Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.

CHAP. XXIV. (Book 24)

Of Causal and Formal Schism or Separation; and the va∣nity of their Distinctions. Considerations proposed for a clear Examination on which side the Guilt of Schism lyes. The manifest Innocency of the Roman Church.

1. FIrst, As to the Preacher's so com∣mended Distinction of Causal and Formal Schism, it is borrowed from the late Archbishop: The former member whereof only he applies to the Roman Catholick Church, the later to no body: He must give me leave to propose to his Consideration a Saying or two of St.* 1.1 Augustin, thus writing to the Donatists, Si possit, quod fieri non potest, &c. If any could have, which really he cannot possibly, a just

cause for which he should separate his Com∣munion from the Communion of the whole World, How do you know, &c. A••d again in the same Epistle, There is the Church where first that (Separation) was made which you after perfected, if there could be any just cause for you to separate from the communion of all Nations. For we are cer∣tainly assured that no man can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nati∣ons, because not any of us seeks the Church in his own Iustice or Holiness (as you Do∣natists do) but in the Divine Scriptures, where he sees the Church really become, as she was promised to be, spread through all Nations, a City on a Hill, &c. Hence it is, that the same Saint, though he wrote several Books against the special Doctrines of the Donatists, yet whensoever he treats of their Schism, he never meddles with any of their Opinions, but absolutely proves their Separation unlawful from the Texts of Scripture, and Promises of Christ, which are absolute and uncondi∣tional: So that the alledging Causes to justifie Separation, for which there can be no just one, is vain and fruitless; And this way of Arguing is far more forcible against English Protestants, than it was a∣gainst the Donatists, because all their so∣ber Writers acknowledge the Church of Christ was, and alwayes will be unerrable

in Fundamentals; and this as she is a Guide: And further, that the Roman is either this Church, or at least a true Member of it.

2. But Secondly, whatever becomes of this Distinction,* 1.2 his concession is, That really a Formal Schism there is between us: nay more, that the Protestants made the actual departure, and indeed they must put out their eyes, who see it not. The visible Communion between the now English Church, and all other in being before it beyond the Seas, is evidently changed and broken. The same Publick Service of God, which their first Reformers found in God's Church all the World over, they refuse to joyn in, for fear of incurring sin: Most of the Ecclesiastical Laws, e∣very where formerly in force, they have abrogated, and without the consent of any other Churches have made new: they were formerly Members of a Patriarchical Church▪ (which they esteem'd the only Orthodox Vniversal Church) to the Go∣vernment of this Common Body they ac∣knowledged themselves subject: And a denial of subjection to the Common Go∣vernors of this Body, and especially the Supreme Pastor, they judged to be a formal Act of Schism: Lastly, the common Do∣ctrines of the Church they formerly em∣braced as of Divine Authority, Traditio∣nary,

only ancient and Primitive: Now they called Apostatical Novelties. Any of those changes conclude a Schism on one side or other, but all of them more then demonstrate it. A Schism then there is, therefore one of the parties is guilty (not of causing, but) of being Schisma∣ticks, properly, formally, Schisma∣ticks. Now would it not be hard for the Doctor to speak his conscience, and declare once more at Court, which of us two are pro∣perly Schismaticks? It could not indeed be expected he should answer as a young maid did to my old Lady Falkland, when she asked, if she were a Catholick? No Madam, (said she with a low curtesy) if it please your Ladyship, I thank God I am a Scismatick; but withal, his tongue would not readily pronounce Roman Catholicks to be Schismaticks from the English, Reformed Church.

3. That which is opposed to Schism, is Catholick Communion.* 1.3 We shew, saith Saint. Augustine, by our Communion, that we have the Catholick Church. Therefore in dis∣course of Schism,* 1.4 one while to talk of In∣novations of Doctrine, or of making a se∣cession from a Church, twelve hundred years since, &c. and perhaps, charging us with causal Schism: And on the other side, to acknowledg that the actual departure was indeed theirs, yet they are not Scismaticks,

they left the errors of Catholicks, rather then them: Is indeed to act the very part of the Donatists, who, as Saint Augustine sayes, affirmed that the word Ca∣tholick was not derived from the universality of Nations,* 1.5 but from the plenitude of Sacra∣ments, that is, from the integrity of Do∣ctrine. And in another place, writing to a Donatist, Thou thinkest (says he) that thou hast spoken acutely,* 1.6 when thou interpretest the Name Catholick, not of Vniversal Commu∣nion, but of observation of all Precepts, and Divine Mysteries. And hence it was that the Donatists call'd their Bishops, Bishops of Catholick Verity, not of Catholick Vnity, as St. Augustine says in the same Epistle.

4. I desire to know, whether before their Reformation, our Church was Schis∣matical, or it began afterwards so to be? If it was so before, where was that Church from which we separated? no where on earth sure: And by consequence either a separation may be from no body, or the whole Church failed, the gates of Hell (contrary to our Saviours promise) pre∣vailed against it. Again, if our Church became Schismatical, after their deserting us, because she would not immitate them, or because she would communicate with those who held such Doctrines; then it will follow (since the Church that was then, did in this, nothing vary from it's prede∣cessors

in a former age) that a Church remaining the same without any alteration at all, may be the only true Church of Christ to day, and the Synagogue of Satan to morrow. These are Riddles unconceivable.

But, to demonstrate that, even in Pro∣testants opinion, we are not Schismaticks, there needs only this Proof, that gene∣rally Protestants, yea even Hugenots, ac∣knowledge, that Salvation may be had in Our Church; which no man, charging us with Schism, can say, if he knows the na∣ture of Schism; how grievous and unpar∣donable a crime it is, that cuts off from the Mystical Body of Christ.

5. On the other side, That the crime of Schism is truly and only to be charged on them (besides the visible marks of leav∣ing Communion, changing Government, Laws, &c.) may be demonstrated thus. There is no particular true Church, which is a Member of the Catholick, but thereby hath a power validly to excommunicate all those that desert her Communion, trans∣gress her Laws, &c. And whoever are so excommunicated by her, are esteem'd ex∣communicated by all other Catholick Churches. So that, if another Bishop or Church, after information of this, shall receive them into their Communion, that Bishop, &c. ipso facto incurs excommunica∣ion

himself. Which excommunication, being according to the Laws of the Church, is valid and ratified in Heaven. Now suppose an English Bishop should ex∣communicate one of his Subjects for a to∣tal renouncing Episcopal Government and Ordination, and the person so excommuni∣cated should adjoyn himself to a Congre∣gation of Presbyters in Scotland, France, Holland, &c. They would no doubt re∣ceive him: and being so received, he is, even in the Bishop's own judgement, in as undoubted (though not so straight) a way to Heaven, as he was before: because the Bishop himself acknowledges Presbyterian Congregations to be true Reformed Chur∣ches of God: so that by their Excommu∣nication he is not cut off from Christ, but from preferments only. The late Act of Vniformity doth far more validly excom∣municate Non-Conformists, then all their Bishops Courts.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Aug. Epist. 43.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 32.
• * 1.3

  August. Collat Carth. c. 3.
• * 1.4

  Serm. pag. 32.
• * 1.5

  Aug. Brevic. Collat. lib. 3.
• * 1.6

  Epist. 48.