§. 31.
Next, as to matter of Faith: We hold that all separation from all particular Churches in such a thing, wherein the unity of the Catholick Church doth not consist, is no separation from the whole Church, nor is any thing more, than our suspension from the Communion of particular Churches, till such their error is reformed; For, as Doctor Stillingfleet[84]——There can be no separation from the whole Church, but in such things, wherein the unity of the whole Church lies:—Whoso therefore separates from any particular Church as to things not concerning their being, is only separated from the Communion of that Church, and not the Catholick. Now, that for which we have separated from other Churches, we conceive not such, as is essential, or concerns the being of a Church so, that without it we or they cannot still retain the essence thereof; we declare also our readiness to joyn with them again, if this error be corrected, or at least not imposed: And [85](as Dr. Stillingfleet saith)——Where there is this readiness of Communion, there is no absolute separation from the Church as such, but only suspending Communion, till such abuses be reformed, [or not pressed upon us]. And as Bishop Bramhall[86]——When one part of the universal Church separateth it self from another part, not absolutely or in essentials, but respectively in abuses, and innovations, not as it is a part of the universal Church, but only so far as it is corrupted and degenerated [whether in doctrin or manners] it doth still retain a Communion not only with the Catholick Church, and with all the Orthodox members of the Catholick Church, but even with that corrupted Church, from which it is separated, except only in such Corruptions.
[§. 32.]
Prot. Saving better Judgments, methinks a separation (if causeless) from the Communion of all other Churches, or from those who are our Superiors, in a lesser matter than such a Fundamental or essential point of Christianity as destroys the being of a Church, should be Schism; and the smaller the point for which we separate, the greater the guilt of our separation. Were not the Donatists Schismaticks in rejecting the Catholick Communion, requiring their conformity in such a point, in which St. Cyprian's error before the Church's defining thereof was very excusable; and the African Congregations in his time not un-churched thereby?
Soc. [87]——But the Donatists did cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of Salvation, the Church from which they separated, which is the property of Schismaticks.——And [88]——They were justly charged with Schism, because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds. But as Dr. Ferne saith[89]—Had the Donatists only used their liberty and judgment in that practice of re-baptizing Hereticks, leaving other Churches to their liberty; and (though thinking them in an error for admitting Hereticks, without baptizing them, yet) willing to have Communion with them, as parts of the Catholick Church (saving the practices wherein they differed), then had they not been guilty of Schism. In that which I hold I only follow my Conscience, condemn not the Churches holding otherwise: On the other side [90]Christ hath forbid me under pain of damnation to profess what I believe not [be it small or great] and consequently under the same penalty hath obliged me to leave the Communion, in which I cannot remain without the Hypocritical Profession of such a thing, which I am convinced to be erroneous. [91]At least this I know, that the Doctrin which I have chosen, to me seems true, and the contrary, which I have forsaken, seems false: and therefore, without remorse of Conscience, I may profess that, but this I cannot: and a separation, for preserving my Conscience, I hope will never be judged causeless.