§. 13.

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 ???s???; 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.