I. PART black, about a cap, or a surplice, or the sign of the cross, or kneeling at the receiving of the Blessed Sacrament, or the use of the ring in marriage! What bitter contentions have been among the Franciscans in former times about their habits, what colour they should be, white, or black, or gray; and what fashion, long or short, to make them more conformable to the rule of St. Francis! With that violence have these petty quarrels been prosecuted, insomuch as two succeeding Popes, upon two solemn hearings, durst not determine them. And nothing was wanting to a complete schism but a sentence f. Errors in He might have spared his second proof of his three "substantial parts" (he meaneth essential properties) of the Church, until it had been once denied. Yet I cannot but observe how he makes heresy now worse than schism, because "heresy denieth the truth of God, which simple schism doth not "," whereas formerly he made schism worse than idolatry. The second fault which he imputeth to me is, that I "confound mere schism with schism mixed with heresy," and "bring in matters of Faith to justify our division from the Roman Church h" This second fault is like the former, both begotten in his truded jus- own brain. Let him read my supposed definition over and tify a sepa- over again, and he shall not find the least trace of ration. such any confusion in it. To bring in their errors in matter of Faith, to justify us not only from heresy but from mere schism, is very proper. He himself hath already confessed it; I hope he will stand to his word, for it is too evident a truth to be denied; that, supposing they hold errors in matters of Faith, and make these their errors a condition of their communion, it is not only lawful, but "necessary," and "a virtue," to separate from them. Their very errors in matters of Faith, and their imposing them upon us as necessary articles, doth justify a separation from them, and acquit us before God and man from all criminous schism, whether mere or mixed. The sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram was not mere schism, but ad f Anti-Machiavel., in Epist. [Surv., c. ii. sect. 1. p. 12.] h [Ibid., pp. 12, 13.] [Ibid., sect. 4. pp. 23, 24. See above, Answ. to Pref., p. 33.] III. ambition, treason, and rebellion. Korah would have had the DISCOURSE high priesthood from Aaron, and Dathan and Abiram would have been sovereign princes in the place of Moses by right of xvi. 3. 13.] the primogeniture of Reuben. [Numb. author's So he proceeds to my other definition, "Mere schism is a [The culpable rupture or breach of the Catholic communion," to second which, he saith, I "add in the next page, 'without sufficient definition of schism.] ground,' and should have added also, in Sacraments or lawful ministry,"" and lastly have shewed, "what is a 'sufficient ground."" But he mistakes throughout. For, first, to have added "without sufficient grounds," had been a needless tautology, which is not tolerable in a definition. To say that it is culpable, implies that it wants sufficient grounds; for if it had sufficient grounds, it were not culpable. Secondly, to have added "in Sacraments or lawful ministry," had been to spoil the definition, or description rather, and to make it not convertible with the thing defined or described. I have shewed that there are many mere schisms, that are neither in Sacraments nor lawful ministry. Lastly, I have shewed "what are sufficient grounds," and that the Church of Rome gave sufficient cause of separation, if he please to take it into consideration. SECTION THE SECOND. 168 schism. He saith, "Internal communion is not necessary" to make Mental a man a member of a visible Church, or to make him "a Catholic," neither is it "put into the definition of the Church'." Let it be so. I am far from supposing that none but saints are within the communion of a true visible Church. But I am sure it is a good caution both for them and us. There is a mental schism, as well as a mental murder. "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." 1 John iii. What will it avail a man to be a Catholic in the eye of the world, and a schismatic in the eye of God? to be a member of the visible Church, and to be cast into utter darkness? "He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly; neither is that Rom. ii. circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a [Ibid., sect. 1. p. 15.] [Ibid., sect. 2. pp. 16, 17.] 15. 28, 29. I. PART Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart;" (so he is not a Catholic, who is one outwardly, but he, who is a Catholic inwardly;) "whose praise is not of men, but of God." [Wherein doth consist the external communion of Catholics.] [Communion in from schism.] SECTION THE THIRD. Then I set down wherein the external communion of Catholics doth consist,-in the same creeds or confessions of faith, in the participation of the same Sacraments, in the same liturgies or Divine offices, in the use of the same public rites and ceremonies, in the communicatory letters, and admission of the same discipline". These observations about the parts of the Catholic communion, are so innocent, so indifferent, and so unsubservient to either party, that I hoped they might pass without any censure. But behold, there is not one of them can escape an exception. To the first part of Catholic communion,-in the same creeds, he takes two exceptions; First, "That communion in Faith is pretended a sufficient Faith doth excuse from true schism"." Fear it not; no man dreameth that communion with the Church in her creed doth acquit from schism; but not communicating with the Church in her creed, doth make both schism and heresy. The having of faith doth not supply the want of charity; but the want of one necessary requisite renders the having of another insufficient. Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis, malum ex quolibet defectu.' Communion in all points of Faith not necessary always. His second exception is, that "true saving faith requireth" not only "a communion in the creed," but "in all God's words clearly revealed to him, and sufficiently proposed." I answer, What is necessary for this man, at this time, in this place, is one thing; what is necessary for all Christians, at all times, in all places, is another thing. Though all revealed truths be alike necessary to be believed, when they are known, yet all revealed truths are not alike necessary to be known. And they who know them not, are not obliged m p. 101] [Just Vindic., c. ii. vol. i. [Ibid. Read, "revealed by Him."] III. to communicate in the belief of them, until they know them. DiscoURSE So to believe them when they are revealed to us, is a necessary duty of all Christians; and yet the explicit belief of them is no necessary part of Christian communion. He that holds fast the old creed of the Church, hath all things that are absolutely necessary in point of faith. Perhaps he thinks that the determination of the Roman Church is a sufficient proposal; we know no such thing. Let him first win the privilege and then enjoy it. ments adminis same Sacra ments. To the second and third parts of Catholic communion he objects, that it is not sufficient to participate in Catholic Sacraments, unless it be done with Catholics".' This is Sacratrue. How can they be parts of Catholic communion, if no purely and Catholics do participate of them? But here are two advertise- corruptly ments necessary:—the one, that Sacraments purely adminis- tered the tered, and Sacraments corruptly administered, so long as the abuses do not destroy the essence, are the same Sacraments; as Baptism administered in pure water, and Baptism administered with salt and spittle also, is the same Baptism;the other, that it is not any Church of one denomination whatsoever, either Roman or other, that either is the Catholic Church, or is to judge under Christ who are true Catholics. There are many more Catholics without the Roman communion, than within it. Our separatists in England having first laid their own drowsy conceits for infallible grounds,—that their discipline is the sceptre of Christ, that they alone are Zion, and all other societies Babylon,-then they apply all the power and privileges and prerogatives of the Church unto themselves. So the Church of Rome, having flattered itself into an opinion, that she alone is the Catholic Church, and all other Churches divided from her, heretical or schismatical conventicles, though they be three or four times larger than herself, presently lays hold on the keys of the Church, opens and shuts, lets in and thrusts out, makes Catholics and unmakes Catholics, at her pleasure. commu 169 He tells us, that "the communion of the Church doth not [oOther necessarily imply the same rites and ceremonies." I know points of it right well. . The Queen's daughter was arrayed in a garment nion.] "wrought about with divers colours." No men have been P [Ibid., p. 19.] a [Ibid.] [Ps.xlv.10. Prayer Bk. vers.] PART I. so much to blame as the Church of Rome in obtruding indifferent rites as necessary duties upon other Churches. But yet, the more harmony and uniformity that there is in rites, the greater is the communion. The Church is compared to an army with banners. What a disorderly army would it be, if every soldier was left free to wear his own colours, and to give his own words! I know the "communion of the Church did not consist in communicatory letters';" but they were both expressions, and excellent helps and adjuments, of unity, and antidotes against schism. What he saith, now the third time, of our communicating with schismatics, hath been answered already". [R. C.'s own definition of schism.] Schisma do still re. Catholic Church. SECTION THE FOURTH. "Wherefore" (saith he) "since I. D. hath failed so many ways in defining schism, . . . . let us define it better." And then he brings in his definition triumphantly;-"True schism is a voluntary division in some substantial part of the true Churcht," that is, in some essential of Christian religion. Where lies the difference? I call it a "separation," and he calls it a "division;" I say "culpable," and he saith "voluntary;" 'omnis culpa est voluntaria.' My expressions are more significant and emphatical. All the difference lies in these words, "in some substantial part of the true Church:" which for the form of expression is improper, to make essential properties to be "substantial parts;" and for the matter is most untrue; for there have been, are, and may be, many schisms which do not concern any essentials of Christian religion. I would borrow one word more with him, why he calls it ties in part rather "a division of the true Church," than a division from main in the the true Church. I know some Roman Catholics have doubted and suspended their judgments, whether schismatics be still members of the Catholic Church; others have determined that they are: and we are of the same mind, that in part they do remain still coupled and mortised to the Church, r [Ibid., p. 29.] S [Answ. to Pref., pp. 46-48.] [Surv., c. ii. sect. 4. p. 21.] |