III. that is, in those things wherein they have made no separa- DISCOURSE tion,-" ex ea parte in texture compage detinentur, in cætera scissi sunt","—and that in this respect the Catholic Church by their baptism doth beget sons and daughters to God. And we think we have St. Austin for us in this also ;-"Una est Ecclesia quæ sola Catholica nominatur, et quicquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum a suâ unitate separatis, per hoc quod suum in iis habet, ipsa utique generat, non illæ.” This perhaps is contrary to R. C. his opinions; howsoever, we thank him for it. But we do not think schismatics to be equally in the Church with Catholics, nor to be capable of salvation without repentance particular or general. wicked, as well as He saith, that "universal schism" or "a division from the [All schism whole Church" is "always wicked, because the Universal universal Church can give no just cause of division from her." And particular.] he proves it out of St. Austin. His words are these,-" Si possunt (quod fieri non potest) aliqui habere justam causam, quá communionem suam separent a communione orbis terrarum”. "If any could have a just cause to separate their communion from the whole communion of the whole world, which cannot be1." Let him always bring such proofs, which concern not us but make directly against himself. It is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole world, Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abissene, Protestant, by their censures. We have made no absolute separation even from the Roman Church itself. I say more, that all schism, whether universal or particular, is wicked. But still he confounds schism, which is always unlawful, with separation, which is many times lawful (I take the word according to its use, not according to its derivation). Hear R. C. his R. C. his ingenuous confession in this place, which overthrows and confession. casts flat to the ground all that he hath endeavoured to build in this Survey:-"Neither indeed can there be any substantial division from any particular Church, unless she be really heretical or schismatical; I say really, because she may be really heretical or schismatical, and yet morally a true particular Church, because she is invincibly ignorant of PART heresy or schism, and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her, in which case division from her is no schism or sin, but virtue and necessary." Apply but this to the Roman and English Churches, and the controversy is ended. The Roman Church is such a particular Church as he hath here described. The English Church hath been separated (but we will suppose that it had 170 separated itself) from the Roman. In this case, by his own confession, the schism lies at the door of the Roman Church, from which the separation was made, if they separated first from the pure primitive Church which was before them, not locally, but morally. Yet, saith he, this erroneous Church is still "morally a true particular Church." Either this Church hath not all the essentials of a Christian Church, and then how doth it still continue a "true" Church? or it hath all the essentials, and then a true Church in substance may give just ground to separate from her in material heresy and schism. I will be as free with him concerning the Universal Church. If any man or society of Christians separate themselves from the united communion of the whole Catholic Church dispersed throughout the world, I cannot excuse him from schism. For whether the Catholic Church of this present age may err or not, this is certain,—she cannot err universally in any thing that is necessary to salvation, nor with obstinacy; and other inferior errors (if there be any such) are not of weight enough to yield sufficient ground of separation from the communion of the Catholic Church united. But for the divided parts of the Catholic Church, a man may differ from all of them in inferior points, some in one thing, some in another, wherein they differ one from another, and separate from some of them in their errors without criminous schism; and yet maintain a perfect union with the Catholic Church united. [Proposi tions of the untouched by R. C.] I must not here forget to put R. C. in mind of sundry author propositions laid down by me in this place, tending much to the clearing of this present controversy, all which he passeth by untouched: as this, that "external communion" may sometimes be lawfully "suspended, or withdrawn;" that "there is not the like necessity of communicating in all a [Surv., c. ii. sect. 4, pp. 23, 21.] III. externals;" that Catholic "communion implies not unity in Discourse all opinions;" that inferiors in some cases may lawfully substract communion from their superiors, and in special the Bishop of Rome; that in tract of time abuses will creep into Christian Churches, and ought to be reformed. SECTION THE FIFTH. دو Britannic never matics. Only whereas I said in the Vindication, that the ancient The Britannic Churches were never "judged" (that is, censured by Churches a judgment of jurisdiction,) to be schismatics for their different judged observation of Easter, he saith, "they were judged schismatics schisboth by Catholics of that time, and since, and Protestants,' and that he hath proved it in one of his treatises. I never see his treatise, but I know his manner of proof well enough. I say it over again, that I do not believe that they were ever judged schismatics for it, either by the Church, or by a Council, or by any lawful or supposed superior, which shews plainly that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. For it is not credible that he should excommunicate the Asiatic Bishops for that observation, and suffer his own subjects to differ from him under his nose; which is the only reason why I urged it. And I expect the proof of the contrary at the Greeks' calends. My assertion is negative, that they were not sentenced as schismatics; this is affirmative,-that they were censured. The burden of the proof lies upon him. Let him shew who judged them, when, and where, or that they were censured at all. SECTION THE SIXTH. the true I shewed clearly in the Vindication, out of the Colloquy What is between the Catholics and Donatists at Carthage, that the Catholic Catholic Church is no Church of one denomination, but "the whole Christian worlde." "True," saith he, "neither the [Just Vindic., c. ii. vol. i. pp. 104-108.] d [Surv., c. ii. sect. 5. p. 25.] e [Just Vindic., c. ii. vol. i. p. 109.] Church. I. PAT Church of the city of Rome, nor of Afric, is the Catholic Church, but the whole Church of Christ." By the Church of Rome I understand not either the Church of the city of Rome, or the diocese of Rome, or the patriarchate of Rome, but all Churches of the Roman communion, which altogether do not make the fourth part of "the Christian world." Yea, saith he, but "the whole Church is not such a multitude, or multitudes, of Christians, . . . . who agree only in fundamentals, . . . . but disagree in other points of faith, and differ wholly in communion of Sacraments"," All these great multitudes of Christians, he feareth not to call "a mass of monsters," and "a hydra of many heads," because they are not "wholly one in profession of faith, communion of Sacraments, and lawful ministry," as that Catholic primitive Church was. I wonder he should forget their own distinction of the 'virtual,' 'representative,' and 'essential' Church, that is, these multitudes of dispersed Christians. I hope there be others that will not slight them so much. I confess, that the primitive Catholic Church had an exact com- 171 munion in all essentials or fundamentals, and in many other things. But that they had differences also of lesser moment in points of doctrine and discipline, and forms of administration of the Holy Sacraments, and liturgies, no man can doubt that hath his eyes in his head. Yet these lesser inconsiderable differences could produce no schism, whilst one Church did not condemn another, and all did submit themselves to the determination of a general Council, as the highest judge of controversies upon earth. The reason of their agreement was plainly this, because all Churches received the Primitive Creed, and no Church exacted more in point of Faith than the Primitive Creed. It would better become the Church of Rome to repent of their rash temerarious censure in excluding above three parts of the Christian world from the communion of saints,-out of passion and self-interest, because they will not acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Bishop, no more than their predecessors did before them from the beginning. tholics Court of If these dispersed and despised "multitudes of Christians" DISCOURSE would but submit to the Roman yoke, their religion would be Interest found orthodox enough, and they would no longer be held makes Ca"a mass of monsters," and "a hydra of many heads," but with the pass muster for good Catholics. Take an instance or two. Rome. Of all these multitudes of Christians, the Assyrians or the Nestorians have not the best repute; yet when Elias, a petty Patriarch of Muzal, submitted to the Bishop of Rome, and sent the confession of his Faith, it was found to be orthodox'. Of later days, about the year 1595, when part of the Russians, subject to the crown of Poland, submitted themselves to the Papacy, because they could not have free access to the Patriarch of Constantinople; in their submission they articled for the free exercise of the Greek religion. To come nearer home; this is certain, that Pius the Fourth sent Vincentio [Parpalia] with letters of credence to Queen Elizabeth, with secret instructions; for he intreated her in his letter, "to give the same credit to his agent, which she would do to himself." If these instructions were not written, we need not wonder. Such instructions are not to be seen publicly, unless they take effect. But some of our authors of great note in these days write positively, others probably upon common report, that he offered the Pope's confirmation of the English Liturgy, and the free use of the Sacrament in both kinds, &c., so she would join with the Romish Church, and acknowledge the primacy of the chair of Rome'. It is interest, not religion, that makes Catholics, and heretics, or schismatics, with the Court of Rome. Churches cord both Lastly, all these famous Churches, or the most of them, [The other which he calls "multitudes of Christians," have a perfect con- have a percord both among themselves and with the primitive Church feet conin all essentials. How should it be otherwise, whilst they with themhold the same Creed without addition or subtraction? They with the agree in most lesser truths. They hold their old liturgies, Church in and forms of administration of the Sacraments, with less essentials] i Thom. a Jesu, [Thesaur. Sap. Divin. in Gent. Omn. Salut. Procurandâ, lib. vii. P. i. cc. 3 et 4], cited by Dr. Field, [of the Church,] lib. iii. c. 1. [p. 63.] * Idem, [ibid., lib. vi. P. iii. c. 1, cited by Field,] ibid. [p. 61.] 1 Babington, Upon Numbers, c. vii. [§ 2. p. 35. ed. 1615.]-Camd., Annal. Elizab., an. 1560. [P. i. pp. 47-49. ed. 1639.] selves and Primitive |