Part 4
_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?