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.]

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.]