_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_ +homoousion+ _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._

[81] _Dr. Potter p._ 75.

[82] _Chillingw. p._ 274.

[83] _Lawd. p._ 142.

[84] _p._ 331.

[85] _Stilling. ib._

[86] _Vindic. of the Church of Eng._ _p._ 9.

[87] _D. Potter p._ 76.

[88] _Stillingfl. p._ 359.

[89] _Division of Churches. p._ 106.

[90] _Chillingw. p._ 278.

[91] _Ib._ 279.

[92] _Of Schism_, _p._ 23, 24, 25.

[93] _p._ 73.

[94] _Stillingfl. p._ 292.

[95] _p._ 100.

[96] _Schism guarded_, _p._ 192.

[97] _p._ 200.

[98] _Of Fundamentals. p._ 90.

[99] _cap._ 1.

[100] _Can._ 4.

[101] _p._ 70, 71.

[102] _See before_ §. 26.

[103] _Chillingw. Pref._ §. 39.

[104] _Ib._ §. 28.

[105] _Ib._ §. 29.

[106] _Ibid._

[107] _Chillingw. p._ 376.

[108] _Ib._ §. 57.

_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_.

The Protestants Plea for a Socinian Justifying His Doctrine from Being Opposite to Scripture or Church Authority; and Him from Being Guilty of Heresie, or Schism · 第 4 / 4 段