§. 28.

PRot. I have yet one thing more, about which to question you. If you will not acknowledge your opinion Heresie in opposing the publick judgment, and definition of the Catholick Church in that most reverend Council of Nice, upon pretence that you have not had a convincing Proposal, that this Definition was therein made according to God's Word, or the Scriptures; yet, how will you clear your self, or your Socinian Congregations of Schism? avoidable upon no plea of adherence to Scripture, if it shall appear, that you have for this opinion deserted the Communion of the Catholick Church; out of which Church is no Salvation.

Soc. [81]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. [82]—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[83].——The Schism is theirs, whose the Cause of it is; and he makes the separation, who gives the first just cause of it, not he that makes actual separation, upon a just cause preceding.

§. 30.

Again, Though we have made an actual Separation from them, 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[84]——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 [85](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[86]——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. [87]——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 [88]——They were justly charged with Schism, because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds. But as Dr. Ferne saith[89]—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 [90]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. [91]At least this I know, that the Doctrin 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.

§. 33.

Prot. At this rate none will be a Schismatick, but he who knows he erreth (i. e. not who holdeth, 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[92] 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[93] 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,——[94]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[95]—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 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[96] 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[97] 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[98] 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.[99] declares Heresie that, which hath been adjudged so by them; now in the definitions of these 4 first General Councils your tenent hath received a Mortal wound. But lastly, the 4th Canon in the English Synod held 1640.[100] 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 pÆnam nemo patitur.——And——Ob peccatum mere 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 [101]——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 Athanasian 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 definition 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.[102] For thus (if I rightly understand him) all the definitions of General Councils, 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 ????s??? 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 HÆresin 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[103])——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 [104]——whatsoever hath been held necessary to 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) [105]—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 [106]——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,[107] 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[108], 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. That, 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.