Part 6 (1/2)
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 const.i.tuted 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 G.o.ds 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 a.s.sent_ 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 d.a.m.n 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 a.s.sent 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 d.a.m.nation, 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 G.o.d-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_ a.s.sent to the three Creeds. She a.s.senteth 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 d.a.m.nable 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 paenam nemo pat.i.tur._----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, a.s.senteth to, and teacheth, what she judgeth evident in the Scripture; for so she ought; what she believes, or a.s.senteth 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 a.s.sent 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 a.s.sent, 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.sent 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.