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.

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 P.' This is Sacra

true.

ments

adminis

same Sacra

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 ments. 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 [Other 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 [Ps. xlv. 10.

P [Ibid., p. 19.]

¶ [Ibid.]

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

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 Church'," 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 tics 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 Church. doubted and suspended their judgments, whether schismatics

Catholic

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, [Surv., c. ii. sect. 4. p. 21.]

[Ibid., p. 20.]

[Answ. to Pref., pp. 46-48.]

III.

that is, in those things wherein they have made no separa- DISCOURSE tion,—“ ex eá parte in texturæ 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 sua 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 be" 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

August., De Bapt. cont. Donatist., lib. i. [c. 8. § 10, tom. ix. p. 85. F.] * Idem, [ibid.,] c. 10. [§ 14, ibid. p. 87. B.]

BRAMHALL.

G

y

[Surv., c. ii. sect. 4. p. 23.]

7 August., Epist. 48. [editt. before Bened.-93. Ad Vincentium, c. 8. § 25. tom. ii. p. 241. D. ed. Bened.]

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 crr 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.

[Propositions of the

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 untouched 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, 24.]

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.

Britannic

judged

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 never 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

Church.