yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points ‖ Stillingfl p. 99. Then I become so either by the Church's definition of this point or without it By reason of the Church's definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Church's defining it †Stillingfl p. 74. and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisie you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your self in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine Revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be God's Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicene Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what is defined It 's true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non-sufficient proposal without § 27 Soc. It remains then to enquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicene Council or the Church hath declared in this point ‖ Stillingfl p. 73. Whether the Church's judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgment the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Church's definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Still p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledge when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental Faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I find my Conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. 1. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2. The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your self from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can find one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own Conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge CONFERENCE V. His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i.e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that whatever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of Charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the Unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrin of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent Judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrins in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her Doctrins as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient § 41. 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you § 28 If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publick judgment and definition of the Catholick Church in that most reverend Council of Nice upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal that this Definition was therein made according to God's Word or the Scriptures yet how will you clear your self or your Socinian Congregations of Schism avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture if it
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 ‖ §. 478. 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 Interessed 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 ‖ p. 60. 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 ‖ Ib. §. 10. or this Plea That the ordinary Judge that is assigned us is a Party must not be easily hearkned 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 ‖ Whitby p. 15. Stillingfleet p. 506 537. 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 †§. 32. n. 5. § 33. consid 5. n. 1. 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 ‖ Dr. Ferne Case between the Churches p. 48 49. Division of Churches p. 45. 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 †p. 666. 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 †A.B. Laud 245. That they are such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them ‖ Id. p. 227. 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. § 19. What say you to this Soc. § 26 What these Authors say as you give their sense seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles See D. Potter p. 165 167. D. Hammond of Heresie § 7. n. § 9. n. 8. Def. of L. Falkl. c. 1. p. 23. and to their own positions elsewhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisie For since they say That lawful General Councils may err in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intollerably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councils may err in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councils may err also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Council may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisie or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer Language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning Autocatacrisie as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also finds sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramhall †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and always shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings always so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his Conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not resisting saith he ‖ p. 128. the voice definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my Conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my self Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Doctors reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to enquire whether the Decrees of an Universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to eject them out or not to receive them into their belief And then still it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils ‖ and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth of their Doctrin out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles ‖ Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical Autocatacrisie in a dissent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Doctor Stillingfleet concerning Heresie ‖ Rat. Account p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-Authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yielding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point
requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point Fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroys any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assign no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Dr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are Essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Church's judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Church's definitions contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present Judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Church's judgment or in his own If in the Church's it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether Person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingfl p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantiality so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of Communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judge in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposite to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church-Authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also Reformers of the Reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both enjoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches Reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturb their peace and I take my self also on these terms to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decree do not require of their Subjects to yield any internal assent to their Doctrins or to profess any thing against their Conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that Tyranny upon any for enjoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 102. Whom did our Convocation ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Dr. Stillingfleets Rational Account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly true That the Church of England bindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for