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
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
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