Page images
PDF
EPUB

ticular Church only, (as he | affirms of it) is too much for me to conceive. Originally, indeed, it refpected a particular Church, fo far, that in one or other of them, it must originally break out; but that it respected other Churches confequentially only, is but the fame Mistake again, (which I answer'd before) that none were affected with it (in his Opinion) but fuch as became Schifmaticks themselves. And lastly, how this Catholick Unity was broken, and not actually broken, is too nice for me again. But fuch uneven Ground we may expect to meet with, when we leave the plain Way.

I have wonder'd, I confefs, from whence the fingular Way of Reasoning in this Enquiry should come; but the Secret of it (if I mistake not,and I ask Pardon if I do) feems to lie here; fome charitable Expedient was to be found out to support fome fort of Schifmaticks with this comfortable Hope, that tho' they broke the Unity of the particular Church whereof they were Members, yet they might continue in the Unity of the Church Univerfal ftill; efpecially, if the Points in Controverfy between them were Matters only of Rites or Non-effentials; and if the Unity of the Epifcopacy had been admitted for an effential Bond of Catholick Unity (as it really was in the Judgment of the Primitive Church) that comfortable Expedient, and this whole Scheme of Diverfity of Unities, had been loft together; as appears (I think) by the particular Account I have here given of them.

I have taken but little Notice indeed of his Difference between the Unity of a Church Colle

Eng. p. 168.

Eive,

Etive, and that of the Church Univerfal; becaufe he had prevented me in his own Account of that. For the Unity of a Church Collective † (fays he) may have confifted in a Brotherly Correfpondence with, and Affection towards each other; which they demonftrated by all outward Expreffions of Love and Concord; as by receiving into Communion the Members of each others, mutually advising and affifting one another by Letters or otherwife, and other Marks of Love and Concord. And, on the other hand, the Relation (fays he) between each Particular Church and the Univerfal Church (in general) was this, That as one Member of the Natural Body has a Regard to all the other Members thereof, fo a particular Church had to every Member of the Church Univerfal; the Bishops employ'd ageneral Kind of Inspection over all other Courches befides their own, obferving their Condition, and giving them an Account of their own; and fent to one another for Advice and Decifion in difficult Points: In these, and in many other fuch-. like Cafes, there was a Correfpondence between the particular Churches of the Univerfal. Now, where the diftinct Unity of a Collective Church, from that of the Universal, lies in this Account of them, I must leave the Reader to enquire; for I confefs I can discover none.

And thus having confider'd the several Kinds of Unities proposed, I may conclude (I think) what I first expected of them, that (in respect of Schifm at least, for the fake of which this ingular Diversity was contriv'd) they all center in that one individual Unity, which all Antiquity attributed to the Catholick Church of Christ.

+ Enquiry, p. 160, 161.

One

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*

Öne Point under this Head, is ftill behind, and fo necessary to be fettled, that the Subject of the whole Chapter is of little Ufe without it. Schifm (as our learned Author has defined it) was a cauflefs Separation from their lawful Paftor. This gave him Occafion to enquire, what Caufes could juftifie fuch a Separation, and what not; an Enquiry, proper on all Sides; whether the Schifm were Particular only, or an Univerfal one, fince Schifm was a certain and immediate Effect of it. But, to be clear in this Enquiry with him, the principal Term in the Question must first be rightly understood.

[ocr errors]

Separation, if it be meant according to the Point in Question here, muft imply, not a bare Abstaining from Communion with the lawful Paftor, but Setting up another alfo in his ftead; for otherwife a formal Schifm was not yet made; which Diftinction I briefly hint to the Reader, because, tho' the Question itself does fo neceffarily fuppofe this Setting up of Altar against Altar, as well as Forbearing to communicate; yet in the Proofs and Precedents offer'd for it, and in the Inference drawn from them f at the laft, he will find they are promifcuously used without this dae Distinction; whereas 'tis evident by the whole OEconomy and Principles of the Primitive Church, that Caufes might be given for not joining in Communion with a Paftor, thro' fome Fundamental Corruption (for Example) in the very Service of his Church; and yet the fame Perfons, who leave him for it, may not be au thorized to deprive that Paftor, or to substitute

[ocr errors]

* Eng. p. 163.
Eng. p. 166. § 7.

Z

año

another in his Place. The neceffary Requifites for depofing or conftituting Bishops in the Primitive Times (as we have feen at large || before) is fufficient Proof of this; and the learned Enquirer, in the Clofe of this very Head, † declares, that 'twas avouch'd by all, that Synods did depofe all thofe Bifhops that were guilty of criminal or fcandalous Enormities: As he own'd before also, that the Bishops of the Province were to be call'd in (at leaft) and their Confent obtain'd, before any Bi-. fhop of the Primitive Church could be legally inftituted (as he calls it) or fettled in their Place. From thefe Confiderations of confefs'd Matter of Fact, it must follow, that the Peoples Part in any Separation (be the Occafion never fo juftifiable) could amount to no more, than a bare Abftaining from Communion, till a regular Authority fhould depose their Criminal Paftor, and provide another for them.

And if we bear thefe Premiffes in Mind, whilft we examine all this learned Author offers проп this Subject, we fhall find it comes to just the fame thing; whatever more might be intended by it. His whole Account of it is as follows:

The juftifiable Caufes § (fays he) for fuch a Sepa ration, I think, were two, or at the most, three. First, Apoftacy from the Faith: Secondly, Herefy: And Thirdly, A fcandalous and wicked Life.

His

Cap. 3. & 6. fupra.

Enq. p. 165.

*Eng. p. 47, 49.

9 Eng. p. 163, 164.

His Inftance for Apoftacy, is that of the Spanish Bifhops, Bafilides and Martialis; whofe Relapfing to Idolatry in Time of Perfecution was notorious; and that the People fhould feparate from them, and join in Communion with others, was approv'd by S. Cyprian and his Synod, in that Epiftle the Enquirer referrs to for it. But how ftood the Cafe, when the African Council thus advised them? and how far did the Peoples Part in that Separation go? Did the People, or any of the inferiour Clergy of their Churches with them, turn their Apoftate Bishops out of their Places, and, by their own Act and Deed, fubftitute others in their room? Nothing like it, if you'll believe the Synod itself in that Cafe? For, as they represent the Matter (in the fame Epistle) thofe Idolatrous Bifhops were Synodically deprived; and others, in the fame manner, placed in their Sees, before the People ever apply'd to S. Cyprian and his Council about Communicating or not Communicating with them; only by the unjuft Interpofition of the Bishop of Rome, in favour of thofe Idolaters after they were de prived, they claim'd their former Right ftill and in that Cafe, the African Council advised and warranted the People to feparate from their first Idolatrous Bishops, and join Communion with thofe, who were fo regularly provided for them; [as I have fhewn more at large in the Sixth Chapter foregoing.] And now a Separation, in any Cafe whatfoever, thus managed, is justifiable without Difpute. And this is all the Enquiry Z 2 proves

Cypr. Ep. 68. or 67. Edit. Oxon.

« PreviousContinue »