§. 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.