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
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
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
the present Church negligent in considering them Prot. Here I confess to make the Superiors Judges of this is to cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his Grievance these Superiors whose Faith appears to adhere to the former Council being only Judges in their own Cause and so the liberty of complaining will come to nothing ‖ Stillingfl p. 479 292. Soc. The Inferiors then that complain I suppose are to judge of this To proceed then To these Superiors in many diligent Writings we have proposed as we think many unanswerable Scriptures and Reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our Party to the former Nicene Council and therefore from which Evidences of ours we have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary Sentence and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a reviewing this Point we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a Socinian Church Pastor or Bishop to reform for themselves and the Souls committed to them in an Error appearing to them manifest and intolerable as for the Protestants or for Dr. Luther to have done the same for Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Mass and other Points that have been concluded against the Truth by several former Councils Prot. But such were not lawful General Councils as that of Nice was Soc. Whatever these Councils were this much matters not as to a reformation from them for had they been lawfully General yet Protestants hold ‖ See before Disc 3. these not universally accepted may err even in Fundamentals or when so accepted yet may err in Non-fundamentals Errors manifest and intolerable §. 34 c. and so may be appealed from to future and those not called their Error presently rectified by such Parts of Christianity as discern it and also S. Austin ‖ De Baptismo l. 2. c. 3. is frequently quoted by them saying That past General Councils erring may be corrected by other Councils following § 22 Prot. But I pray you consider if that famous Council of Nice hath so erred another Council called may it also not err notwithstanding your Evidences proposed to it For though perhaps some new demonstrative Proofs you may pretend from several Texts more accurately compared and explained yet you will not deny this sufficient Evidence to have been extant for that most Learned Council to have seen the Truth having then the same entire Rule of Faith as you now the Scriptures in which you say your clearest Evidences lie for their direction When a future Council then is assembled and hath heard your Plea will you assent to it and acquiesce in the Judgment thereof Soc. Yes interposing the Protestant-Conditions of Assent If its Decree be according to God's Word and we convinced thereof Prot. Why such a submission of Judgment and Assent I suppose you will presently yield to me in any thing whereof you are convinced by me may this future Council then challenge no further Duty from you why then should the Church be troubled to call it Soc. †Stillingfl p. 542. Though this future Council also should err yet it may afford Remedy against Inconveniences and one great Inconvenience being Breaking the Church's Peace this is remedied by its Authority if I only yield the Obedience of Silence thereto Prot. But if your Obedience oblige not to silence concerning Councils past because of your new Evidences neither will it to a future if you think it also doth err and either these Evidences remain still unsatisfied or these satisfied yet some other new ones appear to call for a new Consideration Soc. †Stillingfl ibid. Because it may also err it follows not it must err and it is probable that it shall not err when the former Error is thus discovered and if the Council proceed lawfully be not overawed c. ‖ Id. p. 526. But however if I ought upon this review to be restrained to silence yet I not convinced of the truth of its Decree this Silence is the uttermost that any future Council after its rejecting my Reasons can justly exact of me and not belief or assent at all It may not oblige me that I should relinquish that you call Socinianism at all but that not divulge it whereas now by the Acts of former Councils I would gladly know upon what rational ground an Anathema is pronounced against me if I do not believe the contrary and I am declared to stand guilty of Heresie meerly for retaining this Opinion which retaining it is called obstinacy and contumacy in me after the Councils contrary Definition CONFERENCE IV. His Plea for his not being guilty of Heresie THat he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles be accused as guilty of Heresie for several reasons 1. Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an obstinate defence of some error against a fundamental he thinks from hence his tenent freed from being an Heresie as long as in silence he retains it unless he engage further to a publick pertinacious maintaining thereof § 23. 2. Fundamentals varying according to particular persons and sufficient proposal none can conclude this point in the affirmative to be as to him a fundamental or of the truth of which he hath had a sufficient proposal 3. That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie doth not necessarily argue that it is so because they may err in Fundamentals or at least in distinguishing them from other points § 26. 4. That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting from their Definitions till he is either actually convinced or at least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such point defined that such Councils have authority to require submission of judgment and assent to their Definitions of which conviction or sufficient proposal that varies much according to the differing conditions of several persons as to himself none can judge save himself and consequently neither can they judge of his guilt of Heresie Ib. § 23 4. PRot. You know that all Hereticks are most justly anathematized and cut off from being any longer Members of the Catholick Church and so do remain excluded also from Salvation Now this Tenent of yours hath always been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious Heresie Soc. I confess Heresie a most grievous Crime dread and abhor it and trust I am most free from such a guilt and from this I have many ways of clearing my self For Heresie as Mr. Chillingworth defines it ‖ p. 271. being not an erring but an obstinate defence of an Error not of any Error but of one against a necessary or fundamental Article of the Christian Faith First Though this which I hold should be an error and that against a Fundamental yet my silence practised therein can never be called an obstinate defence thereof and therefore not my tenent an Heresie 2. Since Fundamentals vary according to particular persons and as Mr. Chillingworth saith ‖ p. 134. N
Catalogue thereof that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less And that may be sufficiently declared to one all things considered which all things considered is not to another sufficiently declared and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes And as Mr. Stillingfleet follows him †p. 98.99 since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition and none can assign what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons or set down the exact bounds as to all individuals when their ignorance is inexcusable and when not or tell what is the measure of their capacity what allowance God makes for the prejudice of Education c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie in this my opinion on this score also because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth and to be explicitly believed by them yet to me as not having any sufficient proposal or conviction thereof but rather of the contrary it is no Fundamental and consequently my tenent opposing it if an error yet no Heresie Prot. Do not deceive your self for though according to different revelations to those that were without Law §. 24. or those under the Law or those under the Gospel Fundamentals generally spoken of might be more to some than others yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel we say ‖ Chillingw p. 92. all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men even the unlearned and therefore the erring therein to all such cannot but be obstinate and Heretical Soc. Unless you mean only this That all Fundamentals i.e. so many as are required of any one are clear to him in Scripture but not all the same Fundamentals there clear to every one but to some more of them to some fewer I see not how this last said accords with that said before by the same person But if you mean thus then Consubstantiality the point we talk of may be a Fundamental to you and clear in Scripture but also not clear to me in Scripture and so no Fundamental and hence I think my self safe For ‖ Chillingw p. 367. I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture must needs believe all Fundamentals and so I cannot incurr Heresie which is opposite to some fundamental * Ib. 101. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other § 25 Prot. I pray you consider a little better what you said last for since Heresie as you grant it is an obstinate defence of error only against some necessary point of Faith and all truth delivered in Scripture is not such unless you can also distinguish in Scripture these points of necessary Faith from others you can have no certain knowledge of Heresie and the believing all that is delivered in Scripture though it may preserve you from incurring Heresie yet cannot direct you at all for knowing or discerning Heresie or an error against a fundamental or a necessary point of Faith from other simple and less dangerous errors that are not so nor by this can you ever know what errors are Heresies what not and so after all your confidence if by your neglect you happen not to believe some Scriptures in their true sense you can have no security in your Fundamental or necessary Faith or of your not incurring Heresie Neither Secondly according to your discourse hath the Church any means to know any one to be an Heretick because she can never know the just latitude of his fundamentals And so Heresie will be a grievous sin indeed but walking under such a vizard of non-sufficient proposal as the Ecclesiastical Superiors cannot discover or punish it Therefore to avoid such confusion in the Christian Faith there hath been alwaies acknowledged in the Church some authority for declaring Heresie and it may seem conviction enough to you that her most General Councils have defined the contrary position to what you maintain and received it for a fundamental Of which Ecclesiastical Authority for declaring Heresie thus Dr. Potter ‖ p. 97. The Catholick Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith upon the divine authority of Gods written word And therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretick not properly because he disobeys the Church but because he yields not to Scripture suffientntly propounded or cleared unto him i. e. by the Church Where the Doctor seems to grant these two things That all that the Catholick Church declares against Heresie is grounded upon the Scripture and that all such as oppose her judgment are Hereticks but only he adds that they are not Hereticks properly or formally for this opposing the Church but for opposing the Scriptures Whilst therefore the formalis ratio of Heresie is disputed that all such are Hereticks seems granted And the same Dr. elsewhere concludes thus ‖ p. 132. The mistaker will never prove that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholick Church he means such a Church as makes Declarations and that must be in her Councils And therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Heresie And again he saith †p. 103. Whatsoever opinion these ancient writers S. Austin Epiphanius and others conceived to be contrary to the common or approved opinion of Christians that they called an Heresie because it differed from the received opinion not because it opposed any formal Definition of the Church where in saying not because it opposed any Definition he means not only because For whilst that which differed from the received opinion of the Church was accounted an Heresie by them that which differed from a formal definition of the Church was so much more Something I find also for your better information in the Learned Dr. Hammond †Titus 3.11 commenting on that notable Text in Titus A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject a Text implying contrary to your discourse Heresie discoverable and censurable by the Church where he explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned not to signifie a mans publick accusing or condemning his own doctrines or practices for that condemnation would rather be a motive to free one from the Church's Censures Nor 2ly to denote one that offends against Conscience and though he knows he be in the wrong yet holds out in opposition to the Church for so none but Hypocrites would be Hereticks and he that stood against the Doctrin of Christ and his Church in the purest times you may guess whom he means should not be an Heretick and so no Heretick
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
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