
{Where, _The_ Protestant's, _and_ Socinian's _pretended_
{_Certainty of the sense of Scripture apprehended by them,_
Digress. {_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.
§. 2.
_Prot._ But, this secures you not, unless you believe according to
this _Rule_; 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[1]--_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[2], _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.
§. 3.
_Soc._ [3]----_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: [4]----_I do my_
best endeavour _to believe Scripture in the true sense thereof. By my
best endeavour I mean_[5], _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 endeavor 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 endeavor used: [6]----_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?_ [7]----_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._
§. 4.
_Prot._ 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 [8]----_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,_ [9] _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.
§. 6.
Now, after all this search I have used, I am so far satisfied, 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_,----_Hæc
de uno Deo Patre sententia_ plurimis, _ac_ clarissimis _sacrarum
literarum testimoniis nititur_----Evidens _sententiæ veritas, &
rationum_ firmissimarum _è sacris literis spontè subnascentium_
multitudo, _ingenii nostri tenuitatem sublevat, &c._----_Argumenta,
quæ ex sacris literis deprompsimus, per se_ plana _sunt, ac_ facilia
_adeo quidem, ut eorum vim declinare 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 Socinians maintain), _Joh._ 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.]
§. 7.
_Prot._ 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._ 'Tis 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_[10]----_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?_----[11] _If you ask, seeing I may possibly err, how can I be
assured I do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive
you, how can you be sure you see the Sun, when you do see it?_ [12] _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?[13]--_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_[14].----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.
Sect. 8.
_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. 13. _The glorious
appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ._
And [15]--_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[16]----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 Decrees 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,[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._ [18]_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._----[19]_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_----[20]_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.
§. 10.
And here first, from this way, lately taken by many Protestants, there
seems to be something necessarily consequent, 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[21]----_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[22]) _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. Consid. 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.
§. 12.
Consequently, in the Scripture; abstracting from the inward operations
of God's Holy Spirit, 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, 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_[23], 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_[24]_: 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.
[1] _p._ 23, 159, 367.
[2] _Chill. p._ 87.
[3] _Chill. p._ 18.
[4] _Chill. Ib._
[5] _Chill. p._ 19.
[6] _Chillingw. p._ 102.
[7] _Chill. p._ 18, 92.
[8] _Chill. p._ 92.
[9] _Chill. p._ 59.
[10] _Chillingw. p._ 111.
[11] _Ib. p._ 112.
[12] _Ib. p._ 117.
[13] _Ib. p._ 112.
[14] _See also Chill. p._ 140, 366, 367.
[15] 1 _Joh._ 5. 20.
[16] _S. Hieron. de viris illust._
[17] _Serm. at Whitehall_, _March_ 12. 1664. _p._ 17.
[18] _Dr. Ferne, Division of Churches_, _p._ 46, 61. _Chillinw. p._ 57.
[19] _Stillingfl. p._ 1, 3.
[20] _Chillinw. p._ 59, 100.
[21] _p._ 140.
[22] _p._ 118. 140. & 166.
[23] _Chillingw. p._ 307.
[24] 2 _Pet._ 3. 16.
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[25] _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._ [26]_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_[27]. 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_,
_Irenæus_, _Tertullian_, _Clemens Alexandrinus_, _Origen_, that seem
to favour our opinion[28]: Nor, of those Eastern Bishops, which
_Arrius_, in his Letter to _Eusebius Nicomed._[29] (numbers on his
side,) _Hilarius_[30] relates no less than Eighty Bishops before that
Council, to have disallowed the reception of the word +homousios+; and
in the Council also Seventeen, (some of note) at first to have
dissented from the rest.
§. 14.
_Prot._ 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 [31]_The sense
of the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting
Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith--[32]Nor may
she usurp that royal Prerogative of Heaven, in prescribing infallibly
in matters questioned._
_Prot._ You may be secure, that she never erreth in any point
_necessary_.
_Soc._ But you tell me, that though she never err in necessaries, yet
it follows not, that she is an _unerring Guide or Witness_ therein[33]
or, _that she must unerringly declare what points are necessary and what
not_; and I must first learn, whether this point of _Consubstantiality_
is to be numbred among _necessaries_, before I can be assured, that the
sense of the Church Catholick errs not therein.
§. 15.
_Prot._ But [34]_It is a sufficient prescription against any thing
which can be alledged out of Scripture, that it ought not to be looked
on as the true meaning of Scripture, if it appear contrary to the
sense of the Church Catholick from the beginning; and therefore such
doctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of Faith, which
have been so unanimously condemned by the Church Catholick._
_Soc._ Why so?
_Prot._ [35]_Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of
Faith can be so held by the Catholick Church; for its very Being
depends on its belief of necessaries to salvation._
_Soc._ This last is most true; but then, if you mean to make your
discourse cohere, you must say, it is a sufficient prescription, _&c._
if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church, _viz. in a
point necessary_: for, the reason you give carries, and secures you no
further; and then that which you say is no great matter: For, here we
are still to seek, whether the point we discourse of is in the
affirmative such a _necessary_.
§. 16.
_Prot._ But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath
put in her Creeds.
_Soc._ From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed; and
though it should be granted that all points necessary are contained in
the Creeds, yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary:
[36]_Necessary so, as to be believed by any before a clear conviction
of the divine Revelation thereof_: which conviction I yet want.
§. 17.
_Prot._ But yet, though, first the Catholick Church may err in
_non-necessaries_; And 2ly. in what points are _necessary_, what not,
her judgment be not infallible, yet you have still great reason to
submit your judgment to hers; because, if it happen to be a point
necessary, she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in
it; not so, you. 2. If not necessary, and so both she and you therein
liable to error, yet you much the more; and she also in these things
is appointed by God for your Teacher and Guide.
_Soc._ Therefore I use the help and direction of my spiritual Guides;
consider their reasons; do not rashly depart from their judgment; but
yet [37]_The due submission of my assent, and belief to them is only
to be conditional, with reservation of evidence in God's Word. For in
matter of faith_ (as Dr. _Ferne_ saith) _I cannot submit to any
company of men by resignation of my judgment and belief to receive for
faith all that they shall define, for such resignation stands excluded
by the condition of the authority which is not infallible; and by the
condition of the matter, faith, of high concernment to our own souls,
and to be accounted for by_ our selves: _who therefore stand bound to
make present, and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration
from God's Word, upon which we may finally and securely stay our
belief_----And [38]_The Church determining matter of faith_ (saith
he) _ought to manifest it out of_ God's Word: _and we may expect such
Churches, proof, before we yield absolute assent of belief._ And so
Dr. _Stillingfleet_ saith[39]----_All men ought to be left to judge
according to the Pandects of the divine Laws, because each member of
this Society is bound to take care of his Soul, and of all things that
tend thereto._ Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the
Scripture for _Consubstantiality_, but rather for the contrary; which
several of our Writers have made appear to the world. And therefore
unless the Church were either infallible in all she determined, or at
least in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err from
the rest, it seems no way justifiable, that she puts this her
definition into the Creed; she, as I conceive, thus requiring from all
an absolute consent thereto; and not only (as some[40] would perswade
me) a conditional for some of them, _viz._ whenever I shall be clearly
convinced, that such point is of divine Revelation.
[25] _Stillingfl. p._ 58, 59.
[26] _Stillingfl. p._ 72.
[27] See before _Dis._ 3. §. 52.
[28] _See Petavius in Epipha. Hær._ 69.
[29] _Apud Epipha. Hær._ 69.--_Theodor. l._ 1. _c._ 5.
[30] _De Synod._
[31] _Still. p._ 59.
[32] _Stillingfl. p._ 133.
[33] _Stilling. p._ 154, 152.--_Chillingw. p._ 150.--_Dr. Hammond,
Defence of the Lord Falkl. p._ 23.
[34] _Stillingfl. p._ 59.
[35] _Stilling. ib._
[36] _Stillingfl. p._ 70, 71.
[37] _Dr. Ferne, Considerations_, _p._ 10.
[38] _The Case between the Churches_, _p._ 40.
[39] _p._ 133.
[40] _Still. p._ 70.
CONFERENCE III.
His Plea, for his not holding any thing contrary to the Definitions of
_lawful General Councils_, the just conditions thereof observed.
_That he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of_ Nice.
1. _Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General
Council with so much certainty, as is necessary for the ground of
his Faith, as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr._
Chillingworth, Stillingfleet, _and other Protestants, wherein he
must first be satisfied, concerning it._
2. _Because, though it were a General Council, yet it might err even
in necessaries, if it were not universally accepted; as he can shew
it was not._
3. _That, though yielded to be generally accepted, it might err still
in non-necessaries; and that Protestants cannot prove this point to
be otherwise._
4. _That the Leaders of this Council were plainly a party contesting
this, for many years before, with the other side condemned by them;
and were Judges in their own cause._
5. _All these exceptions cancelled, and Obedience granted due to this
Council; yet, that so, there is due to it not that of_ assent, _but
only of_ silence. §. 19.
6. _But yet not that of silence neither from him; considering his
present perswasion, that indeed the affirmative in this point is an
error_ manifest _and_ intolerable: _concerning which matter his
party having long complained to their Superiors, and produced
sufficient evidence; yet these have proceeded to no redress of
it._ §. 20.
7. _But yet that he will submit to the Judgment of a future Council,
if it, rightly considering the reasons of his tenent, decree that
which is according to God's Word, and he be convinced thereof._
§. 22.
§. 18.
3. _Prot._ But do you not consider by what persons this Article was
long ago inserted into the Creed: Namely, by the _first General_, and
the most venerable Assembly of the _Fathers_ of the Church that hath
been convened since the _Apostles_ times; celebrated under the _first
Christian_ Emperor by a perfect Representative of the Catholick
Church; and by such persons, as came very much purified out of the
newly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution that the Church hath
suffered, that under _Dioclesian_; will not you then at least submit
your judgment to the Decree of this great and Holy Council; one and
the first of those four which St. _Gregory_ said he received with the
same reverence, as the four Gospels?