yet so long as I am not actually convinced thereof I become only guilty of a fault of ignorance not obstinacy or autocatacrisie or Heresie for if I am self-condemned or guilty of obstinacy in disbelieving the foresaid points ‖ Stillingfl p. 99. Then I become so either by the Church's definition of this point or without it By reason of the Church's definition of this it cannot be for this very power of defining is the thing in question and therefore cannot be cleared to me by the Church's defining it †Stillingfl p. 74. and thus That thing is proposed to me in the definition to be believed which must be supposed to be believed by me already before such proposal or definition or else the definition is not necessary to be believed †Ib. p. 99. Nor without or before such definition can I have an autocatacrisie because this autocatacrisie you say with Dr. Hammond ariseth from my disobedience to the Church Prot. Methinks you make the same plea for your self in this matter as if one that is questioned for not obeying the divine precepts or not believing the divine Revelations delivered in Scripture should think to excuse himself by this answer that indeed he doth not believe the Scripture to be God's Word and therefore he conceives that he cannot reasonably be required to believe that which is contained therein And as such a person hath as much reason though this not from the Scripture yet from Apostolical Tradition to believe that Scripture is Gods Word as to believe what is written in it so have you though not from the Nicene Council defining it yet from Scripture and Tradition manifesting it as much reason to believe its authority of defining as what is defined It 's true indeed that had you not sufficient proposal or sufficient reason to know this your duty of Assent to this definition of the Council of Nice you were faultless in it but herein lies your danger that from finding a non actual conviction of the truth within hindred there by I know not what supine negligence or strong self-conceit c. you gather a non-sufficient proposal without § 27 Soc. It remains then to enquire who shall judge concerning this sufficient proposal or sufficient reason which I am said to have to believe what the Nicene Council or the Church hath declared in this point ‖ Stillingfl p. 73. Whether the Church's judgment is to be taken by me in this or my own made use of If her judgment the ground of my belief and of Heresie lies still in the Church's definition and thus it will be all one in effect whether I believe what she declares without sufficient reason or learn this of her when there is sufficient reason to believe so It must be then my own judgment I am to be directed by in this matter †See Still p. 479. and if so then it is to be presumed that God doth both afford me some means not to be mistaken therein and also some certain knowledge when I do use this means aright for without these two I can have no security in my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment as Heresie and fundamental Faith is Now this means in this matter I presume I have daily used in that I find my Conscience after much examination therein to acquit me unless you can prescribe me some other surer evidence without sending me back again to the authority of the Church Prot. 1. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an Heresie depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so And 2. The judgment of your having or not having sufficient reason to believe this is left to your self the Church hath no means to know you or any other to be an Heretick till they declare themselves to be so And thus in striving to free your self from Heresie you have freed all mankind from it as to any external discovery and convincement thereof and cancelled such a sin unless we can find one that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own Conscience Soc. If I so do the Protestants for they also hold none guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and of this sufficient reason they make not the Church or Superiors but themselves the Judge CONFERENCE V. His Plea for his not being guilty of Schism 1. THat the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church Catholick or the external Communion of it but only left one part of it that was corrupted and reformed another part i.e. themselves Or that he and the Socinian Churches being a part of the Catholick they have not separated from the whole because not from themselves § 28. 2. That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon them as a condition of Communion the Schism is not theirs who made the separation but theirs who caused it § 29. Besides that whatever the truth of things be yet so long as they are required by any Church to profess they believe what they do not their separation cannot be said causless and so Schism § 32. 3. That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion of all other Churches yet not the internal in which they remain still united to them both in that internal Communion of Charity in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick and in that of Faith in all Essentials and Fundamentals and in all such points wherein the Unity of the Church Catholick consists § 30. 4. That the doctrin of Consubstantiality for which they departed is denyed by them to be any Fundamental nor can the Churches from which they depart for it be a competent Judge against them that it is so § 34. 5. That though they are separaters from the Roman yet not from the Reformed Churches which Churches leave men to the liberty of their own judgment nor require any internal assent to their doctrins in which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman Church save only conditional if any be convinced of the truth thereof or not convinced of the contrary § 35. 6. In fine that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant Communion he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her Doctrins as Mr. Chillingworth hath done in several places of his book which yet was accepted as sufficient § 41. 5. PRot. I have yet one thing more about which to question you § 28 If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publick judgment and definition of the Catholick Church in that most reverend Council of Nice upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal that this Definition was therein made according to God's Word or the Scriptures yet how will you clear your self or your Socinian Congregations of Schism avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture if it
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
could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own Conscience the plea which you also make here for your self But to be an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. § 19. What say you to this Soc. § 26 What these Authors say as you give their sense seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles See D. Potter p. 165 167. D. Hammond of Heresie § 7. n. § 9. n. 8. Def. of L. Falkl. c. 1. p. 23. and to their own positions elsewhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisie For since they say That lawful General Councils may err in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intollerably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councils may err in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councils may err also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Council may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisie or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer Language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning Autocatacrisie as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also finds sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramhall †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and always shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings always so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his Conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not resisting saith he ‖ p. 128. the voice definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my Conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my self Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Doctors reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to enquire whether the Decrees of an Universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to eject them out or not to receive them into their belief And then still it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils ‖ and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth of their Doctrin out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles ‖ Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical Autocatacrisie in a dissent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Doctor Stillingfleet concerning Heresie ‖ Rat. Account p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-Authority I alledge that neither have they nor others given me To be self-condemned therefore in my dissent from the definition of the Council of Nice I must first have sufficient reason proposed to me to believe and so remain self-condemned and Heretical in disbelieving it this point viz. That the Church or her Council hath power to define matters of Faith in such manner as to require my assent thereto Which so long as I find no sufficient reason to believe I suppose I am freed without obstinacy or Heresie or being therein self-condemned from yielding assent to any particular matter of Faith which the Church defines And had I sufficient reason proposed to me for believing this point
requiring their assent to what is indeed a truth will be Schismaticks and that whether in a point Fundamental or not Fundamental though they have used all the industry all the means they can except this the relying on their Superiors judgment not to err unless you will say that all truths even not Fundamental are in Scripture so clear that none using a right industry can neither err in them which no Chillingworth hath maintained hitherto § 34 Prot. But we may let this pass for your separation was in a point perspicuous enough in Scripture and so you void of such excuse was in a point Essential and Fundamental and in which a wrong belief destroys any longer Communion of a particular Person or Church with the Catholick Soc. This I utterly deny nor see I by what way this can ever be proved against me for you can assign no Ecclesiastical Judge that can distinguish Fundamentals Necessaries or Essentials from those points that are not so as hath been shewed already And as Dr. Stillingfleet ‖ p. 73. urgeth concerning Heresie so may I concerning Schism What are the measures whereby we ought to judge what things are Essential to the being of Christianity or of the Church Whether must the Church's judgment be taken or every mans own judgment if the former the Ground of Schism lies still in the Church's definitions contrary to what Protestants affirm if the latter then no one can be a Schismatick but he that opposeth that of which he is or may be convinced that it is a Fundamental or essential matter of Faith If he be only a Schismatick that opposeth that of which he is convinced then no man is a Schismatick but he that goes against his present Judgment and so there will be few Schismaticks in the world If he that opposeth that which he may be convinced of then again it is that which he may be convinced of either in the Church's judgment or in his own If in the Church's it comes to the same issue as in the former If in his own how I pray shall I know that I may be convinced of what using a due indeavour I am not convinced already or how shall I know when a due industry is used and if I cannot know this how should I ever settle my self unless it be upon Authority which you allow not Again I am taught that any particular whether Person or Church may judge for themselves with the Judgment of Discretion And in the matter of Christian Communion †Stillingfl p. 292. That nothing can be more unreasonable than that the Society suppose it be a Council imposing conditions of its Communion suppose the Council of Nice imposing Consubstantiality so should be Judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no And especially in this case where a considerable Body of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of Communion what justice or reason is there that the party accused should sit judge in his own cause Prot. By this way no Separatist can ever be a Schismatick if he is constituted the judge whether the reason of his separation is just Soc. And in the other way there can never be any just cause of separation at all if the Church-Governors from whom I separate are to judge whether that be an error for which I separate § 35 Prot. It seems something that you say But yet though upon such consideration a free use of your own judgment as to providing for your own Salvation is granted you yet methinks in this matter you have some greater cause to suspect it since several Churches having of late taken liberty to examine by Gods Word more strictly the corrupt doctrins of former ages yet these reformed as well as the other unreformed stand opposite to you and neither those professing to follow the Scriptures nor those professing to follow Tradition and Church-Authority neither those requiring strict obedience and submission of judgment nor those indulging Christian liberty countenance your doctrin But you stand also Reformers of the Reformation and separated from all Soc. Soft a little Though I stand separated indeed from the present unreformed Churches or also if you will from the whole Church that was before Luther yet I both enjoy the external Communion and think I have reason to account my self a true member of the Churches Reformed and as I never condemned them or thought Salvation not attainable in them so neither am I that I know of excluded by or from them so long as I retain my opinion in silence and do not disturb their peace and I take my self also on these terms to be a member in particular of the Church of England wherein I have been educated For all these Churches as confessing themselves fallible in their decree do not require of their Subjects to yield any internal assent to their Doctrins or to profess any thing against their Conscience and in Hypocrisie and do forbear to use that Tyranny upon any for enjoying their Communion which they so much condemn in that Church from which for this very thing they were forced to part Communion and to reform Of this matter thus Mr. Whitby †p. 102. Whom did our Convocation ever damn for not internally receiving their decrees Do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgment They do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe but that we should submit to their determination and not contradict them their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles but only submitted to in order to peace and unity So that their work is rather to silence than to determine disputes c. and p. 438. We grant a necessity or at least a convenience of a Tribunal to decide controversies but how Not by causing any person to believe what he did not antecedently to these decrees upon the sole authority of the Council but by silencing our disputes and making us acquiesce in what is propounded without any publick opposition to it keeping our opinions to our selves A liberty of using private discretion in approving or rejecting any thing as delivered or not in Scripture we think ought to be allowed for faith cannot be compelled and by taking away this liberty from men we should force them to become Hypocrites and so profess outwardly what inwardly they disbelieve And see Dr. Stillingfleets Rational Account p. 104. where speaking of the obligation to the 39. Articles he saith That the Church of England excommunicates such as openly oppose her doctrin supposing her fallible the Roman Church excommunicates all who will not believe whatever she defines to be infallibly true That the Church of England bindeth men to peace to her determinations reserving to men the liberty of their judgments on pain of excommunication if they violate that peace For it is plain on the one side where a Church pretends infallibility the excommunication is directed against the persons for
the standing bound of a Christian Faith For other Creeds I suppose no more belief is necessary to the Articles of the Nicene Creed than is required to those of the Athanasian And of what kind the necessity is of believing those Dr. Stillingfleet states on this manner †p. 70 71. That the belief of a thing may be supposed necessary either as to the matter because the matter is to be believed in it self necessary or because of the clear conviction of mens understandings that though the matters be not in themselves necessary yet being revealed by God they must be explicitly believed but then the necessity of this belief doth extend no further than the clearness of the conviction doth Again that the necessity of believing any thing arising from the Church's definition upon which motive you seem to press the belief of the Article of Consubstantiality doth depend upon the Conviction that whatever the Church defines is necessary to be believed And where that is not received as an antecedent principle the other cannot be supposed Now this principle neither I nor yet Protestants accept Then he concludes That as to the Athenasian Creed and the same it is for the Nicene It is unreasonable to imagine that the Church of England doth own this necessity purely on the account of the Church's dâ—finition of those things which are not fundamental it being directly contrary to her sense in her 19th and 20th Articles Now which Articles of this Creed are not Fundamental she defines nothing nor do the 19 20 or 21. Articles own a necessity of believing the Church's Definitions even as to Fundamentals And hence that the supposed necessity of the belief of the Articles of the Athanasian Creed must according to the sense of the Church of England be resolved either into the necessity of the matters or into that necessity which supposeth clear conviction that the things therein contained are of divine Revelation Thus he Now for so many Articles as I am either convinced of the matter to be believed that it is in it self necessary or that they are divine Revelations I do most readily yield my Faith and assent thereto Now to make some Reply to the other things you have objected § 38 The Act 1 Eliz. allows no Definitions of the First General Councils in declaring Heresie but with this limitation that in such Councils such thing be declared Heresie by the express and plain words of the Canonical Scripture On which terms I also accept them § 39 Dr. Hammond's affirming That all additions settled by the Universal Church he means General Councils are in all reason without disputing to be received as Apostolical Truths that the Holy Ghost speaking to us by the Governors of the Christian Churches Christ's Successors may receive all uniform submission from us suits not with the Protestant Principles often formerly mentioned †for thus if I rightly understand him all the definitions of General Councils See before §. 26. and of the Christian Governors in all ages as these being still Christ's Successors are to be without disputing embraced as truths Apostolical § 40 If the words of the fourth Canon of the English Synod 1640. signifie any more than this That any person convicted of Socinianism i. e. by publishing his opinion shall upon such conviction be excommunicated and if it be understood adequate to this Qui non crediderit filium esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo Patri Anathema sit and that the Church of England for allowing her Communion is not content with silence in respect of Socinianism but obligeth men also to assent to the contrary then I see not upon what good grounds such exclamation is made against the like Anathema's or exactions of assent required by that of Trent or other late Councils or by Pius his Bull. If it be said here the reason of such faulting them is because these require assent not being lawful General Councils such reason will not pass 1st Because neither the English Synod exacting assent in this point is a General Council 2ly Because it is the Protestant tenent that neither may lawful General Councils require assent to all their Definitions Or if it be affirmed either of General or Provincial Councils that they may require assent under Anathema to some of their decrees viz. Those evidently true and divine Revelations such as Consubstantiality is but may not to others viz. Those not manifested by them to be such then before we can censure any Council for its Anathema's or its requiring of assent we must know whether the point to which assent is required is or is not evident divine Revelation And then by whom or how shall this thing touching the evidence of the Divine Revelation be judged or decided for those that judge this whoever they be do sit now upon the trial of the rightness or mistake of the judgment of a General Council Or when think we will those who judge this i. e. every person for himself agree in their sentence Again If on the other side the former Church in her language Si quis non crediderit c. Anathema sit be affirmed to which purpose the fore-mentioned Axioms are urged by you to mean nothing more than Si quis Haeresin suam palam profiteatur hujus professionis convictus fuerit Anathema sit Thus the Protestants former quarrel with her passing such Anathema's will be concluded causeless and unjust But indeed though according to the former sentences her Anathema is not extended to the internal act of holding such an opinion if wholly concealed so far as to render such person for it to stand excommunicated and lie actually under this censure of the Church because hitherto no contempt of her authority appears nor is any dammage inferred to any other member of her Society thereby Yet her Anathema also extends even to the internal act or tenet after the Church's contrary definition known which tenet also then is not held without a disobedience and contempt of her authority so far as to render the delinquent therein guilty of a very great mortal sin and so at the same time internally cut off from being a true member of Christ's Body though externally he is not as yet so cut off And the Casuists further state him ipso facto to be excommunicated before and without conviction if externally he doth or speaketh any thing whereby he is convincible and not if there be any thing proved against him but if any thing at least provable and such a one upon this to be obliged in Conscience not only to confess his heretical opinion for his being absolved from mortal sin but also to seek a release from excommunication incurred for his re-enjoying the Church's Communion Thus you see a rigor in this Church towards what it once accounted Heresie much different from the more mild Spirit and moderate temper of the Reformed § 41 To conclude For the enjoying the Protestant Communion I conceive that as to any necessary approbation of her Doctrins it is sufficient for me to hold with Mr. Chillingworth as I do †Chillingw Pref. §. 39. That the Doctrin of Protestants though not that of all of them absolutely true yet it is free from all impiety and from all Error destructive to Salvation or in it self damnable And †Ib. §. 28. whatsoever hath been held necessary Salvation by the consent of Protestants or even of the Church of England which indeed hath given no certain Catalogue at all of such necessaries that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace And which is still the same †Ib. §. 29. I am perswaded that the constant doctrin of the Church of England is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved For if all truths necessary to Salvation be held in it then so is no error opposite or destructive to Salvation held by it and so living according to the truths it holds I may be saved Again †Ibid. I believe that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it For though I believe Antisocinianism an error Yet if I hold it not such as that for it any man may disturb the peace or ought to renounce the Communion of the Church I may profess all this and yet hold Socinianism Lastly as he ‖ Chillingw p. 376. so I Propose me any thing out of the Bible seem it never so incomprehensible I will subscribe it with hand and heart In other things that I think not contained in this Book I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him neither shall any man take mine from me for I am fully assured that God doth not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it Without pertinacy I can be no Heretick And †Ib. §. 57. endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary truth and in doing so my life being answerable to my Faith how is it possible I should fail of Salvation Thus Mr. Chillingworth speaks perfectly my sense Prot. I see no other cure for you but that you learn humility and mortification of your Understanding in which lies the most subtle and perilous of all Prides And It will reduce you to Obedience and this to Truth Thaâ— with all the Church of God you may give glory to God the only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost coessential with God the Father To which Trinity in Unity as it hath been from the beginning and is now so shall all Honour and Glory be given throughout all future ages Amen FINIS ERRATA PAge 19. lin 18. read Emperor p. 28. l. 1. dele See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. § 19. pag. 31. l. 7. r. there by