[66] _p._ 97.
[67] _p._ 132.
[68] _p._ 103.
[69] _t.i.tus_ 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 a.s.sent 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 _G.o.d"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 d.a.m.nation 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 a.s.sent 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 pa.s.s; 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 a.s.sign 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.