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-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
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 ‖ p. 515 516 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 Ariminum which was far more numerous here are aquilis aquilae 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 Nicaenum 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 ‖ See before §. 13. 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's heading one party and Arius and the Bishops adhering to him whom I mentioned formerly ‖ §. 13. 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 over-hearing 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 ‖ See Baronius A. D. 318 319. 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 ‖ §. 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
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 ‖ Stillingfl p. 479 292. 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 ‖ See before Disc 3. these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals or when so accepted yet may err in Non-fundamentals Errors manifest and intolerable §. 34 c. 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 ‖ De Baptismo l. 2. c. 3. 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. †Stillingfl p. 542. 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. †Stillingfl ibid. 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. ‖ Id. p. 526. 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 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 ‖ p. 271. 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 ‖ p. 134. N
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 †p. 98.99 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 Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations to those that were without Law §. 24. 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 ‖ Chillingw p. 92. 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 ‖ Chillingw p. 367. 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 * Ib. 101. 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 ‖ p. 97. 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 suffientntly 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 ‖ p. 132. 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 †p. 103. 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 †Titus 3.11 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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-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
refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church does not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Church's peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her self in unity but where it is given out that the Church is infallible the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those internal acts of the mind over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bishop Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. to the same sense We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome c. Lastly thus Mr. Chillingworth †p. 200. of the just authority of Councils and Synods beyond which the Protestant Synods or Convocations pretend not The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake Thus much as the Protestant Synods seem contented with so I allow Again p. 375. He saith Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it Well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of faith and religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption Thus he now I suppose that either no Protestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequal God-head with the Father a plain irrefragable indubitable Scripture or consequence thereof about which is and hath been so much contest or with as much reason they may call whatever points they please such however controverted and then what is said here signifies nothing § 36 Prot. Be not mistaken I pray especially concerning the Church of England For though she for several Points imposed formerly by the Tyranny of the Roman Church hath granted liberty of Opinion or at least freed her Subjects from obligation to believe so in them as the Church formerly required yet as to exclusion of your Doctrin she professeth firmly to believe the three Creeds and concerning the Additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first Dr. Hammond †Of Fundamentals p. 90 acknowledgeth That they being thus settled by the Universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and embraced by the Protestant Church and every meek Member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick Truths with that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions for their seasonable and provident propugning our faith with such timely and necessary application to practice that the Holy Ghost speaking to us now under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christs mediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal Office as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament sent immediately by him may find a cheerful audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the three Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the four first General Councils And the Act 1 Eliz. ‖ cap. 1. declares Heresie that which hath been adjudged so by them now in the definitions of these 4 first General Councils your enent hath received a mortal wound But lastly the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640. †Can. 4. particularly stiles Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and orders that any convicted of it be excommunicated and not absolved but upon his repentance and abjuration Now further than this namely excommunication upon conviction No other Church I suppose hath or can proceed against your Heresie It being received as a common Axiom in the Canon Law that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis And Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur And Ob peccatum merè internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest And in all Churches every one of what internal perswasion soever continues externally at least a member thereof till the Church's censures do exclude him § 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth assenteth to and teacheth what she judgeth evident in the Scripture for so she ought what she believes or assenteth to I look not after but what she enjoyns Now I yield all that obedience in this point that she requires from me and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son Prot. What obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest and most fundamental doctrins Soc. If I mistake not her principles she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrins but only 1st Silence or non-contradiction †or 2ly a conditional belief i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof Now in both these I most readily obey her For the 1st I have strictly observed it kept my opinion to my self unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse and for the 2d whether actual conviction or sufficient proposal be made the condition of my assent or submission of judgment I am conscious to my self of no disobedience as to either of these for an actual conviction I am sure I have not and supposing that I have had a sufficient proposal and do not know it my obedience upon the Protestant principles can possibly advance no further than it now doth The Apostles Creed I totally embrace and would have it
the standing bound of a Christian Faith For other Creeds I suppose no more belief is necessary to the Articles of the Nicene Creed than is required to those of the Athanasian And of what kind the necessity is of believing those Dr. Stillingfleet states on this manner †p. 70 71. That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary either as to the matter because the matter is to be believed in it self necessary or because of the clear conviction of mens understandings that though the matters be not in themselves necessary yet being revealed by God they must be explicitly believed but then the necessity of this belief doth extend no further than the clearness of the conviction doth Again that the necessity of believing any thing arising from the Church's definition upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of Consubstantiality doth depend upon the Conviction that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed And where that is not received as an antecedent principle the other cannot be supposed Now this principle neither I nor yet Protestants accept Then he concludes That as to the Athenasian Creed and the same it is for the Nicene It is unreasonable to imagine that the Church of England doth own this necessity purely on the account of the Church's dâ—finition of those things which are not fundamental it being directly contrary to her sense in her 19th and 20th Articles Now which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental she defines nothing nor do the 19 20 or 21. Articles own a necessity of believing the Church's Definitions even as to Fundamentals And hence that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must according to the sense of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear conviction that the things therein contained are of divine Revelation Thus he Now for so many Articles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed that it is in it self necessary or that they are divine Revelations I do most readily yield my Faith and assent thereto Now to make some Reply to the other things you have objected § 38 The Act 1 Eliz. allows no Definitions of the First General Councils in declaring Heresie but with this limitation that in such Councils such thing be declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scripture On which terms I also accept them § 39 Dr. Hammond's affirming That all additions settled by the Universal Church he means General Councils are in all reason without disputing to be received as Apostolical Truths that the Holy Ghost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christ's Successors may receive all uniform submission from us suits not with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned †for thus if I rightly understand him all the definitions of General Councils See before §. 26. and of the Christian Governors in all ages as these being still Christ's Successors are to be without disputing embraced as truths Apostolical § 40 If the words of the fourth Canon of the English Synod 1640. signifie any more than this That any person convicted of Socinianism i. e. by publishing his opinion shall upon such conviction be excommunicated and if it be understood adequate to this Qui non crediderit filium esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo Patri Anathema sit and that the Church of England for allowing her Communion is not content with silence in respect of Socinianism but obligeth men also to assent to the contrary then I see not upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like Anathema's or exactions of assent required by that of Trent or other late Councils or by Pius his Bull. If it be said here the reason of such faulting them is because these require assent not being lawful General Councils such reason will not pass 1st Because neither the English Synod exacting assent in this point is a General Council 2ly Because it is the Protestant tenent that neither may lawful General Councils require assent to all their Definitions Or if it be affirmed either of General or Provincial Councils that they may require assent under Anathema to some of their decrees viz. Those evidently true and divine Revelations such as Consubstantiality is but may not to others viz. Those not manifested by them to be such then before we can censure any Council for its Anathema's or its requiring of assent we must know whether the point to which assent is required is or is not evident divine Revelation And then by whom or how shall this thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or decided for those that judge this whoever they be do sit now upon the trial of the rightness or mistake of the judgment of a General Council Or when think we will those who judge this i. e. every person for himself agree in their sentence Again If on the other side the former Church in her language Si quis non crediderit c. Anathema sit be affirmed to which purpose the fore-mentioned Axioms are urged by you to mean nothing more than Si quis Haeresin suam palam profiteatur hujus professionis convictus fuerit Anathema sit Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing such Anathema's will be concluded causeless and unjust But indeed though according to the former sentences her Anathema is not extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion if wholly concealed so far as to render such person for it to stand excommunicated and lie actually under this censure of the Church because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears nor is any dammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby Yet her Anathema also extends even to the internal act or tenet after the Church's contrary definition known which tenet also then is not held without a disobedience and contempt of her authority so far as to render the delinquent therein guilty of a very great mortal sin and so at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of Christ's Body though externally he is not as yet so cut off And the Casuists further state him ipso facto to be excommunicated before and without conviction if externally he doth or speaketh any thing whereby he is convincible and not if there be any thing proved against him but if any thing at least provable and such a one upon this to be obliged in Conscience not only to confess his heretical opinion for his being absolved from mortal sin but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred for his re-enjoying the Church's Communion Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresie much different from the more mild Spirit and moderate temper of the Reformed § 41 To conclude For the enjoying the Protestant Communion I conceive that as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrins it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth as I do †Chillingw Pref. §. 39. That the Doctrin of Protestants though not that of all of them absolutely true yet it is free from all impiety and from all Error destructive to Salvation or in it self damnable And †Ib. §. 28. whatsoever hath been held necessary Salvation by the consent of Protestants or even of the Church of England which indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace And which is still the same †Ib. §. 29. I am perswaded that the constant doctrin of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it then so is no error opposite or destructive to Salvation held by it and so living according to the truths it holds I may be saved Again †Ibid. I believe that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it For though I believe Antisocinianism an error Yet if I hold it not such as that for it any man may disturb the peace or ought to renounce the Communion of the Church I may profess all this and yet hold Socinianism Lastly as he ‖ Chillingw p. 376. so I Propose me any thing out of the Bible seem it never so incomprehensible I will subscribe it with hand and heart In other things that I think not contained in this Book I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him neither shall any man take mine from me for I am fully assured that God doth not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it Without pertinacy I can be no Heretick And †Ib. §. 57. endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth and in doing so my life being answerable to my Faith how is it possible I should fail of Salvation Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sense Prot. I see no other cure for you but that you learn humility and mortification of your Understanding in which lies the most subtle and perilous of all Prides And It will reduce you to Obedience and this to Truth Thaâ— with all the Church of God you may give glory to God the only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost coessential with God the Father To which Trinity in Unity as it hath been from the beginning and is now so shall all Honour and Glory be given throughout all future ages Amen FINIS ERRATA PAge 19. lin 18. read Emperor p. 28. l. 1. dele See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. § 19. pag. 31. l. 7. r. there by