147 III. speaks) spared the whole sect of the Donatists, and looked upon DISCOURSE them as no such great strangers to them, because they did not know who were obstinate and who were not, who erred for want of light, and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences. The like spirit did possess Optatus, who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists "brethren," not by chance or inanimadvertence, but upon premeditation; he justifieth the title, and professeth himself to be obliged to use it"; he would not have done so to idolaters. And a little before in the same book, he wonders why his "brother Parmenian," being 'only a schismatic, would rank himself with heretics,' who were "falsifiers of the Creed;" that is, the old primitive Creed, which the Council of Trent itself placed in the front of their Acts, as their north star to direct them. I wish they had steered their course according to their compass. "To cut off a limb from a man, or a branch from a tree,” saith he, "is to destroy them"." Most true. But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body, as in a gangreen. The word of error is a canker or gangreen, "ws yάyypawa;" not cancer, a crab-fish, because 2 Tim. ii. it is retrograde, which was Anselm's mistake'. So, when superfluous branches are lopped away, it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better. 17. be just cause of [there can cause of His second conclusion from hence is, that "there can be There may no just or sufficient cause given for schism, because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sin;" and "be- separation, cause there is no salvation out of the Church;" which he be] no just proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin, to little purpose, schism. whilst no man doubts of it or denies it. And hence he infers this corollary, that I "say untruly that the Church of Rome is the cause of this" schism "and all other schisms in the Church, . . . . because there can be no just cause of schism"." My words were these, that "the Church of Rome, or rather the Pope and Court of Rome, are causally guilty both of this schism and almost all other schisms in the Church." There is a great difference between these two. u [De Schism. Donat., lib. i. cc. 3, 12.] planations without preferring either.] * [Ibid., c. 10.] [Surv., Pref., p. 4.] [In Comment. ad Epist. Secund. ad Timoth. c. ii. But he gives both ex a [Surv., Pref., p. 4.] b [Ibid., p. 5.] c [Just Vindic., c. viii. (vol. i. p. 246), Disc. ii. Part i.] PART I. [The Ca tholic Church cannot,] particular may, give of separa tion. But to dispel umbrages, and to clear the truth from these mists of words: we must distinguish between the Catholic Ecumenical Church, and particular Churches, how eminent soever; as likewise between criminous schism and lawful separation. First, I did never say, that the Catholic or Universal Church either did give, or could give, any just cause of separation from it; yea, I ever said the contrary expressly. And thereChurches fore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin, just cause and St. Cyprian, who never understood the Catholic Church in his sense his Catholic Church was but a particular Church with them; and their Catholic Church is " a mass of monsters and a hydra of many heads d" with him. But I did say, and I do say, that any particular Church, without exception whatsoever, may give just cause of separation from it by heresy, or schism, or abuse of their authority, in obtruding errors. And to save myself the labour of proving this by evidence of reason, and by authentic testimonies, I produce R. C. himself in the point, in this very Survey;-" Neither can there be any substantial division from any particular Church, unless she be really heretical or schismatical; I say really, because she may be really heretical or schismatical, and yet morally a true particular Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism, and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her; in which case division from her is no schism or sin, but virtue, and necessary e." And when I urge, that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church, as he may “leave his father's house when it is infected with some contagious sickness, with a purpose to return to it again when it is cleansed," he answers, that "this may be true of a particular Church, but cannot be true of the Universal Church "." Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome. [But even particular Secondly, I never said that a particular Church did give, Churches or could give, sufficient cause to another Church of criminous cannot give schism. The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sin. "Their damnation is just," just cause of cri minous schism.] Rom. iii. 8. III. who say, "let us do evil that good may come" of it. When- DISCOURSE soever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her, the guilt of the schism lies not upon that Church which makes the separation, but upon that Church from which the separation is made. This is a truth undeniable, and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott ;-" They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church, and brought in corruptions in Faith, practice, liturgy, and use of Sacraments, may truly be said to have been heretics, by departing from the pure Faith; and schismatics, by dividing themselves from the external communion of the true uncorrupted Church "." We maintain, that the Church of Rome brought in these "corruptions in Faith, practice, liturgy, and use of the Sacraments;" and, which is more, did require the profession of her errors as a condition of communicating with her. And if so, then, by the judgment of her own doctors, the schism is justly laid at her own door, and it was "no sin" in us, but "virtue and necessary," to separate from her. I acknowledge that St. Austin saith, "Præscindende unitatis nulla est justa necessitas"—"There is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church." But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alleged, as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation. He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal. i. 8. and 1 Tim. i. 3. He speaks of bad manners and vicious humours and sinister affections, especially in the preachers, as envy, contention, contumacy, incontinency k.' This was his case then with the Donatists, and is now the case of the Anabaptists. That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity, he proveth out of Phil. i. 15-18. He saith, that in these cases there. is no sufficient cause, " cum disciplinæ severitatem consideratio custodiendæ pacis refrænat aut differt"-" when the con148 sideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of ecclesiastical discipline." He saith not, that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause. What doth this concern us, who believe the same? Infidel. Unmasked, c. vii. sect. 112. p. 534. [But Knott quotes the doctrine expressly from "the Calvinists," to supply an argumentum ad hominem against its propounders.] BRAMHALL. D Cont. Epist. Parmenian., lib. ii. PART [2. The second SECTION THE SECOND. 2. His second note is this, that "Protestants have forpoint noted saken.. the Pope, the Papacy,.. the Universal Roman in R. C.'s Church, and all the ancient Christian Churches, Grecian, Preface.] Armenian, Ethiopian, in their communion of Sacraments;" and "to clear themselves from schism, must bring just cause of separation from every one of these m." Protestants have forsaken no ancient I answer, that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy, that is, from his primacy of power, from his uniChurches: versality of jurisdiction by Divine right, which two are already established from his superiority above general Councils and infallibility of judgment, which are the most received opinions and near establishing in the Roman Church. We have renounced their Patriarchal power over us, because they never exercised it in Britain for the first six hundred years, nor could exercise it in after-ages without manifest usurpation, by reason of the canon of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus". Yea, because they themselves waved it, and implicitly quitted it, presently after the six hundredth year. Disuse in law forfeits an office as well as abuse. But we have not separated from the Pope or Papacy, as they were regulated by the canons of the Fathers. We look upon their Universal Roman Church as an upstart innovation, and a - contradiction in adjecto. We find no footsteps of any such thing throughout the primitive times. Indeed, the Bishops of Rome have sometimes been called Ecumenical Bishops; so have the other Patriarchs, for their universal care and presidency in general Councils, who never pretended to any such universality of power. But for all ancient Churches, [As regards "Grecian, Armenian, Ethiopian," &c.-none excluded, not the the rule of Faith ;] Roman itself, we are so far from forsaking them, that we make the Scriptures, interpreted by their joint belief and [Or things practice, to be the rule of our reformation. And wherein essential;] their successors have not swerved from the examples of their predecessors, we maintain a strict communion with them. Only in rites and ceremonies, and such indifferent things, we m [Surv., Pref., p. 5.] n [Concil. Ephes. (A. D. 431.) P. ii. Act. 7. Decree concerning the Cyprian Bishops, ap. Labb., Concil., tom. ii. p. 802. See Just Vindic., c. v. (vol. i. pp. 156, &c.), Disc. ii. Pt. i.] III. use the liberty of a free Church, to choose out such as are Discourse most proper for ourselves, and most conducible to those ends for which they were first instituted, that is, to be advancements of order, modesty, decency, gravity, in the service of God, to be adjuments to attention and devotion, furtherances of edification, helps of memory, exercises of faith, the leaves that preserve the fruit, the shell that preserves the kernel of religion from contempt. And all this with due moderation, so as neither to render religion sordid and sluttish, nor yet light and garish, but comely and venerable. Lastly, for com- In Sacramunion in Sacraments, we have forsaken no Sacraments ments. either instituted by Christ or received by the primitive Christians. We refuse no communion with any Catholic Christians at this day, and particularly with those "ancient Churches" which he mentions, though we may be, and have been, misrepresented one unto another (yea, though the Sacraments may be administered in some of them not without manifest imperfection), whilst sinful duties are not obtruded upon us as conditions of communion. Under this caution we still retain communion in Sacraments with Roman Catholics. If any person be baptized or admitted into Holy Orders in their Church, we baptize them not, we ordain them not again. Wherein then have we forsaken the communion of the Roman Church in Sacraments? Not in their ancient communion of genuine Sacraments, but in their septenary number, and supposititious Sacraments; which yet we retain for the most part as useful and religious rites, but not under the notion of Sacraments: not in their Sacraments, but in their abuses and sinful injunctions in the use of the Sacrament; as their administration of them in a tongue unknown, where the people cannot say Amen to the prayers and thanksgivings of the Church, contrary to St. Paul; as their detain- 1 Cor. xiv. [16.] ing the Cup from the laity, contrary to the institution of Christ, "Drink ye all of this,"—that is, not all the Apostles Matt. xxvi. only, for the Apostles did not consecrate in the presence of Christ, and (according to the doctrine of their schools and practice of their Church) as to the participation of the Sacrament at that time were but in the condition of laymen; as their injunction to all communicants to adore, not only [Viz. as being non-consecrators.] 27. |