members, until after the day of judgment, and he who pretends to render it otherwise sets himself above Christ. This was the heresy of the Donatists, against whom St. Augustine often and convincingly argued. "The good," said he, " are not to be deserted on account of the evil, but the evil to be tolerated on account of the good, as the prophets tolerated those against whom they spoke such great things, nor did they relinquish communion in sacraments with that people; as our Lord himself tolerated the wicked Judas unto his deserved end, and permitted him to communicate at the holy supper with the innocent; as the apostles tolerated those who preached Christ through envy; as Cyprian tolerated the covetousness of his colleagues, which, according to the apostle, he called idolatry.”f The truth is, that every church and society of professing Christians, without exception, contains bad men and hypocrites; and were this a sufficient reason to separate from the church, there could be no such thing in the world as church communion. Calvin's doctrine on this subject I have cited already; he devotes a large space to the refutation of the notion that the existence of evil members in the church justifies separation from it. The Lutherans too, in the Apology for the Confession of Augsburgh, say: "Christ admonished us in his discourses on the church, not to excite schisms through our offence at the private vices of priests or people, as the Donatists wickedly did. And as for those who have raised schisms because they denied the lawfulness of the clergy's holding possessions or property, we judge them plainly seditious." &c.

The mere existence of doctrinal errors, or the corruption of rites and sacraments in any church, afford no excuse whatever for separation from its communion. The abuses of the Co

f August. Epist. 93. al. 48. c. 4. tom. ii. p. 237. ed. Bened.

66

g Monuit nos Christus in collationibus de ecclesia, ne offensi privatis vitiis sive sacerdotum, sive populi, schismata excitemus; sicut scelerate fecerunt Donatistæ. Illos vero, qui ideo excitaverunt schismata, quia negabant sacerdotibus licere tenere possessiones aut proprium, plane seditiosos judicamus."-Apologia Confessionis, art. iv. de ecclesia.

h

rinthians, the errors of the Galatians, did not justify any separation from those churches; on the contrary the duty of union was strongly inculcated on them by the apostle. Calvin affirms. that while a pure ministry of the word and sacraments exists, "a church is never to be rejected as long as it persists in them, although otherwise it abounds in faults. Moreover, somewhat of corruption might creep into the administration of the sacraments themselves, which ought not to alienate us from its communion." If the doctrines or practice of his particular church, or even those most commonly prevalent around him, appear to any Christian imperfect or corrupt, it is an office of charity to endeavour to promote, as far as he can, a purer system, provided it be done with humility and wisdom; but he should not forsake the body of Christ, because in some part it may be ailing. I speak here only of faults and defects which do not amount to a rejection of what God has plainly revealed, or to a manifest contradiction and disobedience to his commandment; because if any church of Christ should be guilty of such a rejection and contradiction, and obstinately persist in them, it would be apostate, and cease ipso facto to be a church of Christ; and therefore he who should forsake its communion, would not forsake the communion of the church, but of a synagogue of Satan; and in this case, the precept of Christ would oblige his disciples to separate utterly from the apostate community, and remain united with the true church. Separation from such a society is as much a duty as separation from heathenism and idolatry; and therefore it is a case which affords no justification to him that forsakes the church of Christ. Those who, either at the Reformation, or at other times, pretended to justify their voluntary separation from any society of professing Christians, always did so on the plea that it was an apostate society, and therefore not a church of Christ; and wherever this plea was well founded they were perfectly justified.

Institut. iv. c. i. s. 12.

ON SEPARATION BY EXCOMMUNICATION.

6. A case might occur, in which individuals should violate the duty of charity towards some of the brethren, or towards the particular church of which they were members, and yet should by no means wish to separate from the rest of the brethren throughout the world, but rather desire to retain all the advantages resulting from their communion. In a case like this the Christian society may be purified from such false brethren by its own act. The Apostolic admonition: "Mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them;"i recognizes the right and the duty of Christians, to separate themselves from those that offend extremely against charity; and our blessed Saviour authorizes those against whom any brother has trespassed, and who, after repeated endeavours, cannot induce him to repent of his fault, to" tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." "Verily I say unto you," he adds, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This empowers the church to take cognizance of all offences against charity. The decree of the church, however, is to be supposed necessarily to have two conditions; first, that it be founded on an examination of the facts of the case, without which extreme injustice might occur; and injustice could never be accordant with the design of the righteous and merciful Judge of all the earth; and secondly, that the judgment of the church be unanimous, or nearly so. The judgment of the church greatly divided; or the judgment of a portion of the church, the remainder delivering no opinion, could not be invested with that authority and unity which are to be inferred from the terms used by our Saviour: "If he shall not hear the church," &c.

Rom. xvi. 17.

* Matt. xviii. 15-18. That Christ has only promised his assistance and authority to the

If then individuals should be condemned by a particular church, but that sentence should be disallowed by the great body of the church universal, they are not cut off from the church of Christ. If a particular church should be condemned. on some account by a portion of the universal church, but not by another considerable portion, it is not to be held as heathen. and separated; because the whole, or nearly the whole body of the faithful, has not united in the judgment. If individuals or churches have been condemned by a large portion of the church universal, and it can be clearly proved that the facts of the case have not been investigated, such a sentence is to be held invalid and unratified in heaven. If however the condemnation of the universal church is unanimous, and there is no proof of any marked injustice in the proceedings, those who are condemned for offences against charity, ought to be held of all the brethren as "heathen men and publicans." We see

church on such conditions, even in deciding questions of faith, is asserted by Melchior Canus, Tournely, Delahogue, and the Romish theologians generally. The first says: "Commune est, crede mihi, omnibus ecclesiæ judicibus, ut si decreta ediderint temeritate quadam, sine judicio, repentino quasi vento incitati, nihil omnino conficiant, quod solidum, quod grave, quod certum habeatur." (Loci Communes v. de Conciliis, p. 147. ed. Patav. 1762.) The second says, that Christ only promised his presence to the church assembled in councils, when "servata suffragiorum libertate, et adhibita humana industria et diligentia, veritatem sedulo inquirerent." (Prælect. de Eccl. Christi, t. i. quæst. iii. art. 3. p. 384.) See also Delahogue, de Eccl. cap. iv. quæst. objectiones. Bailly, de Eccl. cap. xv. in fine c. xvi. sect. vii. Bouvier de vera Eccl., pars i. c. ii art. v. s. 2. Collet, Institut. Theolog. Scholast., tom. i. p. 30. If judgments in questions of faith and discipline are null where the ordinary rules of judgment have been manifestly transgressed, they must be also in all questions affecting the unity of the church, because the latter is not less important than faith itself. In fact, Van Espen (Tractatus de Censuris, c. 5. s. i.) observes, that no one doubts that in cases of excommunication, the laws of judicial proceedings should be observed: and Suarez, cited by him, affirms, that a censure, in which there has been " a substantial defect in the lawful order" of proceeding, is entirely invalid. And what greater defect can there be, than in not examining the facts of the case, or determining them in blind obedience to a power erroneously supposed to be irresistible?

m

examples of this in the case of Novatian, and the Donatists. Novatian and his adherents, having separated from the communion of the church of the Romans about A.D. 250, and established a rival worship, were declared to be separated from the church by a council of sixty bishops at Rome, and by all the bishops in Africa and other western provinces ;" and in the East by the bishops assembled at Antioch ;" and this judgment being universally received, and the facts of the case being undeniable and notorious, the Novatians were always accounted schismatics, cut off entirely from the church of Christ. In the same manner, the Donatists having separated from the communion of the church of Carthage, and prevailed on the bishops of Numidia to support their schism and create a rival bishop; and a division having arisen throughout Africa on this account, their cause was successively heard by a council of Italian and Gallican bishops at Rome; by the council of Arles convened from all the West; by the Emperor Constantine at Milan; and it was universally condemned after a full examination. The Donatists were thenceforward regarded by all Christians as separated entirely from the church of Christ, as much as the Marcionites, Montanists, Sabellians, Arians, or any other sect which denied the first principles of the Christian religion. And they on their part declared the church apostate, and rejected its communion.

CONCLUSIONS.

1. Unity of communion being the law of God, both in the universal church, and in all the particular churches in which it is arranged; it is impossible that in the same place there can be several different churches, authorized by God and united to Christ. In the case of rival communions in a particular locality, it is possible that none of them may be Christian; but one alone can be the church of Christ; and it is as impossible that

Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 43.

- Ibid. c. 46. See also Fleury, lib. vii. c. 5.

VOL. I.-11