submit your judgment to the Decree of this great and holy Council one and the first of those four which St. Gregory said he received with the same reverence as the four Gospels Soc. No And for this I shall give you in brief many reasons as I conceive satisfactory For 1. Had I an obligation of submission of judgment to lawful General Councils you cannot prove this such a one and those the decrees thereof which are now extant with such a certainty as is necessary to build thereon an Article of my Faith For to prove this you must satisfie me in all those things questioned concerning General Councils * by M. Chillingworth p. 94. * By Dr. Pierce in his answer to Mr. Cressy p. 18. c. * By Mr. Whitby from p. 428. to p. 433. where he concludes 1. That we never had a General Council 2. That a General Council is a thing impossible * By Mr. Stillingfleet p. 508. c. 495. 119. 123. c. Who also against the being of such a General Council as is the Representative of the whole Church Catholick thus disputes ‖ p. 515 516 The representation of a Church saith he by a General Council is a thing not so evident from whence it should come for if such representative of the whole Church there be it must either be so by some formal act of the Church or by a tacite consent It could not be by any formal act of the Church for then there must be some such act of the universal Church preceding the being of any General Council by which they receive their Commission to appear in behalf of the universal Church Now that the universal Church did ever agree in any such act is utterly impossible to be demonstrated either that it could be or that it was But if it be said that such a formal act is not necessary but the tacite consent of the whole Church is sufficient for it then such a consent of the Church must be made evident by which they did devolve over the power of the whole Church to such a Representative And all these must consent in that act whose power the Council pretends to have of which no footsteps appear The utmost then saith he that can be supposed in this case is that the parts of the Church may voluntarily consent to accept of the decrees of such a Council and by that voluntary act or by the supreme authority enjoyning it such decrees may become obligatory Thus he But I suppose its Decrees obligatory then only to those parts of the Church that voluntarily consent to accept of them as the Arians did not to receive the Decrees of Nice Lastly by * Bishop Taylor in the 2d Part of his Disswasive l. 1. § 1. p. 29. c. to the end of the Section Where p. 31. he saith concerning this of Nice that makes for you compared with that of Ariminum which makes for us That if a Catholick producing the Nicene Council be rencountred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was far more numerous here are aquilis aquilae pila minantia pilis but who shall prevail If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail that is neither And it ought not to be said by the Catholick Yea but our Council determined for the truth but yours for error For the Arian will say so too But whether they do or no yet it is plain that they may both say so and if they do then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council but we approve this General because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defined is true And therefore S. Austin's way here is best Neque ego Nicaenum Concilium neque tu Ariminense c. both sides pretend to General Councils that which both equally pretend to will help neither therefore let us go to Scripture And p. 32. What is the reason saith he of Councils in General that some Councils are partly condemned the Council of Sardis that in Trullo those of Frankford Constance and Basil but that every man and every Church accepts the Councils as far as they please and no further The Greeks receive but seven General Councils the Lutherans six the Eutychians three Nestorians two c. Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata It is as every one likes I spare to tell you what he saith p. 26. That in the first General Council of Jerusalem which was the first precedent and ought to be the true measure of the rest the Apostles were the Presidents and the Presbyters Assistants but the Church viz. the converted brethren and the Laity see p. 36. was the Body of the Council and were Parties in the Decree quoting Acts 15.22 23. and that we can have no other warrant of an authentick Council than this 2. Though it be shewed a lawful General Council representing the whole Church as it ought if such yet what obligation can there lye upon me of consenting to it since it may err even in Fundamentals if it be not universally accepted as indeed this Council was not for several Bishops there were that were dissenters in the Council and many more afterward ‖ See before §. 13. 3. Were it universally accepted yet unless you can shew me by some means that this point wherein I differ from its judgment is a fundamental or necessary point to salvation both it and the Catholick Church also that accepts it may err therein 4. The judgment of this Council seems justly declinable also on this account That whereas the Guides of the Church many years before this Council were divided in their opinion Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria and Hosius a Favorite of the Emperor's heading one party and Arius and the Bishops adhering to him whom I mentioned formerly ‖ §. 13. heading another and whereas afterward in the prosecution of this difference both the foresaid Alexander in one Provincial Council held in Egypt and Hosius sent thither by the Emperor in another had there condemned Arius and his Confederates yet so it was ordered that in this General Council assembled for an equal hearing and decision of this Controversie of these two professed Enemies to the other party the one Hosius was appointed to sit as President of this Council and the other Alexander held in it the next place to him and poor Arius excluded and the Bishops who favoured him in the Council though at first freely declaring their dissent yet at last over-awed to a subscription as also was Arius himself chiefly by the Emperor Constantine's over-hearing authority who before somewhat indifferent in the contest yet upon Arius his undutiful and too peremptory Letters had some years before taken great offence at him and also as he was very eloquent publickly written against him ‖ See Baronius A. D. 318 319. Which overawing hence appears in that the same Bishops that were adherents to
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 only 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 inasmuch 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 seems we need fear no Schism from the Church Catholick till a 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-Bishop ‖ Lawd p. 142. The Schism is theirs whose the Cause of it is and be makes the separation who gives the first just cause of it not he that makes actual separation upon a just cause preceding Again Though we have made an actual Separation from them § 30 as to the not-conforming to or also as to the reforming of an error yet First As to Charity we do still retain with the same Churches our former Communion 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 wholly to our selves as did those famous Schismaticks the Donatists See Doctor Ferne Division of Churches p. 105. and 31 32. § 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 is any thing more than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches till such their error is reformed For as Doctor Stillingfleet ‖ p. 331. There can be no separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies Whoso therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being is only 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 concerns the being of a Church so that without it we or they cannot still retain 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 Dr. Stillingfleet saith Where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed or not pressed upon us And as Bishop Bramhall †Vindic. of the Church of Eng. 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 only so far as it is corrupted and degenerated whether in doctrin or manners it doth still retain a Communion not only 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 only 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 Superiors in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential point of Christianity as destroys 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 Church's defining thereof was very excusable and the African Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby Soc. ‖ D. 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 †Stillingfl p. 359. They were justly charged with Schism because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds But as Dr. Ferne saith ‖ Division of Churches p. 106. Had the Donatists only used their liberty and judgment in that practice of re-baptizing Hereticks leaving other Churches to their liberty and though thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks without baptizing 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 the Communion in which I cannot remain without the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing which I am convinced to be erroneous †Ib. 279. At least this I know that the Doctrine which I have chosen to me seems true and the contrary which I have forsaken seems 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 Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick but he who knows he erreth i. e. not who holdeth § 33 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 maintains an error But Doctor Hammond †Of Schism p. 23 24 25. tells you That he that doth not communicate with those I suppose he means Superiors the condition of whose Communion contains nothing really erroneous or sinful though the doctrin so proposed as the condition of their Communion be apprehended by him to whom it is thus proposed to be false remains in Schism Soc. And at this rate all those who separate from the Church
refusing to give internal assent to what she defines But where a Church does not pretend to that the excommunication respects wholly that overt Act whereby the Church's peace is broken And if a Church be bound to look to her own peace no doubt she hath power to excommunicate such as openly violate the bonds of it which is only an act of caution in a Church to preserve her self in unity but where it is given out that the Church is infallible the excommunication must be so much the more unreasonable because it is against those internal acts of the mind over which the Church as such hath no direct power And p. 55. he quotes these words out of Bishop Bramhall †Schism guarded p. 192. to the same sense We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith or legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them By which we see what vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome c. Lastly thus Mr. Chillingworth †p. 200. of the just authority of Councils and Synods beyond which the Protestant Synods or Convocations pretend not The Fathers of the Church saith he in after times i. e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake Thus much as the Protestant Synods seem contented with so I allow Again p. 375. He saith Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it Well may Protestants hold it as matter of opinion but as matter of faith and religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical presumption Thus he now I suppose that either no Protestant Church or Synod will stile the Son 's coequal God-head with the Father a plain irrefragable indubitable Scripture or consequence thereof about which is and hath been so much contest or with as much reason they may call whatever points they please such however controverted and then what is said here signifies nothing § 36 Prot. Be not mistaken I pray especially concerning the Church of England For though she for several Points imposed formerly by the Tyranny of the Roman Church hath granted liberty of Opinion or at least freed her Subjects from obligation to believe so in them as the Church formerly required yet as to exclusion of your Doctrin she professeth firmly to believe the three Creeds and concerning the Additions made in the two latter Creeds to the first Dr. Hammond †Of Fundamentals p. 90 acknowledgeth That they being thus settled by the Universal Church were and still are in all reason without disputing to be received and embraced by the Protestant Church and every meek Member thereof with that reverence that is due to Apostolick Truths with that thankfulness which is our meet tribute to those sacred Champions for their seasonable and provident propugning our faith with such timely and necessary application to practice that the Holy Ghost speaking to us now under the times of the New Testament by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christs mediate successors in the Prophetick Pastoral Episcopal Office as he had formerly spoken by the Prophets of the Old Testament sent immediately by him may find a cheerful audience and receive all uniform submission from us Thus Dr. Hammond of the Church of England's assent to the three Creeds She assenteth also to the definitions of the four first General Councils And the Act 1 Eliz. ‖ cap. 1. declares Heresie that which hath been adjudged so by them now in the definitions of these 4 first General Councils your enent hath received a mortal wound But lastly the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640. †Can. 4. particularly stiles Socinianism a most damnable and cursed Heresie and contrary to the Articles of Religion established in the Church of England and orders that any convicted of it be excommunicated and not absolved but upon his repentance and abjuration Now further than this namely excommunication upon conviction No other Church I suppose hath or can proceed against your Heresie It being received as a common Axiom in the Canon Law that Ecclesia non judicat de occultis And Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur And Ob peccatum merè internum Ecclesiastica censura ferri non potest And in all Churches every one of what internal perswasion soever continues externally at least a member thereof till the Church's censures do exclude him § 37 Soc. The Church of England alloweth assenteth to and teacheth what she judgeth evident in the Scripture for so she ought what she believes or assenteth to I look not after but what she enjoyns Now I yield all that obedience in this point that she requires from me and so I presume she will acknowledge me a dutiful Son Prot. What obedience when as you deny one of her chiefest and most fundamental doctrins Soc. If I mistake not her principles she requires of me no internal belief or assent to any of her doctrins but only 1st Silence or non-contradiction †or 2ly a conditional belief i. e. whenever I shall be convinced of the truth thereof Now in both these I most readily obey her For the 1st I have strictly observed it kept my opinion to my self unless this my discourse with you hath been a breach of it but then I was at least a dutiful subject of this Church at the beginning of our discourse and for the 2d whether actual conviction or sufficient proposal be made the condition of my assent or submission of judgment I am conscious to my self of no disobedience as to either of these for an actual conviction I am sure I have not and supposing that I have had a sufficient proposal and do not know it my obedience upon the Protestant principles can possibly advance no further than it now doth The Apostles Creed I totally embrace and would have it