diversly fancieth the true causes thereof then in all this said nothing at all is said § 20 12. 2 Again for Schism Catholicks affirm That any particular Person or Church which for what cause soever and particularly for this the Church's requiring his assent and conformity to the Definitions of such her Councils doth actually relinquish and separate from the external Communion of the present Church-Catholick is Schismatical Meaning here * by Catholick Church the present true Superior Ecclesiastical Guides and the Christian Congregations joyned with them in the sence explained before Disc 2. Prop. 12. § 23. And * by External Communion the Church's Publick Prayers and Worship of God and the participation of her Sacraments And * by actual relinquishing and separating either 1 the setting up or joyning with an Anti-communion or 2 a Voluntary absenting ones self from the Church's Communion or at least 3 the incurring of an Excommunication or Separation inflicted by the Church for a non-conformity to her Decrees of which see Dr. Hammond's Concession below § 22. n. 2. § 21 The Reason Because 1 all separation from the external Communion of this Church that is made out of a Non-conformity to any thing defined by these Superiors is judged causeless upon the former account given § 6. and § 14. Since they can require no unjust condition of their Communion as the assent or subscription to an Error that any Inferior can justly judge or certainly know to be so And this because in Necessaries these Church-Governors cannot misse-guide § 6 9. And of what or how much is to be accounted necessary the judgement also belongs to these Guides not their Subjects see Disc 2. Prop. 6. Of whom also divinely assisted it is rationally presumed that to things judged no way necessary they will never enjoyn Assent upon the Church's Censures But lastly supposing not granting that they should err in some non-necessary to which notwithstanding they require Assent yet cannot particular men have in such matters any sufficient ground of an infallible assurance of the contrary which the Church cannot discover ‖ See Disc 2. §. 15. 42. and therefore cannot justly on any such account withdraw their submission And for this reason also these Superiors in whatever decrees they make or impose do never fall actually or causally into Heresie or Schisme as who are not from others but all others from them directed to learn in spiritual matters what is true and lawful and to what they are or are not to conform But 2 Next If any separation from this Church should be made for any Doctrine or Practice in it to which an assent or a conformity is no way required by it This will still be an higher Schisme because more void of any just Pretence Of this matter thus S. Austin ‖ Epist 48. speaking not of the internal but the external Communion of the Catholick Church which defining against Rebaptization was upon this forsaken by the Donatists Fieri non potest ut aliquis habeat justam causam quâ communionem suam separaret à communione orbis terrarum c. And de unitate Ecclesiae c. 3. Quicunque à Chriâ—ti corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum Communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliquâ parte separatâ inâ—eniatur manifestum est cos non esse in Catholicâ Ecclesia Cum toto i. e. * with the Communion of that Body which was totum integrum before some separated from it or after the separation when now the former totum is divided * with that part of the totum from which the other part separates which Body that is parted from is still the total Catholick Church of which total only S. Austin speaks though the divided part or parts for the amplitude of this totum is a casual thing nor always the same should in time swell to a greater magnitude than it Concerning this matter also thus Dr. Hammond ‖ of Schism p. 10. in his Book of Schisme c. 1. For the universal or truly Catholick Church of Christ it is not in St. Austin's Opinion possible that there should be any just cause for any to separate from it nor consequently Apology to be made for those that on any whether true or pretended cause whatsoever have really incurred this guilt and that it is not the Examination of the Occasion or Cause or Motive of any man's Schisme that is worth the producing or heeding in this matter The one thing that is of force and moment and by consequence pertinent to be enquired into is the truth of the matter of fact whether this charge be sufficiently proved or confessed i. e. whether he that is thus accused stands really guilty of Separation from the Church of Christ Thus Dr. Hammond Where it would be ridiculous for any to say that by separation from the Church-Catholick he means voluntary separation and then that by voluntary separation he means a separation without any just cause moving him to it for this is only saying there can never be just cause of a voluntary separation from the Church-Catholick without any just cause Neither can the Doctor 's meaning here be that one indeed may not separate but yet may by Excommunication be separated for his non-conforming in something to the Church-Catholick without Schism For elsewhere ‖ Answ to Cath. Gentlm p 9. he declareth Continuance in I add or incurrin Excommunication to be actual Schism supposing that if one will submit to that which is lawful not that which he thinks lawful for him to submit to he may be absolved and freed from it Now the Church-Catholick he holds here can never require unjust conditions of her Communion because upon such terms he alloweth a departure may be without Schism Here then taking his words in their plain sence since the Church-Catholick cannot be denyed to be such a Church as gives Laws and requires certain Conditions of her external Communion and since the Doctor affirms ‖ Of Schisme c 2. n. 3.5 12. that where a Church requires unjust Conditions of her Communion one may depart from or continue out of it without Schism it seems to follow that the Doctor holds here that the Church-Catholick can never require such unjust conditions which how it consists with what is quoted out of him Disc 1. § 5. I know not and hence that she did not require such at Luther's appearance Yet it is clear that there was no Church then extant one or more of which must be the Catholick to the conditions of whose external Communion Protestants would submit and from whose external Communion they departed not See Disc 1. § 55. n. 4. And then we see what followers upon these Principles of Dr. Hammond's § 23 Mean while the Catholicks grant 1 st That the several parts of this body may without Schism separate or differ from one another in any doctrine or practice wherein they are obliged to
Chillingw ‖ P. 59. If through his own default any man judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it And Such person endangers both his temporal and eternal happiness ‖ P. 100. Well for such persons at their peril be it § 50 But meanwhile how is the Church's peace or her wholesome or also necessary and Fundamental Doctrines to be preserved among her Subjects How these poor Sheep delivered from harkning to and being seduced by these new Demonstrators if such publick Contradictors may not justly be punished and restrained by her Or how may they justly be restrained if all ought to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each Member of the Christian Society is bound take care of his Soul and of all things that tend thereto as Mr. Stillingfleet tells us ‖ P. 133. How restrained I mean even as to external obedience or silence if the judgement when or in what things her Councils intolerably err is rightly left to them and if so often as they judge them to err and perswade themselves they have demonstration for it they may lawfully contradict Could the Church-Governors justly punish Luther and He justly do that for which he was punished Well To give some satisfaction also to this the preserving of the Church's peace thus goes on Mr. Stillingfleet We appeal saith he ‖ P. 340. to the common Reason of Mankind whether it be not a far probabler way to end Controversies to perswade them in disputable matters to yeild external obedience to a lawful General Council than to tell them they are bound to believe whatever they decree to be infallibly true But here he hides and nimbly passeth over one half and the more scandalous part of his Doctrine and that which usher'd in the Reformation that where a Doctrine of a General Council is intolerable where it seems to any not a matter disputable but error manifest of which he knows who must judge and how many of the common Doctrines of the Church before the times of Luther are by Protestants charged to be so so that such errors are not to be numbred amongst the raro contigentia ‖ See Mr. Stillingfl p. 535. so often private men or particular Churches instead of yeilding the external obedience he here makes shew of may publickly contradict such Councils and reform I say not without them for that Protestants ‖ Ap. Laud p. 153. do bring several proofs or Examples in Antiquity but against them for which they bring none CHAP. V. 13. Suitably to the Precedents Protestants declaring Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained against some Fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what Articles are Fundamental and consequently what is Heresie § 51. 14. Declaring Schism in respect of inferiors to be a separation causeless § 55. Or also as some more straiten it a separation in Essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church-Catholick But leaving us no certain Judge what points are Essentials or when the separation causeless and consequently when Schism Vnless perhaps he that separates be made by them this Judge Again inlarging Schism to Superiors also so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion they give their Subjects just cause of a separation § 61. Where is examined Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their Subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. § 51 13. LAstly concerning their stating of Heresie and Schism 1 st For Heresie They do not enlarge it so far as Catholicks do ‖ See before §. 16. to all errors knowingly or obstinately maintained against any Church Definitions made in matters of Faith But which helps to remove the charge thereof the farther from themselves restrain it ‖ Chill 271.332 Stillingf p. 11. only to those errors that are against some essential part of the Gospel or some Fundamental Article of Faith or such as is plainly revealed by God with a command that all should believe it †Chill p. 332. §. 12. or is absolutely necessary to the Salvation of a Christian and essential to the being of a Church § 52 Which Fundamentals or necessaries they will not allow to extend so far as to all the Articles contained in some of the Creeds ‖ See before § 41. n. 2. and some fetter them with so many conditions of an universal attestation from the Church of all times as that scarce any former universally accounted Heresie can be found to oppose a Divine Truth that is in every circumstance so qualified viz. such conditions as these ‖ See Still p. 57. That all Catholick writers agree in such a Doctrine and none of them opppose it and agree in the necessity of it also to all Christians and that no later Writers and Fathers in heats of contention and opposition of Hereticks judge it then an Article more necessary than it was judged before That all Writers that give an account of the Faith of Christians deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced that it is divine Revelation but as necessary also to be by all explicitly believed That what all these Writers consent in be also undoubtedly the consent of the Church of those ages wherein they write Lastly that it be made appear to be universally embraced at all times and all places by the Members of the Catholick Church and the opposers thereof to have been presently disowned as any Members of it Somewhat a like Caution Bishop Taylor hath put in the beginning of his Disswasive ‖ c. 1. §. 1. p. 7. to secure Protestants from receiving any detriment to their cause from the Fathers and Antiquity where after he hath first collected That the Roman Tenents were not believed or practised in the three first ages because the Writers of those ages few and compendious are silent therein which is a faulty Negative arguing though the antecedent were granted for true and then thus prejudice't the fourth age i.e. the time of Athanasius Basil the three Gregories Chrysostom Jerome Ambrose Austine the first General Councils and the first free exercise of Religion and copious Records thereof prejudiced it I say and the ages succeeding That in those times secular interests did more prevail and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper opinions and such variety of Sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively After such prejudices I say he adds that it is impossible for those of the Roman Church to conclude from the sayings of a number of the Fathers that their Doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church Because saith he any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent and the
time and 3 persons Yet 1 doth he so expound this universal Testimony ‖ See ib. n. 2.8.10 as to signifie only the consent of the most in most places in all or most times For else saith he †§. 5. n. 2. there would be no Hereticks at any time in the World Viz. If those only should be held such necessary Articles of our saith which all none excepted in all times do hold And again 2 he makes use of the Churches Councils for convincing Heresies against this faith Viz. of the four 1st General Councils saying That all the parts of this faith are compleatly comprehended in the Scriptures as explained by the Writers of the three first ages and definitions of the â—our first Councils so that in sum he who imbraceth all the Traditional Doctrines proposed by them embraceth all the necessary faith thus universally delivered which cannot come to the fifth age c. but through the fourth and third and so can be no Heretick See 7. § 6 7 8. n. His words there n. 7. are Of the Scriptures of the Creed and of those four Councils as the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition I suppose it very regular to affirm that the intire Body of the Catholick Faith is to be established and all Heresies convinced or else that there is no just reason that any Doctrine should be condemned as such And see what is cited out of him concerning these Councils before § 19. and of Heresie § 14. n. 10. But here since he admits Councils for convincing Heresie why rests he in the four first and why admits he not all Councils in whatever age that are of equal authority for the same discovery since many new errors against tradicive Faith may arise after the four first and the Church's later Councils accordingly may testifie and declare the same Faith as occasions are administred against them If it be said that what is traditive in any latter age wherein some later Council is held was so in the third or fourth and so all Heresie is sufficiently convinced by those ages then so were the Definitions of the four first Councils traditive in the first second or third age And therefore what need hath Dr. Hammond to add for conviction of Heresie these four first Councils which were held after the three first Centuries The sum is For convincing Heresie either the testification of all lawful General Councils is authentical or not that of the four first But if the Doctor allow all lawful General Councils to be so as something seems said by him to this purpose Here 's § 14. n. 1.2 Catholicks are at accord with him herein concerning the Nature and Trial of Heresie and the dispute only remains whether any of those Councils that have heretofore defined or testified any such Point of Faith traditive which is opposed by Protestants be such a lawful General Council Concerning which see in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. § 50. n. 2. § 57. c. Thus Dr. Hammond restraining conviction of all Heresie within the time of the first Councils But Bishop Branhall ‖ In Reply to Bp. Chalced. c. 2. p. 102. seems to be yet more free 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 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 Council's definition And in vindication of the Church of England p. 26. When inferiour Questions not Fundamental are once defined by a lawful General Council all Christians though they cannot assent in their judgements are obliged to passive obedience to possess their souls in Patience And they who shall oppose the authority and disturbe the peace of the Church deserve to be punished as Hereticks Here though the Bishop makes not the opposers of the Councills definition for the reason of opposing it Hereticks because he holds that no error but that which some way overthrowes a fundamental Truth can be Heretical and though in his holding that Councils may not prescribe what things are fundamental nor oblige any to assent to their judgment in what they do define further than their reasons convince them He as the rest leaves Hereticks undiscoverable yet he grants that all are to submit for non-contradiction to the determinations of L. G. Councils even in all inferiour points not fundamental and that the opposers deserve to be punished as Hereticks which if observed by Protestants would sufficiently keep the Churches peace and then concerning the past definitions of such Councils see what is argued with him in 1 Disc § 36. n. 3. c. This for Heresie § 55 12ly For Schism Neither do they enlarge it so far as Catholicks That any separation upon what cause soever from the external Communion of all particular former Churches or of our lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors or of the whole Church Catholick is schism but restrain it to a separation culpable or causless ‖ Chillingw p. 271. holding that some separation from them may not be so § 56 But they leave us here again in uncertainty between these Superiors and Inferiors which of them shall judge when such separation is causeless when otherwise and so uncertain of Schism or also they affirm that the Inferiors are to judge when their Superiors require unjust things as conditions of their Communion and so when a separation from them is lawful or culpable Of which thus Mr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 292. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing certain conditions of Communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And the same thing may thus be produced from other Protestant-Tenents For they hold that the whole Church is infallible only in absolute Necessaries or Fundamentals errable in other matters of faith that its Governors collected in their supâ—emest Councils may also enjoyne such errors as conditions of their Communion that these errors at least some of them may be certainly and demonstratively discernable by Inferiors and these complained of and not amended by Superiors that they may lawfully separate in the sence explained before § 20. from such Communion wherein these are imposed Here therefore inferiors judge when the separation is just when causless and upon this account surely no separation will ever be I do not say Schism but discovered to be Schism if the separatist is to Judge when it is so But if the Superiors are to Judge when a separation from them and from their definitions imposed is culpable or causeless it will either be always judged such which is the Catholicks Doctrine or such a granted-granted-just cause will be removed by these Superiours and so there will be no separation at all This concerning some Protestants restraining Schism to culpable or causeless separation §
supernatural verities which God hath revealed in Christ his Son 2 ly The use of such holy Ceremonies and Sacraments as he hath instituted and appointed 3 ly An Vnion or connexion of men in this Profession and use of these Sacraments under lawful Pastors and Guides appointed authorized and sanctified to direct and lead them in the happy ways of eternal Salvation A particular person or Church therefore having the two first properties yet failing in the last a due union and connexion with the whole under its lawful Superiors of which see 2 Disc § 24. wants something necessary to the Being of a Member of the Catholick Church And see also l. 1. c. 13. where he denies Schismaticks to be of the Church i. e. Catholick because Though they retain an entire profession of the truth of God as did saith he the Luciserians and some others in the beginning of their Schism yet they break the Unity of the Church and refuse to submit themselves and yeild obedience to their lawful Pastors and Guides and their Communion and conjunction with the rest of Gods people is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have fellowship Thus Dr. Field and much what the same you may find in Dr. Ferne ‖ The Case between two Churches p. 48. quoted before in 2 Disc § 24. who on this account makes Presbyterians Schismaticks Next see Dr. Hammands Treatise of Schism where he makes * that Vnity of the Catholick Church of which Schism is a breach to consist In the preserving all those Relations wherein each Member is concernd one towards another amongst which is that of subordination the Vnity whereof consists in a constant due subjection and obedience of all inferiors to all their Superiors c. ‖ C. 3. §. 3. and * the denying this obedience in any particular lawful command of these Superiors or the casting off all obedience together dethroning them c. to be Schism ‖ C. 3. §. 9. But this lawful command and so Schism in disobeying it may be in no Fundamental point Lastly thus Bishop Branhall ‖ Reply to Chalced p. 8. That all Schism is about Essentials of Religion is a strange paradox Many Schisms have arisen in the Church about Rites and Ceremonies about precedency about Jurisdiction about Rights and Liberties of particular Churches about matters of fact Obstinacy in a small matter is enough to make a Schisme From all these I think it is clear that a separation from the Communion of the Church Catholick or our lawful Superiours for any thing true or lawfull the practice or belief of which is injoyned by her as a condition of her Communion though this be not in Fundamentals is Schisme and inconsistent with being a true member of the Catholick Church learned Protestants consenting And then to learn in matters controverted and doubtful what is true and what is lawful we know to whose judgment Inferiours and Subjects are directed to repair and if they will sit in Moses's chair themselves and judge it and happen to mistake I leave them to read their doom in D. Hammonds c. 2. of Schisme § 8. Now which way soever they turn sure to Sin remaining in Errour and Schisme on the one side if they desert upon this judgment the Churches Communion and by flying from that advancing to lying and Hypocrisy on the other side i. e. if they externally profess contrary to their persuasion This from § 75. concerning some Protestants restraining Schisme to a departure in the Essentials of Religion § 61 But the same persons though they contract Schisme thus in the case of Inferiours yet in another way they enlarge it where Catholicks do not admit it namely to the Church Governours themselves Affirming 1 st ' That they even in the supremest Body of them Lawful General Councills may err in non-fundamentalls and impose unjust conditions of their Communion followed with an Excommunication of non-conformists And 2 ly That so often as they do so they in giving such just cause of separation incurr the guilt of Schisme ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 and thereby do become divided themselves from the Communion of the Catholick Church from which they would divide others †Stillingfleet P. 356. c. 359. For instance should a General Council consisting both of the Eastern and Western Churches and Generally accepted § 62 before the times of Luther require assent to a Substantial Conversion in the Eucharist to the lawfulness of St. invocation to the Sacrifice of the Mass c. as they must grant that if both these Churches did not yet possibly they might because Protestants say 1 That the whole may err in non-fundamentals and 2 That these points are such they affirme That thus the Governours of the whole Christian world would become Schismatical and no longer members of the Church Catholick Mr. Stillingfleets words to this purpose are these ‖ p. 356. ' Suppose any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such errours in doctrine and corruptions in practise which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to i. e. when the errours and corruptions are such as are dangerous to Salvation that Church becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disowne such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inclosing as returne to the Communion of the primitive and universal Church And p. 359. he saith Whatever Church makes such extrinsecall opposed so essentiall things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out-of the Church who yeild not to them thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church and the separation from it is so far from being Schisme that being cast out of the Church on those termes only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church and p. 617. he saith That he cannot possibly discerne any difference between the Judgment of the Catholicks concerning the Donatists which Catholicks pronounced them Schismaticks and no members of the Church Catholicks And of the Protestants concerning the Church of Rome Thus he But here 1 st from this assertion that that Church which requires unjust things as conditions of her Communion doth hereupon divide her self and so becomes divided from the Church Catholick and again that those are unjust conditions of Communion which Protestants have stiled to be so It followes 1 st That since de facto the present Eastern and Greek as well as Western and Roman-Churches do require as conditions of their Communion and even in their publick Lyturgies several things which Protestants call unjust therefore the Eastern as well as Western according to their thesis must stand divided from the Church Catholick and therfore now only the Reformed are that Church Catholick the perpetual existence of which
manentibus in hunc diem vestigiis semper ubique perseveranter essent tradita Videbam ea manere in illâ Ecclesiâ quae Romanae connectitur Lastly we find it a Body generally professing against any Reformation of the Doctrines of the former Church-Catholick of any age whatsoever and claiming no priviledge of Infallibility to it self for the present which it allows not also to the Church in all former times This is the general Character of one Combination of the Churches in present being The other present Combination of Churches in the Western World §. 76. The Face of the present Protestant Church we find to be a Body of much different Constitution and Complection * Much of its Doctrin Publick Service and Discipline confessed varying from the times immediately preceding It consisting of those who acknowledg themselves or their Ancestors once members of the former and that have as they say upon an unjust submission required of them yet this no more than their forefathers paid departed from it * This new Church only one person at the first afterward growing to a number and protected against the Spiritual by a secular power and so we find it subsisting and acting at this day under many several Secular Heads Independent of one another without whose consent and approbation first obtained what if such head should be an Heretick It stands obliged not at any time to make or promulgate and enforce upon its Subjects any definitions or decrees what ever in Spiritual matters ‖ See 25. Hent 8. c. 19. As to its Ecclesiastical Governours we find it taking away the higher subordinations therein that were formerly and affirming an Independent Coordination as to incurring guilt of Schism some of all Primates others of all Bishops very prejudical to the Vnity of Faith We find it standing also disunited from St. Peters Chair yet this a much smaller Body still than that which is joyned thereto and therefore in a General Council supposing all the members thereof to continue in and to deliver there their present judgments touching points in dispute such as must needs be out voted by the other and hence by the Laws of Councills in duty obliged to submit and conform to it Neither seems there any relief to this party to be expected from the accession to their side of any votes from the Churches more remote I mean the Greek or other Eastern Churches if we will suppose these also to persist in their present judgment whose Doctrine in the chief controversies is shewed ‖ §. 158. c. to conspire yet without any late consederacy with that of this greater Body which these reformed Churches have deserted § 77 We find also this new Combination of Churches in stead of pretending to assume to it self Whatsoever de facto it doth of which see more in the following Chap. § 83. c. in its Synods the same authority in stating matters of Faith which the ancient Councills have used 1. zealously contending that Councills are fallible in their determinations for so it supports the priviledg of using its own judgment against superiour Synods 2. and accordingly teaching its Subjects that it self also is fallible in what it proposeth 3 and engaging them that they may not be deceaved by its authority upon triall of its Doctrines and search of the Truth and examining with the judgment of discretion every one for him self and then relying finally on that sentence which their own reason gives 4. allowing also their dissent to what it teacheth till it proves to them its Doctrine out of the Scripture or at least when ever they are perswaded that themselves from thence can evidence the contrary Therefore it is also more sparing or pretends to be so of which see more below § 85. c. in the articles of its faith and Religion especially positive many of its Divines holding an union of Faith requisite only in some necessaries and then contracting necessaries again in a narrower compass than the Creeds and because it allows of no judge sufficient to clear what is to be held in controversies ‖ See 2. Disc §. 38. therefore holding most controversies in Religion not necessary at all to be determined and much recommending an Union of Charity there where cannot be had an Vnion of Belief We find them also restraining Heresy to points fundamental and then leaving fundamentals uncertain and varying as to several persons fewer points fundamental to some more to others and this no way knowable by the Church Again making Schism only such a departure from the Church as is causeless and then this thing when causeless to be judged for any thing that appears by those who depart by such notions leaving Hereticks and Schismaticks undiscernable by the Catholick Church and unseparable from it and therefore many seeming to understand the One Holy Catholick Apostolick Church in the Creed to signifie nothing else than the totall complex of all Churches whatever professing Christianity unless those persons be shut out who by imposing some restraint of opinion for enjoying their Communion are said to give just cause of a separation Accordingly we find this Body spreading its lap wide to several Sects by which it acquires the more considerable magnitude and receiving or tolerating in its communion many opposite parties of very different Principles and hence as it grows elder so daily branching more and more into diversity of Opinions and multiplying into more and more subdivisions of Sects being destitute of any cure thereof both by its necessary indulgement of that called Christian liberty and allowance of private judgment and also by the absolute Independency one on another of so many several supream Governours both the Secular and the Ecclesiastical who model and order diversly the several parts thereof As the other Church in her growing elder grows more and more particular in her Faith and with new definitions and Canons fenceth it round about according as new errors would break in upon it Further we find several amongst its Leaders much offended §. 78. n. 1. that Church-Tradition should be brought in together with Scripture as an authentick witness or Arbitrator in trying Controversies See the Protestants Conditions proposed to the Council of Trent ‖ Soave p. 642-344 366 that the Holy Scripture might be Judge in the Council and all humane authority excluded or admitted with a condition Fundantes se in S. Scripturis taking great pains to * discover the errors of the Fathers and their contradicting of one another See Daille's vray usage de Peres and * to shew several of the works imputed to them and admitted by R. Catholicks supposititious and forged See Cooks and Perkins and Rivets Censures Taking no less pains to shew the non necessity of Councils in General to number the many difficulties how to be assured which of them are legal and obliging what their Decrees and what the sence of them to discover the flaws deficiencies in
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 Gods 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 shall appear that you have for this opinion deserted the Communion of the Catholick Church out of which Church is no Salvation Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 75. I grant there neither is nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself therefore I utterly deny that our Churches have made any separation from the Church Catholick at all and this for many reasons For 1st †Chillingw p. 274. We have not forsaken the whole Church or the external Communion of it but only that part of it which is corrupted and still will be so and have not forsaken but onely reformed another part of it which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore we separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves Prot. So then it seemes wee need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick tilla part can divide from it self which can never be § 29 Soc. Next As for our separating from all other particular Churches the ground of our Separation being an error which hath crept into the Communion of these Churches and which is unjustly imposed upon us in order to this Communion we conceive in this case if any They not We are the Schismaticks for as the Arch. Bp. †Lawd p. 142. The Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the separation who gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause preceding § 30 Again Though we have made an actual Separation from them as to the not-conforming to or also as to the reforming of an error yet 1st As to Charity we do still retain with the same Churches our former Communion †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 105. and 31 32. Not dividing from them through the breach of Charity Or condemning all other Churches as no parts of the Catholick Church and drawing the Communion wholy to our selves as did those famous Schismaticks the Donatists § 31 Next as to matter of Faith We hold that all separation from all particular Churches in such a thing wherein the unity of the Catholick Church doth not consist is no separation from the whole Church nor any more than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches till such their error is reformed For as Mr. Stillingf †p. 331. There can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies Whos 's therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being is onely separated from the Communion of that Church and not the Catholick Now that for which we have separated from other Churches we conceive not such as is essential or concernes the being of a Church so that without it we or they cannot still retaâ—n the essence thereof we declare also our readiness to joyn with them again if this error be corrected or at least not imposed And †Stilling Ib. as Mr. Stillingf faith Where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but onely suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed or not prâ—ssed upon us And as Bp. Bramhall †Vindic. of the Church of England p. 9. When one part of the universal Church separateth it self from another part not absolutely or in essentials but respectively in abuses and innovations not as it is a part of the universal Church but onely so far as it is corrupted and degenerated whether in doctrine or manners it doth still retain a Communion not onely with the Catholick Church and with all the Orthodox members of the Catholick Church but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated except onely in such Corruptions § 32 Prot. Saving better Judgments methinks a separation if causeless from the Communion of all other Churches or from those who are our Superiours in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential point of Christianity as destroyes the being of a Church should be Schism and the smaller the point for which we separate the greater the guilt of our separation Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in rejecting the Catholick Communion requiring their conformity in such a point in which St. Cyprian's error before the Churches definâ—ng thereof was very excusable and the Affrican Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby Soc. †Dr. Potter p. 76. But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated which is the property of Schismaticks And †Stillingf p. 359. Division of Churches p. 106. They were justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds But as Dr. Ferne saith †Had the Donatists only used their liberty and judgment in that practise of rebaptizing Hereticks leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks without baptising them yet willing to have Communion with them as parts of the Catholick Church saving the practices wherein they differed then had they not been guilty of Schism In that which I hold I only follow my conscience condemn not the Churches holding otherwise On the other side †Chillingw p. 278. Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to profess what I believe not be it small or great and consequently under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave that Communion in which I cannot remain wothout the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing which I am convinced to be eroneous †Ib. 279. At least this I know that the Doctrine which I have chosen to me seemes true and the contrary which I have forsaken seemes false and therefore without remorse of conscience I may profess that but this I cannot and a separation for preserving my conscience I hope will never be judged causeless § 33 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick but he who knowes he erreth i. e. not who holdeth but only who professeth an error or who knows that the point for the non-conformity to which required of him he deserts the Church is a Truth and the contrary which he maintaines an error But Dr. Hammond †Of Schism p. 23. 24. 25. tells you That he that doth communinate with those I suppose he means
at the comming of Luther § 36. 7. They affirm That though the Church Catholick cannot yet General Councils such as are not universally accepted by the Church diffusive may err in absolute necessaries to Salvation and that the Councils also universally accepted may err in non-fundamentals or non-necessaries § 34. 8. Yet that they allow all such Councils as are generally accepted by the Church diffusive to be either lawfully General or equivalent thereto and also to be infallible in necessaries § 35. Where That necessaries in their sence restrained only to a very few points of the Faith and universal acceptation extended to all sects of Christians do free them from any obligation to all or most Councils formerly held in the Church § 36. 9. And that they grant an obedience due to the Definitions and Decrees of such Councels from all inferior persons or Churches § 38. 10. But this obedience not necessarily that of assent to their decrees unless such decrees be in and known to be in necessaries but only of silence and non-publick contradiction § 39. Where Concerning the quality of the obedience that is yeilded by the Church of England to the decrees of the first General Councils § 40. 11. Nor this silence or non-contradiction generally due to all the decrees of such Councils but only to such decrees wherein the error of the Council is not manifest or intolerable § 43. Nor this breach of silence or contradiction of such decrees allowed only so far as to make complaint to Superiors who not allowing their complaint they are to acquiesce but allowed so far as that they may proceed upon the Superiors by them-conceived neglect of a redress to a reformation § 44. 12. And the Judgment when such errors are manifest and intolerable and to be reformed left to every particular person or Church for themselves § 47. Chap. 5. 13. Accordingly they declare and confine Heresie to be an error obstinately maintained not against some Church-Definition but some fundamental Article of the Faith without allowing any certain Judge what or how many Articles are fundamental and so what is Heresie § 51. 14. Concerning Schism 1st In respect of inferiors they declare it to be not any separation whatever but a separation causless § 55. or also as some more straiten it a separation in essentials § 57. from the Communion of other Churches or of the Church Catholick here again without leaving us any certain Judge what points are essentials or when the separation causless and consequently when Schism unless perhaps the separatist be this Judge 2. Again In respect of Superiors they enlarge Schism and declare them also guilty of it so often as by requiring unjust conditions of their Communion from Inferiors they give the cause of separation whereby the chief and governing Body of the Clergy of the whole Catholick Church at Luthers appearance seems by them charged with Schism and that from the Catholick Church § 61. Whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors when departing from no other their Superiors can become in respect of their subjects guilty of Schism § 63. n. 1. Chap. 6. A Reflection on the former different Theses of these two parties concerning Church-authority and the obedience due thereto § 64. And A Review of the two present opposite Churches which of them most resembles the ancient Catholick Church § 67. The face * of the ancient Catholick Church Ib. * Of the present Roman Church § 72. * Of the present Protestant Churches § 76. An Enquiry Chap. 7. Whether the Church of England doth not require obedience of Assent or Belief to her Articles of Religion Several Canons in her Synonds seeming to require it § 83. n. 1 The complaint of the Presbyterians conc it § 83. n. 4. The Doctrin of her Divines conc it § 84. n. 1. Where Conc. the just importance of Negative Articles § 84. n. 1. and 85. n. 2. And Conc. conditional assent § 84. n. 4. and 85. n. 10. That to some of the 39 Articles assent is due and ought to be required by the Church of England from her subjects § 85. n. 1. That the Roman Church doth not require assent to all the Canons of her Councils as to points Fundamental i. e. of any of which a Christian nescient cannot be saved § 85. n. 4. That the requiring of obedience either of Assent or Non-contradiction by the Church of England to all the 39 Articles seems contrary to the laws of the Church and to the Protestant Principles § 85. n. 11. Chap. 8. Solutions of several Protestant Questions concerning the Supreme Ecclesiastical Guide or Judge of Controversies § 86. 1. Q. From what we can be assured That Councils are infallible since neither the Texts of Scripture the sence whereof is disputed nor the decree of any Council whose erring is the thing questioned can give such assurance Ib. 2. Q. Whence General Councils have their infallibility such promise if made being made only to the Church diffusive and not delegable by this Church to others or if so no such delegation from the universal Church appearing before hand to have been made to all or any General Council § 91. 3. Q. How the infallibility of General Councils is necessary or serviceable to the Church without which Councils the Church subsisted for several ages most Orthodox § 98. 4. Q. How lawful General Councils which experience hath shewed to have contradicted one another can be all infallible § 100. 5. Q. Lawfull General Councils being supposed to be liable to error in some things How Christians can be assured concerning any particular point that these Councils do not err § 101. 6. Q. Whilst such Councils are supposed infallible How if they should not be so can any error of theirs be rectified § 102. 7. Q. Whether such Councils only when confirmed by the Pope or also unconfirmed by him be infallible § 104. 8. Q. How the Popes confirmation can any way concur to such Council's non-erring since if It erred it doth so still though he approve it if orthodox it is so still he not approving it § 105. 9. Q. In which the Pope or the Council this infallibility lies if in one of them the other needless If in both then either of them sufficient such qualities being where they are indivisible and without integral parts § 106. Chap. 9. 10. Q. If general Councils infallible whether they are so in their conclusions only which will infer Enthusiasm or new Revelation or also in their premises and proofs upon which assent will be due also to all their arguments § 107. 11. Q. Why being infallible in their Conclusions or Definitions They do not end all Controversies but leave so many unresolved § 108. 12. Q. How such infallibility of theirs differs from that of the Apostles and that of their decrees from that of Scripture § 109. 13. Q. How many persons or guides all fallible can make one infallible § 112. 14. Q. Supposing all lawful General Councils
Church we believe in our Creed 2 ly Since both these Eastern and Western required the very same conditions of Communion as they do now before Luthers dayes it followes that then they were also no less than now Schismaticall and so falne from Catholick for this that all people that are their Subjects conform to such conditions or some not conform alters not their guilt who then imposed such things or if it do it seems then the greater when all do conform and are misled by them and upon this again it followes that there was then the Protestant Church not yet born no Catholick Church at all contrary to the Articles of our Creed the whole being involved in Schisme if all then conformed Of which conformity the Arch-bishop saith ‖ p. 296.297 and Mr. Stillingfleet the same ‖ p. 618 That he that believes as that Church believed speaking of the Roman and so may all those be presumed to believe that live in the Roman Church with a resolution to live and die in it is guilty more or less of the Schisme which that Church first caused by her corruptions and now continues by them and her power together and of all other damnable opinions too in point of misbelief and of all other sins also which the doctrine and misbelief of that Church leads him into And afterward That he who lives in a Shismatical Church and communicates with it in the Schisme and in all the Superstitions and Corruptions which that Church teacheth nay lives and dyes in them if he be of capacity enough and understand it he must needs be a formal Schismatick or an involved one if he understand it not Thus he Or if some then did not conforme to what these Guides required yet it followes at least that there were then no known Ecclesiasticall Governours and leaders no Bishops in or of that Church Catholick that then was for we know of none such that in the age before Luther opposed such a conformity and that it was made up of Laicks and Inferiours i. e. made up only of some Sheep that were departed and strangled from their sheepheards or rather the sheepheards from them absurdities that need be no further aggravated But 2 ly to what is said It is answered 1. That neither can the supreme Guides of the Church Catholick in an approved Council at any time require unjust conditions of their Communion of which see before § 21. §. 63. n. 2. And what St. Austin ‖ Epist 118. saith of general Church practices is as or more true of her doctrines Si quid horum per orbem frequent at or cred it Ecclesia hoc quin it a faciendum or credendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est 2. Nor though this should be granted and also that they excommunicate those that refuse to conforme can they thereby become guilty of Schism For 1 Schisme I mean such as separates and divides from the Catholick Church can never be of a much major and more dignified part in respect of a less and Inferiour subject to it i. e. the main body be a Schismatick from some single member thereof for this main body in any division is rightly taken for that whole see 2 d. Disc § 25. from which a separation is Schisme and to which every member ought to adhere as to the body and the head here upon earth to which it belongs The sin of Schisme I say is of a member departing from the Body not of the Body separating from a member or separating a member from it to which each member ought to conforme otherwise a division in the Church indeed may be seen but on what side the crime of Schisme is cannot by any certain Index of it be known And St. Austin's ‖ De unitat Ecclae c. 4. mark of Schismaticks Quorum communio non est cum toto sed in aliquâ parte separatâ will be fallacious and nothing worth Meanewhile it is not here denyed that the dividing of one or several Superiours from an Inferiour part if it be for any thing wherein such part not they doth agree with the whole may be Schisme but then that which makes this Schisme is the departure of such Superiours from their Superiours or from the whole with which this part coheres and when any Superiour makes any such division from his Subjects he is no longer their lawfull Suâ—eriour but that larger body and those Superiours of his to which his Subjects are joyned and from which he divided 2 Again since Schisme is alwaies a relinquishing of and departure from the external and visible Communion of the Church these Governours cannot be said to depart from that Communion which they still retaine in the same manner as formerly and which is the only visible Communion of the Church at the time of such excommunication External members of the Church therefore they still remaine and so no Schismaticks though all the same persons or many of them by some other mortall sin may be at the same time no internal members of it 3. And as they cannot be rightly called Schismaticks or persons divided from the Church-Catholick §. 63. n. 3. So neither can such Superiours by imposing some error on mens belief or by inflicting an unjust Excommunication be therefore said to be the cause of a Schism or an actual separation in others as they are often charged ‖ Ap. Laud P. 133.142 unless to be excommunicated be such for the Church concurs to no other separation If any so Excommunicated doth not quietly submit thereto and acquiesce therein with patience but proceed so much further as to set up or joyn himself with a Communion diverse from that of the former Church which he is expelled from or presumeth to exercise out of the Church those Ecclesiastical Functions which she hath though wrongfully suspended here indeed begins a faulty separation and a Schisme but by the fault of the excommunicated not of the Church that unjustly Excommunicates him but doth not thereby necessitate him to any such further removal or discession from it Had he rested in the place where the Church left him the Church had been faulty indeed he innocent but on no hand a Schisme and if he will not stay here but set up an Anti-communion and fall on acting against the Church that expelled him here he cannot defend the doing a wrong because he hath suffered one or justly disburden on the Church that fault of his to which no fault of theirs necessitated him Saepe sinit divina providentia saith St. Austin ‖ De verâ Religione c. 6. expelli de congregatione Christianâ etiam bonos viros Quam contumeliam vel injuriam suam cum patientissime pro Ecclesiae pace tulerint neque ullas novitates vel Shismatis vel Haeresis moliti fuerint docebunt homines quantâ sinceritate charitatis Deo serviendum sit c. Neque ullas novitates vel Schismatis Therefore
superiors the condition of whose Communion containes nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrine so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remaines in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church 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 destroyes 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 assigne no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Mr. 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 Churches judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Churches definition 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 Churches judgment or in his own if in the Churches 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 †Stillingf 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 Consubstantialiity so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judg such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judg 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 opposit 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 injoy 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 disturbe their peace and I take my selfe also on these termes 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 decrees do not require of their Subjects to yeeld any internal assent to their doctrines or to profess any thing against their conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that tyranny upon any for injoying 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. 100. Whom did our Convocations 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 Mr. 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
being just that either of these should be the Judge therefore that the Divines on one part and on the other arguing for their own Tenents there might be Judges i. e. Laicks indifferently chosen on both sides that is in an equal number to take knowledge of the Controversies And see Mr. Stillingfleet motioning some such thing p. 479. And this indeed was the only way they had in referring themselves to judgment not to be cast if the Judges of their own side at least would be true to them But to let these things pass As to a due proportion of National Votes this Council of Trent is not to be thought deficient therein whilst those Nations who by their own if by any ones fault had fewer Votes in the Council in passing the Decrees yet were as plenary and numerous as the rest in the acceptation of them after it And were now anew these things put to an equal Vote of the Western Nations I see not from what the Protestants may reasonably expect supposing the greatest liberty in these Votes that is possible an issue diverse from the former For have they any new thing to propose in their Orations and Speeches before such a Meeting that they have not already said in their Writings And notwithstanding are not the major part of the Occidental Clergy and the Learned that peruse them of a different judgment And why should not the others have as great presumptions upon an equal hearing to pcevail for reducing some of the Protestant party by Scriptures explicated by Apostolical Tradition Councils and Fathers as the Protestants of gaining some of the others by Scriptures alone Or if any will say that ancient Tradition Councils or Fathers are on the Protestant side how comes this to be one of their Articles proposed to the Council that all Humane Authority being excluded the Holy Scriptures might be judge in the Council And the Trent safe-Conauct running thus Quod causae controversae secundum Sanctam Scripturam Apostolorum Traditiones probata Concilia Sanctorum Patrum Authoritates Catholicae Ecclesiae Consensum tractentur VVhy desired they a freer Safe conduct after the form of that of Basil to the Bohemians Which if it had been granted saith Soave ‖ p. 344. they had obtained one great point that is that the Controversies should be decided by the Holy Scripture This from § 36. n. 1. I have said occasionally to Bishop Bramhal's so frequent free offers of Submission to the judgment of the present Catholick Church or of free General or also Occidental Councils § 37 Next come we to Arch-Bishop Lawd He § 31. p. 318. affirms That Of Archbish Lawd the Visible Church hath in all Ages taught that unchanged Faith of Christ in all points Fundamental Doctor White saith he had reason to say this And § 21. p. 140. It is not possible the Catholick Church i. e. of any one Age should teach He speaks therefore of the Governors of it in such Age against the Word of God in things absolutely necessary to Salvation And § 25. n. 4. If we speak of plain and easie Scripture the whole Church cannot at any time be without the knowledge of it If A. C. means no more than that the whole universal Church of Christ cannot universally erre in any one point of Faith simply necessary to all mens Salvation he fights against no Adversary that I know but his own fiction For the most learned Protestants grant it VVhere he speaks of the Church as teaching such points as appeareth by the Context Ibid. p. 139. Because the whole Church cannot universally erre in absolutely fundamental Doctrines therefore 't is true also that there can be no just cause of making a Schism from the whole Church That she may err indeed in Superstructions and Deductions and other by-and unnecessary Truths from her Curiosity or other weakness But if she can err either by falling away from the foundation i. e. by Infidelity or by heretical Errour in it she can be no longer holy for no Assemblies of Hereticks can be holy and so that Article of the Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church is gone Now this Holiness saith he Errors of a meaner allay take not away from the Church Likewise § 33. n. 4. p. 256. the same Archbishop saith yet more clearly That the whole Catholick Church Militant having an absolute Infallibility in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation if any thing sway and wrench the General Council he must mean here in non-necessaries such Council as is not universally accepted for a General Council universally accepted by the Church Catholick is unerrable in necessaries because the Church Catholick he saith is so upon evidence found in express Scripture or demonstration of this miscarriage hath power to represent her self in another body or General Council and to take order for what is amiss either practised or concluded in the former and to define against it p. 257. And afterward p. 258. That thus though the Mother-Church Provincial or National may err yet if the Grandmother the whole Universal Church He means in a general Council universally accepted cannot err in these necessary things all remains safe and all occasions of disobedience taken from the possibility of the Church's erring are quite taken away Again § 38. n. 14. he saith That a General Council de post facto after it is ended and admitted by the whole Church is then infallible And for this admittance or confirmation of it by the Church he granteth ‖ §. 26. p. 165. That no confirmation is needful to a General Council lawfully called and so proceeding but only that after it is ended the whole Church admit it though never so tacitly The sum of all in brief is this 1st That a General Council or indeed any Council whatever less than General accepted or admitted by the whole Church is infallible in Necessaries the reason is plain because he holds the whole Church is so 2ly Consequently that Obedience and this of Assent is due to such Council or to the judgment of the Church Catholick that is delivered by this Council as to necessaries Of Assent I say to it because infallible 3ly That all are to acquiesce none presume to urge or credit any pretence of Scripture or Demonstration against such a judgment because infallible 4ly That it is Schism to depart from the judgment of such a Council because the Archbishop holds all departure of any Member from the whole Church Catholick to be so ‖ §. 21. p. 139. § 38 Now thus much being professed by the Archbishop if he will also allow the Church Reply Where or her Councils and not private men to judge what Definitions are made in matters necessary and 2ly will grant an acceptation of such Council by a much major part of the Church Catholick diffusive I mean Concerning what acceptation of Councils by the Church diffusive is only necessary of those
is so great and considerable as to invalidate the ratification of the rest when not Nor see I how it can be reasonably defided yet a thing of greatest consequence unless herein the minor will be content to follow the judgment of the much major part concerning what Councils stand thus admitted or rejected which rule were it observed then both in a valid acceptance of the Councils held in the Western Church in latter ages Protestants will be cast and by the determinations of those Councils several of their Disputes ended Mean while upon these and other pretences so it is that of 16. Councils or thereabouts reckoned up by the Cardinal ‖ De Council l. 1. c 5. whose Decrees all the Western Churches wherein several of these Councils the most General that those times could afford were called for ending of some Controversies that both a rose in and troubled only the West of 16. Councils I say which the Western Parts generally accepted when Luther appeared and which all the rest of the Western Churches except these Reformers continue still to approve they allow none of them that have handled matters of Controversie wherein the present times are concerned after the four first or the 5 th and 6 th but then cutting off here the Canons made in Trullo even those wherein both East and West consented and so do allow none of any note that have been held in the Church for near this 1000 years there being none of the more famous of them and the acts whereof are exstant wherein something hath not been passed that is contrary to the present Protestant Tenents ‖ See 1 Disc §. 50. n. 2. § 38 9ly To the Decrees of these General Council also when universally acknowledged such which yet when so they say may err in non necessaries they grant indeed an obedience due by all Inferiors Persons or Churches And consequently to those Decrees in which they hold such Councils unerrable i. e. in necessaries if all these necessaries were certainly distinguishable from all other points that are not so they must allow due an obedience of assent § 39 But 10ly They allow not absolutely This obedience of assent to their decrees ‖ Stillingf p. 506. but onely where inferiors see just cause of dissenting as sometimes they say they may since all these Councils are liable to error in non-fundamentals which also it is not known how far they do extend that of silence and non-publick contradiction § 40 The Church of England indeed professeth her Assent to the Definitions of the first four General Councils and Mr. Stillingfleet I know not on what Protestant ground saith ‖ P. 375. It is her duty to keep their Decrees and be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by them But you may observe that this assent is not yeilded to those Councils because lawfully general and so presumed to be assisted by our Lord in the right defining and delivery of all necessary Faith for they say lawful General Councils not universally accepted in their sence may err in Fundamentals and those Councils that are universally accepted may err in Non-fundamentals but because the matter defined by them the Church of England being for Her self judge hereof ought to be assented to as being agreeable to the Scriptures and the Assent * is not yeilded for the Authority defining as infallibly assisted in necessaries but for the seeming evidence of the thing defined or at least for the non-appearing evidence of the contrary * is not yeilded because that particular persons or Churches are to take that for the true sence of Scripture which these Councils may possibly give of it but because those Councils gave in their Definitions that sence of Scripture which such particular Persons or Churches judge the true so that the reason which they give for their Assent to these General Councils obligeth as much their Assent to them had they been Provincial And upon the same terms as one person or Church assents to these Councils because they judge their Decrees consonant to Gods Word another without withdrawing any due obedience may dissent who judgeth the contrary and the authority or decision laies on Christians no ground of obligation as to belief save the reasonableness or non-appearing unreasonableness of the Councils Doctrines and submission of judgement is held not lawfully yeilded by any to whom the contrary seems evident and by all others is to be only conditional viz. until the contrary shall appear evident To this purpose §. 41. n. 1. see the 21 Article of the Church of England General Councils may err wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they were taken out of holy Scripture See the Act of Parliament 1 Elizabethae c. 1. wherein the determing or adjudging any thing Heresie by any Council is thus limited If in such Council the same is declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scriptures The words are Provided that such persons c. shall not have authority to determine any matters to be Heresie but only such as heretofore have been determined ordered or adjudged to be Heresie by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first four General Councils or any of them or by any other General Councils wherein the same was declared Heresie by the Express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures And see in Soave p. 344. 366. the exceptions taken by Protestants at the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent for not adding to the authority of Councils and Fathers fundantesse veraciter in Scriptura as it run formerly in the safe-conduct of Basil That the Councils Fathers c. conformable to the Scripture should be Judges by which means the Protestants reserved this retreat when Councils appeared against them that yet they were not obliged by them because these Councils went also against the Scriptures See Dr. Fern Consid p. 19. To all the determinations of the Church we owe submission by Assent and belief conditional with reservation for evidence out of Gods Word and In matters of Faith saith he we cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of our judgement and belief or standing bound to receive for faith and worship all that they shall define and impose for such for such resignation gives to man what is due to God See Arch-bishop Laud p. 245. General Councils lawfully called c. cannot err keeping themselves to Gods Rule And p. 239. In all truth necessary to Salvation saith he I shall easily grant a General Council cannot err if suffering it self to be led by the Spirit of Truth in the Scripture and not taking upon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit See Dr. Field p. 666. It is not necessary for us 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 only But it sufficeth that we be ready expresly to believe it if it shall be made to appear unto us See Dr. Hammond of Heresie p. 96. ' It is hence manifest also what is the ground of that reverence that is by all sober Christians deemed due and paid to the first four General Councils Because 1st They set down and convinced the Truth of their Doctrine out of the Scripture 2ly Because they were so near the Apostles times when the sence of the Apostles might more easily be fetched from those Men and Churches to whom they had committed it Thus he though besides that the first of these Councils was almost at 300. years distance the reason of obedience to Church Governors given by Doctor Hammond elsewhere ‖ Of Fundamentals p. 903. viz. ' Because Christ speaks to us in those Governors as his immediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal office infers that the Churches authority in all ages is equally valid and so voids this reason He goes on 3dly Because the great Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity were the matter of their definitions yet he saith see Disc 1. § 6. that General Councils are no infallible Guide in Fundamentals and ‖ Of Heresy p. 115. that 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 See Mr. Chillingw p. 118. Dr. Potter §. 41. n. 2. together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an authority of determining Controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and universal Tradition and infallibility whilst they proceed according to this Rule And p. 200. 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 sence of some General Article 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 judgement 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 See Mr. Whitby p. 92. We do appeal to the four first General Councils not because we believe them infallible but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture which is infallible so that we make them secondary not primary Guides we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their authority but into their agreement with Scripture we do not say we must believe this or that because any one of the first four General Councils hath defined it but because what the Council hath defined is evident in Scripture therefore do we believe it And if we should finde that in any Article they dissented from Scripture we should in that as much oppose them as we do you and p. 451. I answer with Dr Taylor that either these Councils are tyed to the Rule of Gods Word or not if the first then are they to be examined by it and to be followed no further than they adhere to this vnerring rule examined He means by those persons whom yet these Councils are to teach the sence of Scripture and p. 15. We generally acknowledge that no authority on earth obligeth to internal Assent This the firm ground i. e. his own judgement what Conciliary Decrees agree or disagree with Scripture that this young man builds on for the confuting of Mr. Cressies book See Mr. Stillingfleet p. 58. 59 133 154 252. and 375.517 compared There he saith on one side p. 375. That the Church of England looks on it as her duty to keep to the Decrees of the four General Councils And We profess saith he to be guided by the sence of Scripture as interpreted by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the four first General Councils And p. 56. he saith That the Church of England admits not any thing to be delivered as the sence of Scripture which is contrary to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages Here he seems to acknowledge a submission of Protestants to the consent of the Catholick Church in the four first ages and to the four first General Councils as their Guide for what is the sence of Scripture which seems to me no way to consist with a profession of submitting to the same Church or her Councils only when or as far as they agree in their Decrees with the sence of Scripture which last implies that I learn the sence of Scripture not from them but another and assent to them where they conform to that judgement of which I learn it Ibid He hath these two Propositions 2 That it is a sufficient prescription against any thing that can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of the Scripture if it appears contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church from the beginning And this 2 That such Doctrines may well be judged destructive to the Rule of Faith which were so unanimously condemned by the Catholick Church within that time Where he allows not Christians to try and so assent to or dissent from the Decrees of Councils by what appears to them the sence of Scripture but refers them to learn the sence of Scripture from the Decrees of these first Councils But yet on the other side he contends how consistently I leave to the Readers judgement That the sence of the Catholick Church is not pretended to be any infallible Rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith And p. 17. concerning the necessity of believing the Articles of the Athanasian Creed he saith It is very unreasonable to imagine that the Chcurch of England doth own that necessity purely on the account of the Church's Definition of those things therein which are not Fundamental it being Directly contrary to her sence in her 19th and 20th Articles And that hence the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of this Creed must acccording to the sence of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear convictions that the things therein contained are of Divine Revelation And p. 133. He describes the Catholick Church a society of such persons who all
be such an evidence as proposed to any man and therefore to these Superiors and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent unto it And therefore hence one would think when these Superiors upon this proposal do not assent the complainer ought to presume his reasons tendred to them to be no demonstrations § 45 But next neither is this obedience of silence yeilded obligatory in such a case i. e. after that such complaint is made and that the Superiors declare they see no just cause for it nor reason demonstrative in it but they further maintain That a former General Council erring manifestly and intolerably i. e. in the imagination and setled fancy of such a particular person or Church and the present Superiors complained to neglecting to call or procure another General Council to reverse such error then an authority inferiour may oppose and publickly contradict such errors of a former General Council and an inferior Synod National or Provincial for themselves may rescind such Decrees and reform against them ‖ A p. Lawd p. 227. Mr. Still p. 534.479 For indeed this gap must necessarily be left open to let in Luthers reforming in the points mentioned § 26. against the Decrees of several former Councils that had found before in the Church a General acceptation for they maintain ‖ See before §. 34. also the whole Church liable to error in all such points as they think fit to call Non-necessaries and against the very publick Service of the whole Catholick Church which was in the Protestant computation at Luthers appearance of 900 years standing And if a National or Provincial Synod may claim such priviledge to reform against a former General Council I see no reason why much more a Province may not claim it against a National Synod a Diocesse against a Provincial a Presbyter against his Diocesan because these inferior Synods are still more liable to manifest intolerable errors And the Fundamental Reformation by Luther was the lowest of these the Reformation of a Presbyter against his Diocesan § 46 Lastly there remains yet one considerable more as to qualifying this licence of publick contradicting which as it seems most reasonable so if it were observed the Church's Unity and Peace would yet suffer by such contradictions or reformations no great diminution or damage Namely that those inferiours only who think they can evidence and demonstrate the errors of such Councils may claim the priviledge to speak and teach publickly against them or joyn with those that do so but yet that so many as do not pretend to have the like evidence or demonstrations against the Superior's Doctrine be instructed that they stand so long obliged in such case to relinquish the Inferior's and still to adhere and submit to the Svperior's judgement For Example The Bishop or a Provincial Council teaching one thing the Metropolitan or a General Council another that so many of such Diocess or Province as cannot demonstrate what the Bishop or Provincial Council maintain know that they are bound to continue their obedience still to the Metropolitan or General Council not to the Provincial Council or Bishop For thus there would be no more deserters of such Councils and the former Church's Communion no more Members of the Reformation than are themselves pretenders of Demonstration and those I suppose would not be many But so it is that these inferior Guides justify their reforming not only for themselves but for all their Subjects too so far as now within their several Precincts to impose an obedience of silence upon all toward them that cannot demonstrate against them This concerning the Protestants claimed liberty * of breaking the obedience of silence * of complaining * of reforming for themselves upon neglect of their complaints errors of Councils supposed by them manifest and intolerable § 47 12ly Since errors intolerable and manifest they affirm may be in any Decrees whatever of Councils if such Councils be not in their sence uinversally accepted or of such also as are so accepted if their Decrees be made in non-necessaries Next they contend That the judgment when such Decrees of past Councils are errors and those intolerable and over-weighing a peace and so these publickly contradictible and reformable is to be left to every particular person or Church ‖ See Still p. 539.292 But because this may seem of very ill consequence Hear how it is bounded and restrained This judgment then not so left to them saith the Arch bishop That every private spirit may fall on reforming what errors he fancies such but that they bring such Evidence and demonstration as is described before ‖ §. 44. proving such to be manifest and intolerable errors and then again that the judgment of such demonstration brought by them be left to a future Council which Council not allowing them for such these inferiours aâ—e to acquiesce as to silence at least in its judgment For saith he ‖ A p. Lawd p. 246. if the Demonstration be evident to any man according to the former definition they give it then to so many Learned men as are in a Council doubtless And if they cannot but assent to it it is hard to think them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is thought evident to any man be not evident to such a grave Assembly it 's probable it is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Thus he But 1st if the Ecclesiastical Superiours upon this complaint neglect to call such Council the Arch-bishop then makes every particular person or Church Judges themselves of their Demonstrations upon which he saith They may proceed to reform for themselves such errors ‖ A p. Lawd p. 245. 227. comp §. 33. Consid 6. n. 1. with §. 32. n. 5. But say I if the Demonstration be such as is evident to any man then so will it be to these Superiors complained to and then here the producers of it ought to rest But this he saw would presently stop the passage to all Reformation against Superiors whereas the Council appealed to especially such as they will allow they see is far enough off from checking their pretended evidences For what future Council can ever be hoped for that will not be liable to most of their exceptions made against that of Trent for the place or for the calling of it or for the Voters in it c and till then every private man's or particular Church's demonstrations as to reforming stand in their full force Power and Vertue in the Arch-bishop's stating this Point But then 2ly Imagine we such a second Council called and this for the lawfulness and proceedings thereof void of exception yet can it end no controversie any more than the former nor is it more free from appeals for so long as this future Council as well as the former is liable to errors manifest and intolerable
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 Scriptures or Demonstration against them Soc. I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this I find indeed the Arch-Bp †§. 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 tyed 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 6ly I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this neither considering my present perswasion 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 Ministery 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 Arch-Bp and Mr. Hooker say †Ap. Lawd 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 Arch-Bp 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 proeed to a Reformation of a forme doctrin 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 †Still 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 Nicen 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 for 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. §. 34. c. 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. Austine †De Baptismo 2 l. 3 c. 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 lye 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 judgement 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. †Stillingf 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 converning Councils past because of your new evidences neither will it to a future if you think it also doth err
true That the Church of England blindeth 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 refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church doth not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Churches 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 selfe 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 minde over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bp. Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. To the same sence 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 presâ—rvation 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 sence 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 Ptotestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequall 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 3. 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 imbraced by the Protestant Church and every meek member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick truthes 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 finde a cheerfull audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the 3. Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the 4 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 first 4. General Counclls your tenent 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 mere 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 Churches 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 enjoynes Now I yeeld 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 †See Disc 3 § 84. n. 2. n. 4. 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