Review of the True Nature of Schism, Treatise · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
Of Independentiſme and Donatiſme.
THe Title of our Authors book is, Independency a great Schiſme, of this chapter that it may be the better known what kind of ſchiſme it is, Independentiſme is Donatiſme. Men may give what title they pleaſe to their books and chapters, though perhaps few books make good their titles. I am ſure this doth not as yet, niſi accuſaſse ſufficiat: Attempts of proof we have not as yet met withall: what this chapter will furniſh us withall, we ſhall now conſider. He indeed that ſhall weigh the title, Independentiſme is Donatiſme, & then caſting his eye upon the firſt lines of the chapter it ſelfe, find, that the Reverend Author ſaies, he cannot but acknowledge, that what I plead for the vindication of proteſtants from the charge of ſchiſme in their ſeparation from Rome, as the Catholick church, to be rationall, ſolid, and judicious; will perhaps be at a loſſe in conjecturing how I am like to be dealt withall in the following diſcourſe; a little patience will let him ſee, that our Author laies more weight upon the Title, then the preface of this chapter; and that with all my fine trappings I am enrolled in the black booke of the Donatiſts: but 1 quod fors feret feramus aequo animo; or as another ſaith, debemus optare optima, cogitare difficulima, ferre quaecunque erunt; as the caſe is fallen out, we muſt deal with it as we can. 1. He ſaith; he is not ſatisfied, that he not only denies the Church of Rome (ſo called) to be a particular Church, pag. 154. but alſo affirms it to be no Church at all. That he is not ſatisfied, with what I affirm of that Synagogue of Sathan where he hath his throne, I cannot helpe it, though I am ſorry for it:
I am not alſo without ſome trouble, that I cannot underſtand, what he means by placeing my words, ſo as to intimate, that I ſay, not only that the church of Rome is no particular church, but alſo that it is no church at all; as though it might in his judgment or mine, be any Church, if it be not a particular church; For I verily ſuppoſe neither he nor I judg it to be that Catholick Church, whereto it pretends. But yet as I have no great reaſon to expect that this Reverend Author ſhould be ſatisfied in any thing that I affirme, ſo I hope that it is not impoſſible, but that without any great difficulty, he may be reconciled to himſelfe affirming the very ſame thing, that I do p. 113. It is of Rome in that ſence, wherein it claims it ſelf to be a church, that I ſpeak: & in that ſence he ſaies it is no church of Chriſts inſtitution, and ſo for my part, I account it no church at all; but he adds, that he is far more unſatisfied that I undertake the cauſe of the Donatiſts, and labour to exempt them from Schiſme, though I allow them guilty of other crimes. But do I indeed undertake the cauſe of the Donatiſts? do I plead for thē? will he manifeſt it by ſaying more againſt them in no more words, then I haved one? do I labour to exempt them from Schiſme? are theſe the waies of peace, love and truth that the Reverend Author walks in? do I not condemne all their practiſes, and pretenſions from the beginning to the end? can I not ſpeak of their cauſe in Reference to the Catholick Church and its union, but it muſt be affirmed that I plead for them? But yet as if righteouſneſſe and truth had been obſerv'd in this crimination, he undertakes as of a thing granted to give my grounds of doing, what he affirms me to have done: The firſt is, as he ſaies, His ſingular notion of Schiſme, limiting it only to differences in a particular Aſſembly. 2. His jealouſy of the charge of Schiſme to be objccted to himſelfe, and party, if ſeparating from the true Churches of Chriſt be truly called Schiſme. A. What may I expect from others, when ſo grave and Reverend a perſon as this Author is reported to be, ſhall thus deal with me? Sr I have no ſingular notion of Schiſme, but embrace that which Paul hath long ſince declared, nor can you manifeſt any difference in my notion from what he hath delivered; nor is that notion of Schiſme at all under conſideration in Reference to what I affirme of the Donatiſts, (who in truth were concerned in it, the moſt of them to them to the utmoſt) but the union of the Church Catholick and the breach thereof; Neither am I jealous or fearfull of the charge' of Schiſme, from any perſon living on the earth, and leaſt of all from men proceeding in church affaires upon the principles you proceed on. Had you not been pleaſed, to have ſuppoſed what you pleaſe, without the leaſt ground, or colour, or reaſon, perhaps you would have as little ſatisfyed your ſelfe in the charge you have undertaken to manage againſt me, as you have done many good men, as the caſe now ſtands, even of your own judgment in other things.
Having made this entrance, he proceeds in the ſame way, and pag. 164. laye's the foundation of the title of his booke & this chapter, of his charge of donatiſme in theſe words. This lies in full force againſt him and his party, who have broken the union of our churches, and ſeparated themſelves from all the proteſtant churches in the world, not of their own conſtitution, and that as no true churches of Chriſt: this I ſay is the foundatiō of his whole enſuing diſcourſe; all the groūd that he hath to ſtand upon in the defence of the Invidious title of this chapter; and what fruit he expects from this kind of proceeding I know not; The day will manifeſt of what ſort this work is; Although he may have ſome miſtaken apprehenſions to countenance his conſcience in the firſt part of his aſſertion, or that it may be forgiven to inveterate praejudice though it be falſe; namely; that I and my party (that's the phraſeology, this Author in his love to unity delights in) have broken the union of their churches (which we have no more done, then they have broken the union of ours, for we began our reformation with them, on even tearms, and were as early at work as they) yet what coulour, what excuſe can be invented to alleviate the guilt of the latter part of it, that we have ſeparated from all the reformed churches as no churches? and yet he repeats this again. pag. 106. with eſpeciall reflexion on my ſelfe: I wonder not ſaith he, that the Doctor hath unchurched Roome, for he hath done as much to England and all forraign proteſtant churches, and makes none to be members of the church, but ſuch as are by covenant and conſent joyned to ſome of their congregations. Now truly though all righteous laws of men in the world, will afford recompence and ſatisfaction for calumniating accuſations and ſlaunders of much leſſe importance then this here publickly ownd by our Reverend Author, yet ſeeing the goſpell of the bleſſed God, requires to forgive, and paſſe by greater injuries, I ſhall labour in the ſtrength of his grace to bring my heart unto conformity to his will therein; notwithſtanding which, becauſe by his providence I am in that place and condition, that others alſo that fear his name may be ſome way concern'd in this unjuſt imputatiō, I muſt declare that this is open unrighteouſneſs, wherein neither love nor truth hath been obſerved. How little I am concernd in his following parallell of Independentiſme and Donatiſme, wherein he proceeds with the ſame truth and candor, or in all that followes thereupon, is eaſy for any one to judg. He proceeds to ſcan my Anſwers to the Romaniſts, as in reference to their charge of Schiſme upon us; and ſaies, I do it ſutable to my own principles. And truly if I had not, I think I had been much to blame. I referre the Reader to the Anſwers given in my book, and if he like them not, notwithſtanding this Authors exceptions, I wiſh he may fix on thoſe that pleaſe him better▪ in them there given, my conſcience doth acquieſce.
But he comes in the next place to Arguments, wherein if he prove more happy then he hath done in Accuſations, he will have great cauſe to rejoyce. By a double Argument, as he ſaies, he will prove that there may be Schiſme beſides that in a particular Church. His firſt is this.
Schiſme is a breach of Union, but there may be a breach of union in the Catholick viſible church. His ſecond this; where there are differenccs rayſed in matter of faith profeſſed, wherein the union of the Catholick Church conſiſts, there may be a breach of union, but there may be differences in the Catholick, or among the members of the Catholick church in matter of faith profeſſed, Ergo. Having thus laid down his Arguments, he falls to conjecture what I will anſwer, and how I will evade; but it will quickly appear that he is no leſſe unhappy in arguing and conjecturing, then he is, and was in accuſing. For to conſider his firſt Argument: if he will undertake to make it good as to its forme, I will by the ſame way of arguing, ingage my ſelfe to prove what he would be unwilling to find in a regular concluſion. But as to the matter of it, 1. Is Schiſme every breach of union? or is every breach of Union ſchiſme? Schiſme in the Eccleſiaſticall notion is granted to be in the preſent diſpute, the breach of the union of a church, which it hath by the inſtitution of Chriſt; and this not of any union of Chriſts inſtitution, but of one certaine kind of union; for as was proved, there is an union, whoſe breach can neither in the language of the Scripture, nor in reaſon, nor common ſenſe be called or accounted ſchiſme, nor ever was by any man in the world, nor can be without deſtroying the particular nature of ſchiſme, and allowing only the generall notion of any ſeparation, good or bad, in what kind ſoever. So that ſecondly, it is granted, not onlie that there may be a breach of union in the Catholick church, but alſo that there may be a breach of the union of the Catholick church, by a deniall or relinquiſhment of the profeſſion wherein it conſiſts; but that this breach of union is ſehiſme, becauſe ſehiſme is a breach of union, is as true, as that every man who hath two eyes, is every thing that hath two eyes. For his ſecond, it is of the ſame importance with the firſt; there may be differences in the Catholick church, and breaches of union among the members of it, which are far enough from the breach of the union of that church, as ſuch. Two profeſſors may fall out and differ, and yet I think continue both of them profeſſors ſtill. Paul and Barnabas did ſo; Chryſoſtome and Epiphanius did ſo; Cyrill and Theodoret did ſo. That which I denied was, that the breach of the union of the catholick church as ſuch, is Schiſme. He proves the contrary by affirming there may be differences among the members of the catholick church, that do not break the union of it, as ſuch. But he ſaies though there be Apoſtaſy, or Hereſy, yet there may be Schiſme alſo; but not in reſpect of the breach of the ſame union, which only he was to prove. Beſides evill ſurmizes, reproaches, falſe criminations, and undue ſuggeſtions, I find nothing wherein my diſcourſe is concerned to the end of this chap. pag. 109. upon the paſſage of mine; we are thus come off from this part of Schiſme for the relinquiſhment of the Catholick church, which we have not done, and ſo to do, is not ſchiſme, but a ſin of another nature, and importance; he adds, that the ground I goe upon why ſeparation from a true church (he muſt meane the catholick church, or he ſpeaks nothing at all the buſineſſe in hand) is no ſchiſme, is that afore mentioned, that a ſchiſme in the Scripture notion is onelyonly a diviſion of jugment in a particular aſsembly. But who ſo blind as they that will not ſee? the ground I proceeded on evidently, openly, ſolely, was taken from the nature of the Catholick church its union, and the breach of that union, and if obiter I once mention that notion, I do it upon my confidence of its truth, which I here againe tender my ſelfe in a readineſſe to make good to this Reverend Author, if at any time he will be pleaſed to command my perſonall attendance upon him to that purpoſe. To repeat more of the like miſtakes and ſurmizes, with the wranglings that enſue on ſuch falſe ſuppoſitions to the end of this chapter, is certainly needleſſe; for my part, in and about this whole buſineſſe of ſeparation from the catholick church, I had not the leaſt reſpect to Preſbyterians or Independents as ſuch, nor to the differences betweē them, which alone our Author out of his zeale to truth and peace attends unto: If he will faſten the guilt of Schiſme on any on the account of ſeparation from the Catholick church, let him prove that that church is not made up of the univerſality of profeſſors of the Goſpell throughout the world, under the limitations expreſſed; that the union of it as ſuch, doth not conſiſt in the profeſſion of the truth; and that the breach of that union whereby a man ceaſes to be a member of that Church is Schiſmes, otherwiſe to tell me that I am a Sectary, a Schiſmatick, to fill up his pages with vaine ſurmizes and ſuppoſalls, to talke of a difference and ſchſme among the members of the catholick church, or the like impertinencies, will never farther his diſcourſe among men, either rationall, ſolid, or judicious. All that enſues to the end of this chapter is about the ordination of miniſters, wherein however he hath beē pleaſed to deal with me in much bitterneſſe of ſpirit, with many clamours and falſe Accuſations; I am glad to find him (p. 120.) renouncing ordination from the Authority of the church of Rome as ſuch, for I am aſſured, that by his ſo doing, he can claime it no waie from, by, or through Rome; for nothing came to us from thence, but what came, in and by the Authority of that Church.