Chapter II: Part 2

_Prot._ No Person that is appointed by our Lord to be a Judge in any Controversie (as those Bishops you have mentioned were in the Cause of _Arius_) can rightly or properly be said to be, on that Side for which he gives Sentence, a Party. Nor doth their giving Sentence once against any Side, prejudice them (as supposed Enemies, or Opposites, or Interested) from sitting on the Bench, as oft as need requires, to pass it again, alone, or with others. But, if every one may be afterward called an Anti-party, who once declares himself of a contrary Judgment, I perceive Mr. _Chillingworth_'s Observation is right, [46]_That, in Controversies in Religion, it is in a manner impossible to be avoided, but the Judge must be a Party._ I add also, That in Matters of Religion, where every Man is concerned, and in great Controversies, especially where is any division of Communion, all, both _Laity_ and _Clergy_, speedily own, and range themselves on one side or other; _Clergy_ interessing themselves for the necessary direction of their _Subjects_; _Laity_, in obedience to their _Superiors_; neither can such a Judge be nominated, that is not to one side suspected. So that, in Controversies of Religion, we must deny any Judge (as he did[47]); or this Plea, That the ordinary Judge, that is assigned us, is a _Party_, must not be easily hearkened to. As for that you urge out of Bishop _Taylor_, concerning the _Laity_ in the first Council at _Jerusalem_ (the Pattern to all following) being Parties in the Decree, I suppose it is meant no further, than that also these may assist in the Council, and give there a consentient, or attesting, but not a decisive Vote: which neither did the Emperors claim, when they presided therein. _See Dr. Field of the Church, p._ 646.

§. 19.

_Soc._ But I have not yet said all. For Fifthly, Were there none of the forenamed defects in it, [48]_No Authority on Earth can oblige to_ internal assent _in matters of Faith, or to any farther Obedience than that of_ Silence.

_Prot._ Yes, you stand obliged to yield a _conditional_ assent, at least to the Definitions of these highest Courts, _i. e._ unless you can bring evident _Scripture_, or _Demonstration_ against them.

_Soc._ I do not think Protestant Divines agree in this. I find indeed the Archbishop[49] requiring Evidence and Demonstration, for Inferiors _contradicting_, or publishing their dissent from the Councils Decrees, but not requiring thus much for their _denial_ of _assent_. And I am told, [50]--_That in matters proposed by my Superiors, as_ God's Word, _and of_ Faith, _I am not tied to believe it such, till they manifest it to me to be_ so; _and not that I am to believe it such, unless I can manifest it to be_ contrary, _because my Faith can rest on no Humane Authority, but only on God's Word, and Divine Revelation._ And Dr. _Field_ saith,--[51]_It is not necessary expresly to believe, whatsoever the Council hath concluded, though it be true, unless by some other means it appear unto us to be true, and we be convinced of it in some other sort than by the bare Determination of the Council._ Till I am convinced then of my Error, the Obedience of _Silence_ is the most that can be required of me.

§. 20

But sixthly, I conceive my self in this point not obliged to this neither; considering my present persuasion, that this Council _manifestly_ erred; and that, in an error of such high consequence (concerning the _unity_ of the _most high God_) as is no way to be tolerated; and I want not evident Scriptures, and many other unanswerable Demonstrations, to shew it did so; and therefore being admitted into the honourable Function of the Ministry, I conceive I have a lawful Commission from an _higher Authority_, to publish this great Truth of _God_, and to contradict the _Councils_ Decree.

§. 21.

_Prot._ But you may easily mistake that for _evident Scripture_, and those for _Demonstrations_, that are not. Concerning which you know what the Archbishop and Mr. _Hooker_ say[52]----_That they are such, as proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent to them_[53]. You ought therefore first to propose these to your Superiors, or to the Church, desiring a redress of such Error by her calling another Council. And, if these Superiors, acquainted therewith, dislike your Demonstrations, which the Definition saith, if they be right ones, they must be by all, and therefore by them, assented to, methinks, (though this is not said by the Archbishop) in humility you ought also to suspect these Demonstrations, and remain in silence at least, and no further trouble the Church.

_Soc._ May therefore no particular Person, or Church, proceed to a Reformation of a former Doctrine, if these Superiors, first complained to, declare the Grounds of such Persons or Churches for it, not sufficient?

_Prot._ I must not say so. But if they neglect (as they may) to consider their _just_ Reasons so diligently as they ought, and to call a Council for the Correcting of such Error according to the weight of these Reasons, then here is place for Inferiors to proceed to a reformation of such Error without them.

_Soc._ And who then shall judge, whether the Reasons pretended are _defective_, or rather the present Church _negligent_ in considering them?

_Prot._ Here, I confess, to make _the Superiors_ Judges of this, is to cast the Plaintiff before that any Council shall hear his Grievance, these Superiors, whose Faith appears to adhere to the former Council, being only Judges in their own Cause; and so the liberty of complaining will come to nothing[54].

_Soc._ The Inferiors then, that complain, I suppose are to judge of this. To proceed then. To these Superiors, in many diligent Writings, we have proposed, as we think, many unanswerable Scriptures, and Reasons much advanced beyond those represented by our Party to the former _Nicene_ Council (and therefore from which Evidences of ours we have just cause to hope from a future Council a contrary Sentence); and finding no redress by their calling another Council for a reviewing this Point, we cannot but conceive it as lawful for a Socinian Church, Pastor, or Bishop, to reform for themselves, and the Souls committed to them, in an Error appearing to them _manifest_ and _intolerable_, as for the Protestants, or for Dr. _Luther_, to have done the same for Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, and other Points that have been concluded, against the Truth, by several former Councils.

_Prot._ But such were not _lawful General Councils_, as that of _Nice_ was.

_Soc._ Whatever these Councils were, this much matters not, as to a _reformation_ from them; for, had they been lawfully General, yet Protestants hold[55], these not universally accepted may err even in _Fundamentals_; or, when so accepted, yet may err in Non-fundamentals; Errors _manifest_, and _intolerable_, and so may be appealed from to future; and those not called, their Error presently rectified by such Parts of Christianity as discern it; and also S. _Austin_[56] is frequently quoted by them, saying----_That past General Councils erring, may be corrected by other Councils following_.

§. 22.

_Prot._ But I pray you consider, if that famous Council of _Nice_ hath so erred, another Council called, may it also not err, notwithstanding your Evidences proposed to it? For, though perhaps some new demonstrative Proofs you may pretend from several Texts more accurately compared and explained; yet you will not deny this sufficient Evidence to have been extant for that most Learned Council to have seen the Truth, having then the same entire Rule of Faith as you now, the Scriptures, (in which, you say, your clearest Evidences lie) for their direction. When a Future Council (then) is assembled, and hath heard your Plea, will you _assent_ to it, and acquiesce in the Judgment thereof?

_Soc._ Yes, interposing the Protestant-Conditions of Assent, _If its Decree be according to God's Word, and we convinced thereof_.

_Prot._ Why, such a submission of Judgment and Assent I suppose you will presently yield to me in any thing, whereof you are convinced by me; may this future Council then challenge no further Duty from you? why then should the Church be troubled to call it?

_Soc._ [57]_Though this Future Council also should err, yet it may afford Remedy against Inconveniences; and one great Inconvenience being, Breaking the Church's Peace; this is remedied by its Authority_, if I only yield the Obedience of Silence thereto.

_Prot._ But if your Obedience oblige not to _silence_ concerning Councils past, because of your new Evidences, neither will it to a future, if you think it also doth err; and either these Evidences remain still unsatisfied, or these satisfied, yet some other new ones appear to call for a new Consideration.

_Soc._ [58]_Because it may also err, it follows not it must err; and it is probable that it shall not err, when the former Error is thus discovered, and if the Council proceed lawfully, be not overawed,_ &c.[59] But however, if I ought upon this review to be restrained to _silence_, yet, I not convinced of the truth of its Decree, this Silence is the uttermost that any future Council, after its rejecting my Reasons, can justly exact of me; and not _belief_, or _assent_, at all: It may not oblige me, that I should relinquish that you call _Socinianism_ at all, but that, not divulge it; whereas now by the Acts of _former_ Councils (I would gladly know upon what rational ground) an _Anathema_ is pronounced against me, if I do not believe the contrary, and I am declared to stand guilty of _Heresie_ meerly for retaining this Opinion; which retaining it is called _obstinacy_ and _contumacy_ in me, after the Councils contrary _Definition_.

[41] _p._ 515, 516.

[42] _See before_, §. 13.

[43] §. 13.

[44] _See Baronius._ A. D. 318, 319.

[45] §. 478.

[46] _p._ 60.

[47] _Ib._ §. 10.

[48] _Whitby_, _p._ 15. _Stillingfleet_, _p._ 506, 537.

[49] §. 32. _n._ 5. & §. 33. _consid._ 5. _n._ 1.

[50] _Dr. Ferne, Case between the Churches_, _p._ 48, 49. & _Division of Churches_, _p._ 45.

[51] _p._ 666.

[52] _A. B. Laud_ 245.

[53] _Id._ _p._ 227.

[54] _Stillingfl. p._ 479, 292.

[55] _See before, Disc_. 3. §. 34, _&c._

[56] _De Baptismo_, _l._ 2. _c._ 3.

[57] _Stillingfl. p._ 542.

[58] _Stillingfl. ibid._

[59] _Id. p._ 526.

CONFERENCE IV.

His Plea, for his not being guilty of _Heresie_.

_That he cannot rightly according to Protestant Principles, be accused as guilty of_ Heresie, _for several reasons._

1. _Because Protestants holding Heresie to be an_ obstinate _defence
of some error against a fundamental, he thinks from hence his
tenent freed from being an Heresie, as long as in silence he
retains it, unless he engage further, to a publick pertinacious
maintaining thereof._ §. 23.

2. _Fundamentals varying according to particular persons, and
sufficient proposal; none can conclude this point in the
affirmative, to be,_ as to him, _a fundamental, or, of the truth of
which he hath had a sufficient proposal._

3. _That a lawful General Council's declaring some point Heresie,
doth not necessarily argue that it is so; because they may err in
Fundamentals; or at least in distinguishing them from other
points._ §. 26.

4. _That he can have no autocatacrisie or obstinacy in a dissenting
from their Definitions, till he is either actually convinced, or at
least hath had a sufficient proposal either of the truth of such
point defined: that such Councils have authority to require
submission, of judgment, and assent to their Definitions: of which
conviction or sufficient proposal (that varies much, according to
the differing conditions of several persons) as to himself, none
can judge save himself: and, consequently, neither can they judge
of his guilt of Heresie._ Ib.

§. 23.

4. _Prot._ You know that all _Hereticks_ are most justly _anathematized_, and cut off from being any longer Members of the Catholick Church, and so do remain excluded also from Salvation. Now this _Tenent_ of yours hath always been esteemed by the Church of God a most pernicious _Heresie_.

_Soc._ I confess _Heresie_ a most grievous Crime, dread and abhor it, and trust I am most free from such a guilt; and from this I have many ways of clearing my self. For Heresie (as Mr. _Chillingworth_ defines it) [60]being not an erring, but an _obstinate_ defence of an Error; not of any Error, but of one against a _necessary_ or _fundamental_ Article of the Christian Faith. First, Though this which I hold should be an error, and that against a Fundamental, yet my silence practised therein, can never be called an obstinate defence thereof, and therefore not my tenent an _Heresie_. 2. Since Fundamentals vary according to particular persons, and (as Mr. _Chillingworth_ saith[61])--_No Catalogue thereof, that can be given, can universally serve for all men; God requiring more of them, to whom he gives more, and less of them, to whom he gives less;--And that may be sufficiently declared to one (all things considered) which (all things considered) is not to another sufficiently declared: and variety of circumstances makes it as impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals, as to make a Coat to fit the Moon in all her changes_: And (as Mr. _Stillingfleet_ follows him[62]) _since the measure of Fundamentals depends on the sufficiency of the proposition; and none can assign what number of things are sufficiently propounded to the belief of all persons, or set down the exact bounds, as to all individuals, when their ignorance is inexcusable, and when not; or tell what is the measure of their capacity; what allowance God makes for the prejudice of Education_, &c. Hence I conceive my self free from Heresie, in this my opinion, on this score also; because though the contrary be to some others a Fundamental truth, and to be explicitly believed by them; yet to me, as not having any sufficient proposal, or conviction thereof, but rather of the contrary, it is no _Fundamental_, and consequently, my tenent opposing it, if an _error_, yet no _Heresie_.

§. 24.

_Prot._ Do not deceive your self; for though according to different revelations, to those that were without Law, or those under the Law, or those under the Gospel; _Fundamentals_ generally spoken of, might be more to some than others; yet to all those who know and embrace the Gospel, we say[63]; all Fundamentals are therein clearly proposed to all reasonable men, even the unlearned; and therefore the erring therein, to all such, cannot but be obstinate and Heretical.

_Soc._ Unless you mean only this, That all Fundamentals, (_i.e._ so many as are required of any one) are clear to him in Scripture; but not all the same Fundamentals, there clear to every one; but to some more of them; to some fewer; I see not how this last said, accords with that said before by the same person. But if you mean thus, then _Consubstantiality_, (the point we talk of) may be a Fundamental to you, and clear in Scripture, but also not clear to me in Scripture, and so no Fundamental, and hence I think my self safe. For,----[64]_I believing all that is clear to me in Scripture, must needs believe all Fundamentals; and so I cannot incurr Heresie, which is opposite to some fundamental_----[65]_The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is the Faith, must of necessity also teach me what is Heresie: That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but manifest the other._

§. 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_, [a Text implying contrary to your discourse, Heresie discoverable, and censurable by the Church,] where he explains +autokatakritos+ _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_ +exestraptai kai hamartanei+ _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_ +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.

_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.