"Augustine complains of Proculianus, a Donatist bishop, that he re"fused to receive his letters. The vain pretence," says he, "of "having their society perfectly purged from evil men, as wheat from "chaff, is hurtful to themselves: for, on account of it, they dare not "restrain or correct the most criminal and flagrant disorders in the "societies, over which they preside; lest they should be obliged to "confess, that there are evil men in their communion."*

A third Novatian error, professed by the Donatists, was, that by the mistake which, they supposed, was committed in the case of Cæcilian, the whole African church of the Catholics, was polluted and unchurched; and that other churches, which communicated with the Africans, were in the same case. So that, according to them, there was then no true church on earth, but that of the Donatists. In the conference at Carthage, "the Catholics stated, in opposition to this "error, that they had found abundance of passages in the scriptures, "which promised that the church was to exist in all nations, and in "the whole world; as also, that in the gospels and in the Acts of the "Apostles, the cities and provinces are mentioned, through which it "actually spread, after its beginning at Jerusalem, in order that it "might be extended to Africa; not by the emigration, but by the in"crease of its members. They denied, however, that they had found "any testimony in the Divine oracles, intimating, that it was to be "extinguished in other parts of the world; and that it was to remain ❝in Africa alone, and among no other people than those of the Dona"tist party."+

From the passages of the fathers, now produced, it appears evident, that they considered the causes of the separation of the Novatians and Donatists from the churches of Christ, in Rome and Africa, as, on the part of these churches, either false or insufficient, and, on the part of the Novatians and Donatists, as criminal; and that, in condemning the separation of these sects, as cutting them off from the catholic church, the fathers had respect to these causes, and not to the fact alone of their separate communion.

It was a just observation of Cassander, that "It is not separation in "itself, but the cause of it, that makes schism "‡

On supposition, that there had been a particular church, as represented by her ministry, and by her courts of judicature, persisting obstinately in a course of defection from the purity that she had attained in doctrine, worship or government; and that a minor part, on

Quæritur Augustinus de Proculiano Episcopo Donatisto, quod literas ejus noluerit aceipere, Epistola 169. Isti sunt infelices, qui se ob omni malorum congregatione, tanquam triticum a paleis, purgatum esse præsumant. Per istam vanitatem præjudicaverunt sibi, ut in populis, quibus præsunt, iniquissimas et flagetiosissimas turbas non audeant corripere, ut corrigantur; ne per hoc cogantur confiteri, quia mali sunt. Vide Forb. Instruct page 716.

Narraverunt Catholici se innumerabilia testimonia invenisse, quibus promissa est ecclesia futura in omnibus gentibus et toto terrarum arbe, sicut et in Evangeliis et in actibus Apostolicis, et in Epistolis, ipsa loca et civitates et provinciae leguntur, per quas crevit, in cipiens ab Hierusalem, ut in de se etiam in Africam, non migrando, sed cresendo diffunderet. Negant autem se aliquod invenisse testimonium Divinorum eloquiorum, ubi dictum est eam perituram de cæteris partibus mundi, et in sola Africa Donate parte mansuram. Vide Witsii Dissertationem de schismate Donatistarum, cap. 7. sect. 28.

* Separatio non facit schisma, sed causa. Lib. de offic. pii viri.

the account of her obstinacy in such defection, and in order to main tain a judicial testimony for the purity she had attained, had found it necessary to make secession from her ministerial and sacramental communion; it does not appear, that in such a case, the ancient church, in any of the three first centuries, or perhaps even in the more degenerate times of the fourth and fifth, would have been led, by her received principles, to condemn such a party, as chargeable either with heresy or schism:-Not with heresy; while it was supposed, that there was nothing in the matter of their public profession, but what ought to be held by the Catholic church:-Not with schism; since their declining sacramental communion with their brethren, was owing to the refusal of these brethren, to concur with them in the necessary duty of maintaining the whole matter of their public profession. In this case, they who were obstinate in turning away from their former scriptural profession, however great their majority, would have been the separatists.

§ 33. Do you bid those, who reject your catholic scheme of communion, show wherein their principles differ from those of the Nova

tians and Donatists ?

The difference is so obvious, that it seems strange, that a person, who has paid any attention to our principles, in opposition to your scheme of catholic communion, and to those of the Novatians and Donatists, should confound them. We believe, that a particular church, is so far a faithful and reforming church, as she is holding fast the scriptural profession that she has attained; and is therefore refusing to have sacramental communion with the avowed enemies of any article of that profession. Yet, we are far from pretending, with the Novatians and Donatists, that such a church is altogether pure, and without blemish. When we have been led to exhibit a judicial testimony for truth, and have found it to be our duty to maintain it, in the way of secession from churches that are drawing back from such a profession, even though they still have what are called the essentials, and, it may be, more than the essentials, of a true church of Christ: in such a case, we find it necessary to decline sacramental communion with them, in order that we may not be involved in the guilt of acting unfaithfully and inconsistently with our profession. These churches may be, in the sense now mentioned, true churches of Christ; though, in some particulars, they obstinately refuse to make such a public profession, as they ought to make, according to that character; and though our persuasion of the unlawfulness of going along with them, in these particulars, keep us back from joining with them in sacramental communion. Hence, we abhor the exterminating principles of the Novatians and Donatists, who taught that the catholic church, out of which none could be saved, was limited to the precincts of their external church communion. Your giving the palm of consistency to the Novatians and Donatists, proceeds upon the mere assumption, that we cannot withdraw from the sacramental communion of a particular church or her members, without denying them to belong to the catholic church; a supposition which is contrary both to the truth and to the judgement of the ancient church.

34. You say, that when the fathers condemned the Novatians and Donatists, they declared, that by the very fact of their separation,

they threw themselves out of the church of God, or the Catholic church. But this is a misrepresentation. The truth is, the fathers charged these sects with holding, that the churches of Rome and Africa were not true churches of Christ, and no part of the Catholic church. The schism of the Donatists, said these fathers, turned into heresy. What this heresy was, Augustine tells us in the following words: "The "Donatists made a schism on the account of Cæcilian, who had been ❝ ordained Bishop of Carthage against their will. But, after the affair "of Cæcilian was over, their schism led them into a heresy; which "supposed, that the church of Christ had perished through the whole "world, except in the party of the Donatists."*

Thus, Augustine makes the heresy, by which they cast themselves out of the Catholic church, quite a distinct thing from their schism, or separation from the African church. But it does not appear, that the fathers held, that the Novatians and Donatists did not belong to the Catholic church. According to them, the church was termed Catholic, not only on account of her great extent under the New Testament, but also, on account of the profession made in various places, of the same faith in Christ, in opposition to heretical doctrine. To this purpose, is the expression in the Epistle to the Smyrneans, ascribed to Ignatius: "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church."† The Catholic church," says Augustine, "is diffused from the ris"ing to the setting sun, by the splendour of one faith." But the Novatians and Donatists were not charged with denying the true faith, excepting in the heresy mentioned in the passage of Augustine, just now quoted: and it does not appear to have been the opinion of these fathers, that a particular church, continuing to hold fast her profession of the doctrine of Christ, though separated from the sacramental communion of another particular church, ceases to be, on that account, a part of the Catholic church.

Augustine allows, that those who are excommunicated, may belong to the Catholic church. "We do not," says he, "separate from the "people of God, those whom, by deposition from office, or by excom"munication, we reduce to a lower station, for the exercise of repent"ance." How much more would he allow, that people may belong to the Catholic church, who have separated from the sacramental cominunion of some particular church, not on account of any thing commendable in that church, but only on account of its corruptions, which, nobody will say, belong to the character of the Catholic church? think, it cannot be shewn from the writings of the fathers, that they ever granted, the refusal of the Novatians or Donatists, to hold sacramental communion with the churches of Rome and Africa, was on account of one real corruption, habitually, publicly, and obstinately persisted in, and justified by those churches. Nor can it be shewn,

Primum propter Cecilianum contra suam voluntatem ordinatum ecclesiæ Carthaginensis Episcopum, schisma fecerunt. Sed post causam cum eo dictam et finitam-in hæresim schisma verterunt; tanquam si ecclesia Christi, de toto terrarum orbe perierit, atque in Africa, in Donati parte solum remanserit.

† Opou an e Christas Jesous, ekei catholike ecclesia.

#Ecclesia Catholica a solis ortu usque ad occasum unius fidei splendore diffunditur.

Neque enim, a populo Dei separamus quos vel degradendo vel excommunicando, ad humiliorem pœnitendo locum redigimus. Lib. cont. Donatistes.

that if this had been the case, and sufficiently proved, the fathers, would, on that account only, have condemned their refusal of communion with these churches, as rendering them outcasts from the Catholic church. ·

In the accounts we have of the conference before mentioned between the Catholics and the Donatists in the year 411, we do not find, that it was denied by the former, that the latter belonged to the Catholic church.

"As to the question," says Witsius, "Whether the Catholics or "Donatists belonged to the Catholic church, scarcely any thing seems "to have been regularly or expressly determined in this conference. "In general, the Catholics produced various passages of scripture in "order to prove, that the church was to be diffused through the whole "world; and that there were many particular churches, belonging to "it, founded by the apostles, with which it was manifest that the Do"natists did not hold communion. To this observation the Donatists "made no reply. But, in order to determine the question between "them and their opponents, it would have been necessary to have "given some other characters or marks of a religious society's belong❝ing to the Catholic church, than the word and sacraments; these be"ing nearly the same in both communions. But, perhaps," says Witsius, "no other marks or characters can be given; and he thinks, "that it was justly observed by Baldwin, that, if the Donatists com"municated with the Catholic church both in doctrine, and in rites and "ceremonies, though they did not communicate with persons, whom "they shunned as polluted, their schism seemed to be only a schism "of peevishness, or ill humour."*

The best confutation of the scheme of the Donatists is allowed to be the six books of Optatus, bishop of Melevi. This work may be conconsidered, as the most authentic representation of the judgement of the fathers and of their way of reasoning against the Donatists. He wrote towards the end of the fourth century. If the fathers had considered the separation of the Donatists from the African church as, in itself, a separation from the Catholic church, Optatus would have insisted on this as a principal argument against that sect. How little he rested on this argument we may understand from the account which Du Pin gives of that work. The first book, according to him, contains the history of the rise of the Donatist party, and justifies Cecilian. In the third book, Optatus vindicates the Catholics, from the charge of having caused violence to be used against the Donatists. In the fourth book, he refutes this opinion of the Donatists, that the

De quæstione quos Ecclesia esset, an penes eos qui Catholici dicebantur, an penes Donatistas, vix quidquam rite atque ordine in collatione actum esse videtur. Catholici quidem generatim multa protulerunt testimonia, quibus probare niterentur ecclesiam per totum terrarum orbem diffundi, multasque esse ad ipsam unicam pertinentes Apostolorum labore fundatas, quibus Donatistas non communicare manifestum est. Sed ad id siluerunt Donatistæ. Et sane, si verum fateri volumus, erat ea quæstio et admodum difficilis et parum necessaria: quod utrobique propemodum eadem sonaret doctrina, et forma rituum consimilis conspiceretur. Unde ad ecclesiam dignoscendam aliis indiciis opus fuit, quam doctrinæ et sacramentorum. An vero præter hæc solida indicia sint, dubitari haud immerito potest; aut fartasse ne potest quidam. Et vero si Donatista, ut bene Balduinus, cum ecclesia catholica communicarent tam in doctrina fidei, quam in ritibus et ceremoniis, tametsi cum personis non communicarent, quas tanquam pollutas refugiebant, non nisi morositatis schisma fuisse Videtur. Dessertatione de schisma Donatistarum, cap. 7. Sect. 35.

ordinances of the Catholics were to be shunned on account of the personal sins of those who were admitted to partake of them. In the fifth book, he proves, that the Donatists were criminal in reiterating baptism. In the sixth, he exposes the impieties and sacrileges of the Donatists. It is only in the second book, that he argues against them on account of their separation from the church: and here the principal point, which he proves against the Donatists, is, that their party was not the catholic church. This he proves, according to Du Pin, from the extent of the catholic church; and from their want of union with the chair of Saint Peter; an argument, which can have no weight with any but Papists, who hold the church of Rome to be synonymous with the Catholic church. Du Pin does not say, that Optatus asserts in any part of his work, that the Donatists did not belong to the Catholic church.

With regard to Lucifer, the friend of Athanasius, and the zealous opposer of compliance with the Arians, it is probable that he has been unjustly stigmatized. Perhaps justice is done the Luciferians by two late writers, Milner and Haweis; the one says, that, if the Luciferians imbibed the spirit of Lucifer, they must have been firm and sincere in the love of the truth: and the other reckons the Luciferians among the purer party. I have said so much on the subject of the Novatians and the Donatists, because it has been long the favourite common-place of time-servers in their invectives against any whose honesty and love of the truth led them to decline sacramental communion with the most numerous and fashionable party on account of their avowed obstinacy in their errors and corruptions. It is a topic that has been much used by the Papists against the Protestants; by the Episcopalians in England against the Non-conformists; by those who defend or palliate the defections of the established church of Scotland against the Seceders; and now by the advocates for the latitudinarian scheme, which is so much the idol of the present day, against all who dare open a mouth in defence of such a church communion as is necessary for the maintaining of a faithful public profession of the truths and ordinances of Christ. It is also of importance to know, that, though the degeneracy of the church was begun in the time of the Novatians, and was much farther advanced in the time of the Donatists; yet the fathers had not then become so indifferent to the profession of the truth, which they had attained, as they are supposed to have been, by those who plead for this lax scheme of church communion. Even then there were footsteps of the flock, which we ought to follow. With regard, however, to the present question, it might have been sufficient to observe, that the communion, which the Novatians and the Donatists opposed in the ancient church, was no example of the catholic communion which is now contended for; it was not a sacramental tommunion with the avowed and obstinate enemies of any one article of the church's scriptural profession. It cannot be pretended that the lapsed who had become penitent, nor Cecilian, nor any of the churches with which they had communion, were such. Nor did the Novatians or Donatists charge the Catholics with having sacramental communion with such enemies. The charges of these schismatics, as we have seen, were of a very different nature. They did not respect the public profession of