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.
_Prot._ I pray you consider a little better what you said last; for
since Heresie as you grant it, is an obstinate defence of error only
against some _necessary_ point of Faith; and all truth delivered in
Scripture is not such; unless you can also distinguish, in Scripture,
these points of necessary Faith from others, you can have no certain
knowledge of Heresie, and the believing all that is delivered in
Scripture, though it may preserve you from _incurring_ Heresie, yet
cannot direct you at all for _knowing_ or _discerning_ Heresie, or an
error against a fundamental or a necessary point of Faith, from other
simple and less dangerous errors, that are not so: nor, by this can
you ever know what errors are Heresies, what not; and so after all
your confidence, if by your neglect you happen not to believe some
Scriptures in their true sense, you can have no security in your
Fundamental, or necessary Faith; or of your not incurring _Heresie_.
Neither, Secondly, according to your discourse, hath the Church any
means to know any one to be an _Heretick_; because she can never know
the just latitude of his fundamentals. And so _Heresie_ will be a
grievous sin indeed; but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient
proposal, as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish
it. Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith, there
hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for
declaring Heresie; and it may seem conviction enough to you, that her
_most General Councils_ have defined the contrary position to what you
maintain; and received it for a _fundamental_. Of which Ecclesiastical
Authority for declaring Heresie, thus Dr. _Potter_, [66]----_The
Catholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters
of Faith, upon the divine authority of Gods written word. And
therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded, is
justly esteemed an Heretick; not properly because he disobeys the
Church; but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently
propounded, or cleared unto him_ [i. e. by the Church.] Where the
Doctor seems to grant these two things: That all that the Catholick
Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture; and
that all such as oppose her judgment are Hereticks: but only he adds,
that they are not Hereticks properly, or formally for this opposing
the Church, but for opposing the Scriptures. Whilst therefore the
_formalis ratio_ of Heresie is disputed, that all such are Hereticks
seems granted. And the same Dr. elsewhere concludes thus, [67]----_The
mistaker will never prove, that we oppose any Declaration of the
Catholick Church_, [he means such a Church as makes Declarations, and
that must be in her Councils]----_And therefore he doth unjustly
charge us with Heresie._ And again, he saith, [68]----_Whatsoever
opinion these ancient writers_ [S. Austin, Epiphanius and others]
_conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of
Christians, that they called an Heresie, because it differed from the
received opinion; not because it opposed any formal Definition of the
Church_: where, in saying, _not because it opposed any Definition_, he
means, _not only because_. For, whilst that, which differed from the
received opinion of the Church, was accounted an Heresie by them,
that, which differed from a formal definition of the Church, was so
much more. Something I find also for your better information, in the
Learned Dr. _Hammond_, [69]commenting on that notable Text in
_Titus_----_A man that is an Heretick after the first and second
admonition, reject_, [a Text implying contrary to your discourse,
Heresie discoverable, and censurable by the Church,] where he explains
+autokatakritos+ _self-condemned; not to signifie a mans publick
accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices; for that
condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Church's
Censures. Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against Conscience, and
though he knows he be in the wrong, yet holds out in opposition to the
Church; for so, none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks; and he that
stood against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest
times_ [you may guess whom he means] _should not be an Heretick: and
so no Heretick 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_ +exestraptai
kai hamartanei+ _his being perverted, and sinning wilfully, and
without excuse._ What say you to this?
§. 26.