§. 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, [66]——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 sufficiently 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, [67]——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, [68]——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, [69]commenting on that notable Text in Titus——A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition, reject, 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 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 εξέστραπται καὶ ἁμαρτάνει his being perverted, and sinning wilfully, and without excuse. What say you to this?
[§. 26.]
Soc. 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[70]) 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[71]) the voice or 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 [72]——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, [73]——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.[74] [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 εξέστραπται and ἁμαρτάνει his being perverted and sinning wilfully, and without excuse.]——Lastly, thus Doctor Stillingfleet concerning Heresie[75]——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, 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, [76]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[77]: 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. [78]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.