§. 18.

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?

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.