royal Prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned Prot. You may be secure that she never erreth in any point necessary Soc. But you tell me that though she never err in necessaries yet it follows not that she is an unerring Guide or Witness therein ‖ Stilling p. 154 152. Chillingw p. 150. Dr. Hammond Defence of the Lord Falkl. p. 23. or that she must unerringly declare what points are necessary and what not and I must first learn whether this point of Consubstantiality is to be numbred among necessaries before I can be assured that the sense of the Church Catholick errs not therein Prot. § 15 But ‖ Stillingfl p. 59. It is a sufficient prescription against any thing which can be alledged out of Scripture that it ought not to be looked on as the true meaning of Scripture if it appear contrary to the sense of the Church Catholick from the beginning and therefore such doctrines may well be judged destructive to the rule of Faith which have been so unanimously condemned by the Church Catholick Soc. Why so Prot. ‖ Stilling ib. Because nothing contrary to the necessary Articles of Faith can be held by the Catholick Church for it s very Being depends on its belief of necessaries to salvation Soc. This last is most true but then if you mean to make your discourse cohere you must say it is a sufficient prescription c. if it appear contrary to the sense of the Catholick Church viz. in a point necessary for the reason you give carries and secures you no further and then that which you say is no great matter For here we are still to seek whether the point we discourse of is in the affirmative such a necessary Prot. § 16 But this is ranked among those points which the Church hath put in her Creeds Soc. From the beginning this Article was not in the Creed and though it should be granted that all points necessary are contained in the Creeds yet all in the Creeds are not thought points necessary †Stillingfl p. 70 71. Necessary so as to be believed by any before a clear conviction of the divine Revelation thereof which conviction I yet want Prot. § 17 But yet though first the Catholick Church may err in non-necessaries And 2ly in what points are necessary what not her judgment be not infallible yet you have still great reason to submit your judgment to hers because if it happen to be a point necessary she is from the divine Promise infallible and unerring in it not so you 2. If not necessary and so both she and you therein liable to error yet you much the more and she also in these things is appointed by God for your Teacher and Guide Soc. Therefore I use the help and direction of my spiritual Guides consider their reasons do not rashly depart from their judgment but yet ‖ Dr. Ferne Considerations p. 10. The due submission of my assent and belief to them is only to be conditional with reservation of evidence in God's Word For in matter of Faith as Dr. Ferne saith I cannot submit to any company of men by resignation of my judgment and belief to receive for faith all that they shall define for such resignation stands excluded by the condition of the authority which is not infallible and by the condition of the matter faith of high concernment to our own souls and to be accounted for by our selves who therefore stand bound to make present and diligent search for that evidence and demonstration from God's Word upon which we may finally and securely stay our bebelief And ‖ The Case between the Churches p. 40. The Church determining matter of faith saith he ought to manifest it out of God's Word and we may expect such proof before we yield absolute assent of belief And so Dr. Stillingfleet saith ‖ p. 133. All men ought to be left to judge according to the Pandects of the divine Laws because each member of this Society is bound to take care of his Soul and of all things that tend thereto Now I for my part see no solid ground out of the Scripture for Consubstantiality but rather for the contrary which several of our Writers have made appear to the world And therefore unless the Church were either infallible in all she determined or at least in distinguishing those necessaries wherein she cannot err from the rest it seems no way justifiable that she puts this her definition into the Creed she as I conceive thus requiring from all an absolute consent thereto and not only as some ‖ Still p. 70. would perswade me a conditional for some of them viz. whenever I shall be clearly convinced that such point is of divine Revelation CONFERENCE III. His Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Definitions of lawful General Councils the just conditions thereof observed THat he conceives he ows no obedience to the Council of Nice 1. Because this cannot be proved to have been a lawful General Council with so much certainty as is necessary for the ground of his Faith as appears by those many questions mentioned by Mr. Chillingworth Stillingfleet and other Protestants wherein he must first be satisfied concerning it 2. Because though it were a General Council yet it might err even in necessaries if it were not universally accepted as he can shew it was not 3. That though yielded to be generally accepted it might err still in non-necessaries and that Protestants cannot prove this point to be otherwise 4. That the Leaders of this Council were plainly a party contesting this for many years before with the other side condemned by them and were Judges in their own cause 5. All these exceptions cancelled and Obedience granted due to this Council yet that so there is due to it not that of assent but only of silence § 19. 6. But yet not that of silence neither from him considering his present perswasion that indeed the affirmative in this point is an error manifest and intolerable concerning which matter his party having long complained to their Superiors and produced sufficient evidence yet these have proceeded to no redress of it § 20. 7. But yet that he will submit to the Judgment of a future Council if it rightly considering the reasons of his tenent decree that which is according to God's Word and he be convinced thereof § 22. 3. PRot. But do you not consider by what persons this Article was long ago inserted into the Creed § 18 Namely by the first General and the most venerable Assembly of the Fathers of the Church that hath been convened since the Apostles times celebrated under the first Christian Emperor by a perfect Representative of the Catholick Church and by such persons as came very much purified out of the newly-quenched fire of the greatest persecution that the Church hath suffered that under Dioclesian will not you then at least
my error or ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such errors who am a lover of him and lover of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness is to make man desperate and God a Tyrant Prot. § 4 But this defence will no way serve your turn for all points of Faith revealed in Scripture for you ought to have of some points an express and explicite Faith Soc. Of what points Prot. Of all those that are fundamental and necessary Soc. Then if this point of Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father be none of the Fundamentals and necessaries wherein I am to have a right and an explicite Faith the account I have given you already I hope is satisfactory § 5 But next I am secure that this point which is the subject of our discourse at least in the affirmative thereof is no fundamental for according to the Protestant principles †Chill p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently perfect so sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed for to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainty to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means In fine †Chill p. 59 where Scriptures are plain as they are in necessaries they need no infallible Interpreter no further explanation to me and where they are not plain there if I using diligence to find the truth do yet miss of it and fall into Error there is no danger in it Prot. True Such necessary points are clear to the unlearned using a due Industry void of a contrary interest c. Soc. And in such industry I may be assured I have not been deficient having bestowed much study on this matter read the Controversie on both sides compared Texts c. as also appears in the diligent writings of others of my perswasion and after all this the sense of Scripture also which I embrace a sense you know decried and persecuted by most Christians is very contrary to all my secular relations interest and profit Now after all this search I have used I am so far satisfied § 6 that this point on the affirmative side is not clear and evident in Scripture and therefore no Fundamental that I can produce most clear and evident places out of the Scriptures if a man can be certain of any thing from the perspicuity of its Expressions that the contrary of it is so See Crellius in the Preface to his Book De uno Deo Patre Haec de uno Deo Patre sententia plurimis ac clarissimis sacrarum-literarum testimoniis nititur Evidens sententiae veritas rationum firmissimarum è sacris literis spontè subnascentium multitudo ingenii nostri tenuitatem sublevat c. Argumenta quae ex sacris literis deprompsimus per se plana sunt ac facilio adeo quidem ut eorum vim deolinare aliâ ratione non possint adversarii quam ut â verborum simplicitate tum ipsi deflectant tum nos abducere conentur And see the particular places of Scripture which they urge where as to the expression and other Texts being laid aside that seems to be said as it were totidem verbis which the Socimans maintain Job 14.28.17.3 Ep. 1 Cor. 8.6 Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 I set not down this to countenance their Cause but to shew their Confidence Prot. § 7 O strange Presumption And is not your judgment then liable to mistake in the true sense of these Scriptures because you strongly persuade your self they are most evident on your side Soc. 'T is true that I may mistake in the sense of some Scripture but it follows not from hence that I can be certain of the sense of no Scriptures To answer you in the words of Mr. Chillingworth †Chillingw p. 111. Tho' I pretend not to certain means in interpreting all Scripture particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous yet this methinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plain and clear that they need no Interpreters and in such this my Faith is contained If you ask me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these places I ask you again Can you be sure you understand what I or any man else saith They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles Preach can they have sufficient assurance that they understood at any time what they would have them do If not to what end did they hear them If they could why may not I be as well assured that I understand sufficiently what I conceive plain in their Writings Again I pray tell me whether do you certainly know the sense of these Scriptures for the evidence of which you separated from the Church that was before Luther requiring conformity to the contrary Doctrines as a condition of her Communion If you do then give us leave to have the same means and the same abilities to know other plain places which you have to know these For if all the Scripture be obscure how can you know the sense of these places If some places of it be plain why should I stay here †Ib. p. 112. If you ask seeing I may possibly err how can I be assured I do not I ask you again seeing your eye-sight may deceive you how can you be sure you see the Sun when you do see it †Ib. p. 117. A Judge may possibly err in Judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged rightly a Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in his way to London †Ib. p. 112. This I am certain of that God will not require of me a certainly unerring belief unless he had given me a certain means to avoid error and if I use those which I have will never require of me that I use that which I have not †See also Chill p. 140 366 367. Sect. 8. This is Mr. Chillingworth's solid Plea against the Papist's grand Objection for the proving an uncertainty in the Protestant's Faith upon any their pretence of evident Scripture Prot. But the Scriptures which you urge against the Son's being the same one only God
and of all things that tend thereto * Chillinw p. 59 100. In matters of Religion when the question is whether any man be a fit judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity And then I suppose that all the necessary points in Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this case to be a compleat Judge for himself because it concerns himself to Judge aright as much as eternal happiness is worth and if through his own default he Judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it To God's righteous Judgment therefore I must finally remit you At your own peril be it This of the Socinian's Plea concerning the Scripture on his side § 9 Where the self-clearness of the sense of Scriptures not mistakable in Fundamentals or necessaries upon a due industry used of which also rightly used men may be sufficiently assured being made the ground as you see of the Protestants and Socinians Faith before these two proceed to any further conference give me leave to interpose a word between them concerning this certainty so much spoken of and presumed on And here first from this way lately taken by many Protestants there seems to be something necessarily consequent § 10 which I suppose they will by no means allow viz. That instead of the Roman Church her setting up some men the Church Governors as infallible in necessaries here is set up by them every Christian if he will both infallible in all necessaries and certain that he is so For the Scripture they affirm most clear in all necessaries to all using a due industry and of this due industry they also affirm men may be certain that they have used it being not all possible endeavour but such a measure thereof as ordinary discretion c. adviseth to See Mr. Chillingworth p. 19. And next from this affirmed that every one may be so certain in all Fundamentals it must be maintained also that their spiritual Guides in a conjunction of them nay more every single Prelate or Presbyter if they are not yet may be an infallible Guide to the people in all Points necessary And therefore M. Chillingworth freely speaks to this purpose †p. 140. That these also may be both in Fundamentals and also in some points unfundamental both certain of the infallibility of their Rule and that they do manifestly proceed according to it and then in what they are certain that they cannot be mistaken they may saith he ‖ p. 118.140 166. lawfully decide the controversies about them and without rashness propose their decrees as certain divine Revelations and excommunicate or anathematize any man persisting in the contrary error And there seems reason in such Anathema because all others either do or may know the truth of the same decrees by the same certain means as these Governors do Now then what certainty the Guides of a particular Church may have I hope may also those of the Church Catholick and then obedience being yielded to these by all their inferiors this will restore all things to their right course All this follows upon certainty 1. That Scriptures are plain in Fundamentals And 2. That due industry is used to understand them But if you should deny that men can have a certainty of their industry rightly used then again is all the fair security these men promise their followers of their not erring in necessaries quite vanished But now to pass from this consequence to which I know not what can be said and to enquire a little after the true grounds of our certainty in any thing which is here so much pretended 1. It cannot be denyed that he that doth err in one thing may be certain that he doth not err in some other because he may have sufficient ground and means for his not erring in one thing which he hath not in another Nor again denied that he who possibly may err yet in the same thing may be certain that he doth not err if not neglecting some means which he knows will certainly keep him from error § 11 2. But notwithstanding these This seems also necessary to be granted on the other side and is so by learned Protestants That in what kind of knowledge soever it be whether of our Sense or Reason in whatever Art or Science one can never rightly assure himself concerning his own knowledge that he is certain of any thing for a truth which all or most others of the same or better abilities for their cognoscitive faculties in all the same external means or grounds of the knowledge thereof do pronounce an error Not as if truth were not so though all the World oppose it nor had certain grounds to be proved so though all the World should deny them but because the true knowledge of it and them cannot possibly appear to one mans intellect and omnibus paribus not to others Now for any disparity as to defect whether in the instrument or in the means of knowledge there where all or most differ from me it seems a strange pride not to imagine this defect in my self rather than them especially * whenas all the grounds of my Science are communicated to them and * whenas for my own mistakes I cannot know exactly the extent of supernatural delusions I say be this in what knowledge we please in that of sense seeing hearing numbring or in any of Mr. Chillingworth's former instances mentioned § 7. So I can never rationally assure my self of what I see when men as well or better sighted and all external circumstances for any thing I know being the same see no such matter And this is the Rule also proposed by learned Protestants to keep every Fanatick from pleading certainty in his own conceit See Arch-Bishop Laud § 33. Confid 5. n. 1. and Hooker Preface § 6. their designing of a clear evidence or demonstrative argument viz. Such as proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to it and therefore surely proposed to many men the mind of the most cannot dissent from it Consequently in the Scripture abstracting from the inward operations of God's Holy Spirit § 12 and any external infallible Guide which infallible Guide Scripture it self cannot be to two men delivering a contrary sense thereof I see not from whence any certainty can arise to particular persons for so many Texts or places thereof concerning the sense of which the most or the most learned or their Superiors to whom also all their motives or arguments are represented do differ from them From the plainness of the expression or Grammatical construction of the words such certainty cannot arise unless no term thereof can possibly be distinguished or taken in a diverse or unliteral sense but if it cannot be so taken then all Expositors must needs agree in one and the same sense For Example For the Literal and Grammatical sense
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 Protestants Plea FOR A SOCINIAN Justifying His Doctrine from being opposite to SCRIPTURE OR CHURCH-AUTHORITY And Him from being Guilty of HERESIE or SCHISM In Five Conferences Publish'd with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1686. THE First Conference The Socinian's Protestant-Plea for his not holding any thing contrary to the Holy Scriptures 1. THat he believes all contained in the Scriptures to be God's Word and therefore implicitly believes those truths against which he errs § 2. 2. That also he useth his best endeavor to find the true sense of Scriptures and that more is not required of him from God for his Faith or Salvation than doing his best endeavour for attaining it § 3. 3. That as for an explicite Faith required of some points necessary he is sufficiently assured that this point concerning the Son's Consubstantiality with the Father as to the affirmative is not so from the Protestant's affirming all necessaries to be clear in Scripture even to the unlearned which this in the affirmative is not to him § 4. 4. That several express and plain Scriptures do perswade him that the negative if either is necessary to be believed and that from the clearness of Scriptures he hath as much certainty in this point as Protestants can have from them in some other held against the common expressions of the former times of the Church § 6 8. 5. That for the right understanding of Scriptures either he may be certain of a just industry used or else that Protestants in asserting that the Scriptures are plain only to the industrious and then that none are certain when they have used a just industry thus must still remain also uncertain in their Faith as not knowing whether some defect in this their industry causeth them not to mistake the Scriptures 6. Lastly That none have used more diligence in the search of Scripture than the Socinians as appears by their Writings addicting themselves wholly to this Word of God and not suffering themselves to be any way byass'd by any other humane either modern or ancient Authority § 9. Digress Where The Protestant's and Socinian's pretended Certainty of the sense of Scripture apprehended by them and made the ground of their Faith against the sense of the same Scripture declared by the major part of the Church is examined § 9. § 1 TO shew the invalidity of such a Guide as Protestants have framed to themselves for preserving the true Faith and suppressing Heresies hath for several years been the Subject of divers Modern Pens But because Instances and Examples seem to some more weighty and convincing it is thought fit the more to awaken and the better to satisfie him here to let the Reader see what Apology a Socinian who tho' denying the Trinity and our Saviors Deity yet most zealously urges Scripture and its plainness in all necessaries as if it justified his own Errors or that he Erred only in matters not necessary upon the Protestant Principles may return for himself to a Protestant endeavouring to reduce him to the true Faith and the Nicene Creed and using any of these five Motives thereto viz. The Testimony of 1. Scripture 2. Catholic-Church-Authority 3. Councils with the Danger and Guilt of 4. Heresie and 5. Schism Not intending hereby to equal all Protestant Opinions with the Socinian but inferring that these Pleas as relating to these Motives will as rationally justifie the Socinian as the Protestant For suppose a Protestant first concerning the Scriptures question a Socinian in this manner Prot. Why do you to the great danger of your soul and salvation not believe God the Son to be of one and the same essence and substance with God the Father it being so principal an Article of the Christian Faith delivered in the Holy Scriptures Soc. To give you a satisfactory account of this matter I do believe with other Christians that the Scriptures are the Word of God and with other Protestants that they are a perfect Rule of my faith Prot. But this secures you not unless you believe according to this Rule § 2 which in this point you do not Soc. However I believe in this point truly or falsly I am secure that my Faith is entire as to all necessary points of Faith Prot. How so Soc. Because as M. Chillingworth saith †p. 23 159 367. He that believes all that is in the Bible all that is in the Scriptures as I do believes all that is necessary there Prot. This must needs be true but mean while if there be either some part of Scripture not known at all by you or the true sense of some part of that you know for the Scripture as that Author notes †Chill p. 87. is not so much the words as the sense be mistaken by you how can you say you believe all the Scriptures For when you say you believe all the Scripture you mean only this that you believe that whatsoever is the true sense thereof that is God's Word and most certainly true which belief of yours doth very well consist with your not believing or also your believing the contrary to the true sense thereof and then you not believing the true sense of some part of it at least may also not believe the true sense of something necessary there which is quite contrary to your conclusion here Soc. § 3 †Chill p. 18. I believe that that sense of them which God intendeth whatsoever it is is certainly true And thus I believe implicitely even those very truths against which I err Next †Chill Ib. I do my best endeavour to believe Scripture in the true sense thereof By my best endeavour I mean †Chill p. 19. such a measure of industry as humane prudence and ordinary discretion my abilities and opportunities my distractions and hindrances and all other things considered shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence Of using which endeavour also I conceive I may be sufficiently certain for otherwise I can have no certainty of any thing I believe from this compleat Rule of Scriptures this due endeavour being the condition which Protestants require that I shall not be as to all necessaries deceived in the sense of Scripture Now being conscious to my self of such a right endeavour used †Chillingw p. 102. For me to believe further this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to my faith or salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely Or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed †Chill p. 18 92. For
with God the Father carry not the same evidence and clearness as those Scriptures do whereon Protestants build the certainty of their Faith against the Papists or against the common Church-Doctrines that were before Luther Soc. That say the Papists of your plain Scriptures which you of mine I pray what can be said more plain or in what point in your Opinion more fundamental wherein we contend Scripture is most clear even to the unlearned than this in Joh. 17.3 Ut cognoscant te Pater solum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum And 1 Cor. 8.6 Unus Deus Pater unus Dominus Jesus And Eph. 4. ver 5. Unus est Dominus i. e. Jesus and then ver 6. Unus est Deus Pater omnium And Joh. 14.1 Creditis in Deum in me credite And v. 28. Pater meus major me est I say what more clear for proving the Father his being the true most high God and excluding the other Persons the Son or the Holy Ghost from being the very same God Prot. And 1. what more clear on the other side than these Texts Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever And Tit. 2.3 The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ And †1 Joh. 5.20 we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternal life spoken by St. John the great vindicator against Ebion Cerinthus Carpocrates and other in his time opposers of our Lord's Divinity †S. Hieron de viris illust And Apoc. 1.8 compared with 1.17 I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending which is and which was and which is to come the Almighty I say what more clear than these Texts for shewing the true Deity of Christ 2. And then how many other clear Texts are there asserting the Eternity of our Lord that he is nothing made or created but pre-existent before the constitution of the World equal with God and that Heaven and Earth and all things were made by him that were made and that he descended from Heaven from his Father when he took our nature upon him See Joh. 1.1 c. 3.13 Heb 1.2 3 10 c. Joh. 17.5 24. Phil. 2.6 Joh. 6.38 16.28 1. Tim. 3.16 Heb. 2.14 And 3. then his Deity and Eternity thus cleared his Deity can be no other than in the total essence thereof numerically the same with that of God the Father For those of your own Sect together with the whole Christian world do acknowledge 1. That there is but one numerical most high God an inseparable attribute of whom is his Creating of the world and preexistence before it And again 2. That the substance or essence of this most high God is not any way divisible partible or multipliable so that Si Christus ex Dei substantiâ generatus fuit tota ei Patris substantia eadem numero communicata fuit See Volkel de vera Rel. l. 5. c. 12. upon which consequence well discerned your predecessors were constrained to desert Arianism or semi-Arianism and to take in other respects a more desperate way of denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation To return then to our business All Scripture being equally true you know no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sense which others as clear contradict The non-consideration of which by the passionate or unlearned is the mother of all errors The Texts therefore that you produce here so manifest on your side that they may not contradict many more others as clear against you are to be understood to speak of our Lord only according to his Incarnation Messias and Mediatorship in which he hath an inferiority to the Father and is our Lord by a special Redemption with his blood in another manner than He together with his Father in the same essence is the one true God Soc. All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently considered and answered by our party Prot. And your Answers are new forced absurd as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing Volkelius l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter But to omit this dispute as now beside my purpose If your sense of the Scriptures you have urged be so manifest and clear as you pretend how comes so great a part of the Christian world doubtless rational men in the sense of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a due industry well comparing these Scriptures and void of pride passion and other interest Soc. And I return the like question to you If on the clearness of the express sense of these Scriptures I cannot infallibly ground my faith against many other rational men contradicting on what plainness of the sense of any other Scripture is it that Protestants can ground theirs against a contrary sense given by the learned by several Councils by the whole Church of some ages as they do not promising to the Councils even to the four first an absolute but conditional assent viz. only so far as their Degrees agree with these clear Scriptures If neither the plain words of Scripture can afford a sufficient certainty to me in this matter which Scriptures you say in fundamentals are to all perspicuous and such do many deem this point nor I can have a sufficient assurance of using an unbiast industry in the understanding of these Scriptures and also in the comparing them with others in which I am conscious to my self of no neglect I see no sufficient ground of my presuming to understand any other part of Scripture and then wherein can lye the assurance of a Protestant's Faith for his not erring in Fundamentals at least Bishop Lany tells me * Serm. at Whitehall March 12. 1664. p. 17. That when we have certain knowledge of a thing we may safely learn from the Schools viz. Ubi non est formido contrarii that after diligent search and inquiry when there remains no scruple doubt and fear of the contrary when the understanding is fixt we are said to be certain And that they who will say it and do think so too may safely be absolved from the guilt of disobedience Prot. †Dr. Ferne Division of Churches p. 46.61 Chillinw p. 57. You have a judgment of discretion I grant and may Interpret Scripture for your self without the use of which Judgment you cannot serve God with a reasonable service who are also to give account of your self and are to be saved by your own Faith and do perish upon your own score †Stillingfl p. 1 3. None may usurp that royal prerogative of Heaven in prescribing infallibly in matters questioned but leave all to judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each Member of this Society is bound to take care of his Soul
what Text Plainer than Hoc est corpus meum and yet Protestants understand it otherwise Very deficient therefore seemeth that answer of Mr. Chillingworth's to F. Knot ‖ Chillingw p. 307. urging That the first Reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say answers he that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formal and express terms contains many of their opinions whenas the greater world of Catholicks sees no such matter Besides as there is no term almost in any sentence but is capable of several acceptions so since no falshood no discord is in the Scriptures there is no sentence in it however sounding for the expression but must be reconciled in its sense to all the rest and for this a diligent comparing of Texts is necessary to attain the true meaning of many places that seem at the first sight most clear in what they say but that there are also other places as clear that seem to say the contrary And some such places they were and that in very necessary points too of which St. Peter saith That some wrested them to their own damnation ‖ 2 Pet. 3.16 wrested them because they wanted not industry but learning which the unlearned saith he wrest And indeed commonly the most ignorant have the strongliest-conceited certainty for what they apprehend or believe because they know fewest reasons against it whilst by much study and comparing several Revelations one with another those come at last to doubt or deny that sense of some of them which at the first they took for most certainly and evidently true Pardon this long Parenthesis CONFERENCE II. The Socinians Protestant-Plea For his not holding any thing contrary to the unanimous sense of the Catholick Church so far as this can justly oblige 1st THat an unanimous Consent of the whole Catholick Church in all ages such as the Protestants require for the proving of a point of faith to be necessary can never be shewed concerning this point of Consubstantiality § 14. And that the consent to such a doctrine of the major part is no argument sufficient since the Protestants deny the like consent valid for several other points § 14. 2. That supposing an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point yet from hence a Christian hath no security of the truth thereof according to Protestant Principles if this point whether way soever held be a non-necessary for that in such it is said the whole Church may err § 15. 3. That this Article's being in the affirmative put in the Creed proves it not as to the affirmative a Necessary § 16. 1st Because not originally in the Creed but added by a Council to which Creed if one Council may add so may another of equal authority in any age whatever restraint be made by a former Council 2. Because several Articles of the latter Creeds are affirmed by Protestants not necessary to be believed but upon a previous conviction that they are divine revelation § 16. 4. Lastly That though the whole Church delivers for truth in any point the contrary to that he holds he is not obliged to resign his judgment to her's except conditionally and with this reservation unless on the other side there appear evidence to him in God's Word Now of the evidence of Scripture in this point on his side that he hath no doubt § 17. § 13 2. NOw to resume the Conference The Protestant better thinking on it will not leave the Socinian thus at rest in this plerophory of his own sense of Scripture but thus proceeds Prot. Scriptures indeed are not so clear and perspicuous to every one ‖ Stillingfl p. 58 59. as that Art and subtilty may not be used to pervert the Catholick doctrine and to wrest the plain places of Scripture which deliver it so far from their proper meaning that very few ordinary capacities may be able to clear themselves of such mists as are cast before their eyes even in the great Articles of the Christian Faith Therefore why do not you submit your judgment and assent to the sense of Scripture in this point unanimously delivered by the consent of the Catholick Church which also is believed always unerrable in any necessary point of faith as this is Soc. First If you can shew me an unanimous consent of the Church Catholick of all ages in this point and that as held necessary I will willingly submit to it But this you can never do according to such a proof thereof as is required viz. ‖ Stillingfl p. 72. That all Catholick Writers agree in the belief of it and none of them oppose it and agree also in the belief of the necessity of it to all Christians * That no later Writers and Fathers in opposition of Hereticks or heats of contention judged then the Article so opposed to be more necessary than it was judged before the contention * That all Writers that give an account of the Faith of Christians deliver it And deliver it not as necessary to be believed by such as might be convinced that it is of divine Revelation but with a necessity of its being explicitely believed by all ‖ See before Dis 3. §. 52. Now no such unanimous consent can be pretended for the forementioned Consubstantiality For not to speak of the times next following the Council of Nice nor yet of several expressions in the Ancients Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Origen that seem to favour our opinion †See Petavius in Epipha Haer. 69. Nor of those Eastern Bishops which Arrius in his Letter to Eusebius Nicomed ‖ Apud Epipha Haer. 69 Theodor. l. 1 c. 5. numbers on his side Hilarius * De Synod relates no less than Eighty Bishops before that Council to have disallowed the reception of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Council also Seventeen some of note at first to have dissented from the rest Prot. § 14 Not yeilding what you say for truth but for the present supposing it yet the Judgment of so small a party may by no means be adhered to by you it being inconsiderable in respect of the whole Body of the Catholick Church declaring against you Soc. If the consent of the much major part is to be taken for the whole then the Reformed cannot maintain their dissent from the much more numerous body of Christianity that opposed their opinions and sense of Scriptures at the beginning of the Reformation and do still oppose them But not to stand upon this I would willingly conform to the unanimous or most general judgment of the Church Catholick if I were secure that she could not be mistaken in it But †Still p. 59. The sense of the Church Catholick is no infallible rule of interpreting Scripture in all things which concern the Rule of Faith * Stillingfl p. 133. Nor may she usurp that
Catalogue thereof that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less And that may be sufficiently declared to one all things considered which all things considered is not to another sufficiently declared and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes And as Mr. Stillingfleet follows him †p. 98.99 since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition and none can assign what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons or set down the exact bounds as to all individuals when their ignorance is inexcusable and when not or tell what is the measure of their capacity what allowance God makes for the prejudice of Education c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie in this my opinion on this score also because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth and to be explicitly believed by them yet to me as not having any sufficient proposal or conviction thereof but rather of the contrary it is no Fundamental and consequently my tenent opposing it if an error yet no Heresie Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations to those that were without Law §. 24. or those under the Law or those under the Gospel Fundamentals generally spoken of might be more to some than others yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel we say ‖ Chillingw p. 92. all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men even the unlearned and therefore the erring therein to all such cannot but be obstinate and Heretical Soc. Unless you mean only this That all Fundamentals i.e. so many as are required of any one are clear to him in Scripture but not all the same Fundamentals there clear to every one but to some more of them to some fewer I see not how this last said accords with that said before by the same person But if you mean thus then Consubstantiality the point we talk of may be a Fundamental to you and clear in Scripture but also not clear to me in Scripture and so no Fundamental and hence I think my self safe For ‖ Chillingw p. 367. I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture must needs believe all Fundamentals and so I cannot incurr Heresie which is opposite to some fundamental * Ib. 101. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other § 25 Prot. I pray you consider a little better what you said last for since Heresie as you grant it is an obstinate defence of error only against some necessary point of Faith and all truth delivered in Scripture is not such unless you can also distinguish in Scripture these points of necessary Faith from others you can have no certain knowledge of Heresie and the believing all that is delivered in Scripture though it may preserve you from incurring Heresie yet cannot direct you at all for knowing or discerning Heresie or an error against a fundamental or a necessary point of Faith from other simple and less dangerous errors that are not so nor by this can you ever know what errors are Heresies what not and so after all your confidence if by your neglect you happen not to believe some Scriptures in their true sense you can have no security in your Fundamental or necessary Faith or of your not incurring Heresie Neither Secondly according to your discourse hath the Church any means to know any one to be an Heretick because she can never know the just latitude of his fundamentals And so Heresie will be a grievous sin indeed but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient proposal as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish it Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith there hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for declaring Heresie and it may seem conviction enough to you that her most General Councils have defined the contrary position to what you maintain and received it for a fundamental Of which Ecclesiastical Authority for declaring Heresie thus Dr. Potter ‖ p. 97. The Catholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith upon the divine authority of Gods written word And therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick not properly because he disobeys the Church but because he yields not to Scripture suffientntly propounded or cleared unto him i. e. by the Church Where the Doctor seems to grant these two things That all that the Catholick Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture and that all such as oppose her judgment are Hereticks but only he adds that they are not Hereticks properly or formally for this opposing the Church but for opposing the Scriptures Whilst therefore the formalis ratio of Heresie is disputed that all such are Hereticks seems granted And the same Dr. elsewhere concludes thus ‖ p. 132. The mistaker will never prove that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholick Church he means such a Church as makes Declarations and that must be in her Councils And therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Heresie And again he saith †p. 103. Whatsoever opinion these ancient writers S. Austin Epiphanius and others conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of Christians that they called an Heresie because it differed from the received opinion not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church where in saying not because it opposed any Definition he means not only because For whilst that which differed from the received opinion of the Church was accounted an Heresie by them that which differed from a formal definition of the Church was so much more Something I find also for your better information in the Learned Dr. Hammond †Titus 3.11 commenting on that notable Text in Titus A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject a Text implying contrary to your discourse Heresie discoverable and censurable by the Church where he explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned not to signifie a mans publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Church's Censures Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against Conscience and though he knows he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church for so none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that stood against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest times you may guess whom he means should not be an Heretick and so no Heretick
could possibly be admonished or censured by the Church for no man would acknowledge of himself that what he did was by him done against his own Conscience the plea which you also make here for your self But to be an expression of his separation from and disobedience to the Church and so an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse See more Protestants cited to this purpose Disc 3. § 19. What say you to this Soc. § 26 What these Authors say as you give their sense seems to me contrary to the Protestant Principles See D. Potter p. 165 167. D. Hammond of Heresie § 7. n. § 9. n. 8. Def. of L. Falkl. c. 1. p. 23. and to their own positions elsewhere neither surely will Protestants tye themselves to this measure and trial of autocatacrisie For since they say That lawful General Councils may err in Fundamentals these Councils may also define or declare something Heresie that is not against a Fundamental and if so I though in this self-convinced that such is their Definition yet am most free from Heresie in my not assenting to it or if they err intollerably in opposing it Again since Protestants say Councils may err in distinguishing Fundamentals these Councils may err also in discerning Heresie which is an error against a Fundamental from other errors that are against non-Fundamentals Again Whilst I cannot distinguish Fundamentals in their Definitions thus no Definition of a General Council may be receded from by me for fear of my incurring Heresie a consequence which Protestants allow not Again Since Protestants affirm all Fundamentals plain in Scripture why should they place autocatacrisie or self-conviction in respect of the Declaration of the Church rather than of the Scripture But to requite your former quotations I will shew in plainer Language the stating of Protestant Divines concerning Autocatacrisie as to the Definitions of the Church under which my opinion also finds sufficient shelter We have no assurance at all saith Bishop Bramhall †Reply to Chalced. p. 105. that all General Councils were and always shall be so prudently managed and their proceedings always so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to believe under pain of damnation I add or under pain of Heresie And Ib. p. 102. I acknowledge saith he that a General Council may make that revealed truth necessary to be believed by a Christian as a point of Faith which formerly was not necessary to be believed that is whensoever the reasons and grounds of truth produced by the Council or the authority of the Council which is and always ought to be very great with all sober discreet Christians do convince a man in his Conscience of the truth of the Councils Definitions which truth I am as yet not convinced of neither from the reasons nor authority of the Council of Nice Or if you had rather have it out of Dr. Potter It is not resisting saith he ‖ p. 128. the voice definitive sentence which makes an Heretick but an obstinate standing out against evident Scripture sufficiently cleared unto him And the Scripture may then be said to be sufficiently cleared when it is so opened that a good and teachable mind loving and seeking truth my Conscience convinceth me not but that such I am cannot gainsay it Again †p. 129. It is possible saith he that the sentence of a Council or Church may be erroneous either because the opinion condemned is no Heresie or error against the Faith in it self considered or because the party so condemned is not sufficiently convinced in his understanding not clouded with prejudice ambition vain-glory or the like passion that it is an error one of these I account my self Or out of Dr. Hammond †Heresie p. 114. It must be lawful for the Church of God any Church or any Christian upon the Doctors reason as well as for the Bishop of Rome to enquire whether the Decrees of an Universal Council have been agreeable to Apostolical Tradition or no and if they be found otherwise to eject them out or not to receive them into their belief And then still it is the matter of the Decrees and the Apostolicalness of them and the force of the testification whereby they are approved and acknowledged to be such which gives the authority to the Council and nothing else is sufficient where that is not to be found And elsewhere he both denies in General an Infallibility of Councils ‖ and grounds the Reverence due to the Four first Councils on their setting down and convincing the truth of their Doctrin out of the Scripture words understood with piety and the fetching their Definitions regularly from the sense thereof which the General Churches had received down from the Apostles ‖ Of Heresie p. 96. Upon which follows that in such case where a Lawful General Council doth not so as possibly it may and Inferiors are to consider for themselves whether it doth not there may be no Heretical Autocatacrisie in a dissent from it nor this dissent an evidence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his being perverted and sinning wilfully and without excuse Lastly thus Doctor Stillingfleet concerning Heresie ‖ Rat. Account p. 73. The formal reason of Heresie is denying something supposed to be of divine Revelation and therefore 2ly None can reasonably be accused of Heresie but such as have sufficient reason to believe that that which they deny is revealed by God And therefore 3ly None can be guilty of Heresie for denying any thing declared by the Church unless they have sufficient reason to believe that whatever is declared by the Church is revealed by God and therefore the Church's Definition cannot make any Hereticks but such as have reason to believe that she cannot err in her Definitions From hence also he gathers That Protestants are in less danger of Heresie than Papists till these give them more sufficient reasons to prove that whatever the Church declares is certainly revealed by God Thus he Now such sufficient proving reasons as Protestants plead that Papists have not yet given them concerning this matter of Church-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
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
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
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