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_ +exestraptai+ _and_ +hamartanei+ _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.
§ 27.
_Soc._ It remains then to enquire, who shall judge concerning this
_sufficient proposal_, or sufficient reason, which I am said to have,
to believe what the _Nicene_ Council, or the Church hath declared in
this point. [79]Whether the Church's judgment is to be taken by me in
this, or my own made use of; If _her judgment_, the ground of my
belief and of Heresie lies still in the Church's _definition_; and
thus it will be all one in effect, whether I believe what she
declares, without sufficient reason; or learn this of her, when there
is sufficient reason to believe so. It must be then, _my own
judgment_, I am to be directed by in this matter[80]: and if so, then
it is to be presumed, that God doth both afford me some means not to
be mistaken therein; and also some certain knowledge when I do use
this means aright: (for, without these two I can have no security in
my own judgment in a matter of so high concernment, as _Heresie_ and
_fundamental Faith_ is.) Now this means, in this matter, I presume I
have daily used, in that I find my Conscience, after much examination,
therein to acquit me, unless you can prescribe me some other surer
evidence, without sending me back again to the _authority_ of the
_Church_.
_Prot._ 1. Whilst your discovery of your tenent to be an _Heresie_
depends on your having sufficient reason to believe it is so. And 2.
The judgment of your having, or not having sufficient reason to
believe this, is left to your self, the Church hath no means to know
you or any other to be an Heretick, till they declare themselves to be
so. And thus, in striving to free your self from Heresie, you have
freed all mankind from it, (as to any external discovery and
convincement thereof) and cancelled such a sin; unless we can find
one, that will confess himself to maintain a thing against his own
Conscience.
_Soc._ If I, so do the Protestants; for, they also hold none guilty of
_Heresie_, for denying any thing declared by the Church, unless they
have reason to believe, that whatever is declared by the Church is
revealed by God; and of this sufficient reason they make not the
_Church_ or _Superiors_, but _themselves_, the Judge.
[60] _p._ 271.
[61] _p._ 134.
[62] _p._ 98. 99.
[63] _Chillingw. p._ 92.
[64] _Chillingw. p._ 367.
[65] _Ib._ 101.
[66] _p._ 97.
[67] _p._ 132.
[68] _p._ 103.
[69] _Titus_ 3. 11.
[70] _Reply to Chalced. p._ 105.
[71] _p._ 128.
[72] _p._ 129.
[73] _Heresie_, _p._ 114.
[74] _Of Heresie p._ 96.
[75] _Rat. Account. p._ 73.
[76] _Stillingfl. p._ 99.
[77] _Stillingfl. p._ 74.
[78] _Ib. p._ 99.
[79] _Stillingfl. p._ 73.
[80] _See Still. p._ 479.
CONFERENCE V.
His Plea, for his not being guilty of _Schism_.
1. _That the Socinian Churches have not forsaken the whole Church
Catholick, or the external Communion of it: but only left one part
of it that was corrupted; and reformed another part,_ (i.e.)
_themselves. Or, that he, and the Socinian Churches, being a part
of the Catholick, they have not separated from the whole, because
not from themselves._ §. 28.
2. _That their separation being for an error unjustly imposed upon
them as a condition of Communion, the Schism is not theirs, who
made the separation; but theirs who caused it._ §. 29.
_Besides that, whatever the truth of things be; yet so long as they
are required by any Church to profess they believe, what they do
not, their separation cannot be said causless, and so Schism._
§. 32.
3. _That though he and his party had forsaken the external Communion
of all other Churches, yet not the internal; in which they remain
still united to them: both in that internal Communion of_ Charity,
_in not condemning all other Churches as non-Catholick; and in that
of_ Faith, _in all Essentials and Fundamentals, and in all such
points, wherein the Unity of the Church Catholick consists._ §. 30.
4. _That the doctrin of_ Consubstantiality _for which they departed,
is denyed by them to be any Fundamental; nor can the Churches, from
which they depart for it, be a competent Judge against them, that
it is so._ §. 34.
5. _That, though they are separaters from the Roman, yet not from the
Reformed Churches, which Churches leave men to the liberty of their
own judgment; nor require any internal assent to their doctrins (in
which thing these blame the tyranny of the Roman_ Church) _save
only conditional, if any be convinced of the truth thereof; or, not
convinced of the contrary._ §. 35.
6. _In fine, that for enjoying and continuing in the Protestant_
Communion _he maketh as full a profession of conformity to her
Doctrins as_ Mr. Chillingworth _hath done in several places of his
book, which yet was accepted as sufficient._ §. 41.
§. 28.
5. _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.