CHAP. IX. A DEFENCE OF OUR ANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ROMANISTS. PART I. Some Catholics formal schisinatics. SECTION THE FIRST. In the first place he observeth a difference between Protestants and Roman-Catholics, that "Protestants do not charge Roman Catholics with formal schism," but only with 'causal schism,' whereas Roman "Catholics do charge Protestants with formal schism 9." To which I give three answers. First, if Protestants do not charge them with formal schism, their charity is the greater, and the Roman Catholics are the more obliged to them. Certainly we have better grounds to charge them with formal schism, than they have to charge us. But indeed Protestants do charge the Roman Court, and all Roman Catholics who maintain it, and adhere unto it, out of ambitious, avaritious, or other sinister ends, and not out of simplicity of heart and invincible or at least probable ignorance, with "formal schism." Secondly, causal schism may be, and in this case of the Romanists is, as well formal, nay, sometimes more formal than actual schism, or to speak more properly than actual separation. Whosoever give just cause of separation to others, contrary to the light of their knowledge, out of uncharitable or other sinister ends, are causal and formal schismatics. Whereas they who separate actually and locally upon just cause, are no criminous schismatics at all; and they who separate actually without just cause, may do it out of invincible ignorance, and consequently they are not formal 246 but only material schismatics. Thirdly, when the case comes to be exactly weighed, it is here just as it is in the case of possibility of salvation, that is Protestants do not charge all Roman to say, the very same. [Surv., c. ix. sect. 1. "Protestants commonly do not charge" &c.] III. Catholics with formal schism, but only such as break the DISCOURSE bond of unity sinfully, whether it be by separating themselves, or others, unduly from the Catholic communion, or giving just cause of separation to others. Nor doth R. C. himself charge all Protestants with formal schism. For he confesseth, that all those Protestants who err invincibly do 'want neither Church nor salvation. Formal schismatics, whilst they continue formal schismatics, want both Church and salvation; therefore whosoever want neither Church nor salvation,' are no formal schismatics. The reason of his former assertion is this,-because Protestants can name no Church" out of whose communion the present Church of Rome" departed "." His reason shews that he confounds material and formal schism with causal and actual schism. Whereas actual schism may sometimes be only material, and causal schism may also sometimes be formal. To his reason I give two clear answers. sent Roman of the an First, Protestants can name a particular Church out of The prewhose communion the present Roman Church departed, even Church dethe pure and uncorrupted Church of Rome, which was before parted out it, by introducing errors, abuses, and corruptions into it. cient RoThere is a moral departure out of a Church as well as a local, Church; and acknowledged by themselves to be culpable and criminous schism. man is worse, Catholic Church. Secondly, that Church which departs out of the commu- And, which nion of the Catholic or Universal Church, is more schisma- out of the tical than that which departs only out of the communion of a particular Church; both because our obligation is greater to the Catholic Church than to any particular Church, and because the Catholic or Universal Church doth comprehend all particular Churches of one denomination in it. When the Court of Rome by their censures did separate three or four parts of the Christian world, who were as Catholic or more Catholic than themselves, then they departed out of the communion of the Catholic Church, as the Donatists did of old. There is but this difference between the Donatists and them, that the Donatists did it only by their uncharitable [See Just Vindic., c. vi. vol. i. pp. [Surv., c. ix. sect. 1.] 198, 199.] I. PART opinions and verbal censures, but the Court of Rome did it moreover by a solemn juridical decree, which is much the greater degree of schism. The Romanists tists. He telleth us, that "it is vain to liken them to the Dotrue Dona- natists," because "the Donatists said that the Catholic Church of that time was but a part of the Church (as Protestants say now of the Roman)," for which "Saint Austin laughed at them "." The truth is, the Donatists said, that they being but a small part of the Catholic Church (if any part) were the true Catholic Church, and that the true Catholic Church was no Catholic Church, nor any part of it"; which is expressly contrary to what he saith here. Just as the Romanists say now, that they themselves, being with all their dependents not a fourth part of the Christian world, are the Catholic Church; and that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is as large as theirs, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which, including the seventeen kingdoms of Prester John, all Christians and dependents upon that Patriarchate, is likewise as large, and the Patriarchates of Antioch and Hierusalem, and all the lesser Patriarchates in the East, and the whole Empire of Russia, and all the Protestants in Europe, are no parts of the Catholic Church. Is not this to make the part to be the whole, and the whole to be nothing beyond that part, as the Donatists did? Ovum ovo non similius.' And therefore Saint Austin might well laugh at them or rather pity them, as indeed he did, for speaking such evident absurdities. "Si mihi diceres quod ego sim Petilianus, non invenirem quomodo te refellerem, nisi aut jocantem riderem, aut insanientem dolerem ; . . sed quia jocari te non credo, vides quid restet". "If thou shouldest tell me that I am Petilian" (or any such thing that is evidently false), "I should not know how to confute thee, unless I should either laugh at thy folly, or pity thy frenzy ; . . but because I believe not that thou jestest, thou seest what remaineth." When they tell us in such earnest, that the 16, 17. § 42-44. ibid. pp. 367, 368.] Ibid. [lib. ii. c. 38, as before quoted. "Quemadmodum te refellerem" &c.] Roman Church is the Catholic Church, they might even as DISCOURSE well tell us that Petilian was Saint Austin. III. 247 [SECTION THE SECOND.] Their first objection is, that we have "separated ourselves [The first from the communion of the Catholic Churchy:" to which I viz. that objection; we have from the nion of the gave this answer, that we had not separated ourselves from separated the communion of the Catholic Church, for we are ready to ourselves believe and practise whatsoever the Catholic Church doth commuunanimously believe and practise; no, nor yet from the Catholic Roman Church in the essentials of Christian religion, or any Church.] of them, but only in their errors and innovations: and that it was the Court of Rome that made the separation ". To this answer he takes great exception, but as it seemeth to me in a most confused manner. For method' sake I will reduce all which he saith to four heads. First, that the Church of Rome is the true Catholic Church.' Secondly, that 'we have separated ourselves from it in essentials.' Thirdly, that all the other Patriarchates (except the Roman) are no parts of the Catholic Church.' Fourthly, that we hold no communion with them.' To all these I have answered formerly in this treatise, and therefore now I shall touch them more lightly. Roman the Catho 1. That 'the Roman Church is the Catholic Church,' he 1. The proveth thus, because it is "a company of Christians, . . in- Church not stituted by Christ, . . spread over the world, and entirely lic Church. united in the profession of [His] Faith, and communion of His Sacraments under His officers "." And therefore he bids us, out of St. Austin, "either give or take "," either receive their Church, or shew one of our own as good. This argument is grounded upon a wrong supposition,that the Catholic Church is a Church of one denomination, as Roman, or Grecian, &c.; which we do altogether deny as implying an evident contradiction. Secondly, we deny, that the Roman Church, including the Papacy, in respect of PART 2. If denial of the which it challengeth this universality and to be the "foundation of Christian religion" and "the mistress of all other Churches," is instituted by Christ, or by His Church; this is their own usurpation. Thirdly, we deny, that the Roman Church is spread over the world. Divide Christendom into five parts, and in four of them they have very little or nothing to do. Perhaps they have here a monastery, or there a small handful of proselytes. But what are five or six persons to so many millions of Christian souls, that they should be Catholics, and not all the others? This was not the meaning of St. Austin in the place alleged.-" Date mihi hanc Ecclesiam, si apud vos est; ostendite vos communicare omnibus gentibus, quas jam videmus in hoc Semine benedici. Date hanc, aut furore deposito accipite, non a me, sed ab Illo Ipso in Quo benedicuntur omnes gentes.". -"Give me this Church, if it be with you; shew that you communicate with all nations which we see to be blessed in this Seed." It is not a few particular persons, nor some handfuls of proselytes, but multitudes of Christian nations, that make the Catholic Church. The Romanists are so far from communicating with all these nations, that they excommunicate the far greater part of them. Fourthly, we deny, that such an exact entire union in all points and opinions which are not essentials of Christian religion, is necessary to the being of the Catholic Church; or that the Romanists have a greater unity among themselves or with others, than sundry of those Churches which they have excommunicated. Fifthly, I deny, that the officers of the Court of Rome or any of them (qua tales) are either the officers of Christ or of His Church. And, lastly, if all this were true, well might it prove the Church of Rome a Catholic Church, that is, a part of the Catholic Church, but not the Catholic or Universal Church. Still there would want universality. To be spread through the Christian world is one thing, and to be the common Faith of the Christian world another thing. 2. Secondly, he proveth, that they did not exclude us, but Pope's su- that we did separate ourselves,'-because England' denied the Pope's sovereignty by Divine right, before the Pope ex premacy maketh b [August., ibid.] |