Historical Defense of the Reformation, Part 3 · Chapter 4

Historical Defense of the Reformation · Part 3 · Chapter 4

p. 79CHAP. IV.

An Examination of the Objection of the Author of the Prejudices, taken out of the Diſpute of S. Auguſtine againſt the Schiſm of the Donatiſts.

IT ſeems to me, that what I have laid down hitherto, lets us clearly enough ſee, that the only way to decide the Queſtion of our Separation, to know whether it is juſt or unjuſt; is to enter into the diſcuſſion of the foundation of our Controverſies, and that it would be the higheſt injuſtice to go about to condemn us without ever hearing us. Notwithſtanding, whatſoever we may have to ſay, and how ſtrong ſoever our Reaſons ſhould be, the Author of the Prejudices pretends to have found out a certain way to convince us of Schiſm, without entring upon any other examination; and for this he employes the Eighth and Ninth Chapters of his Treatiſe. I would, ſayes he, Prejug. ch. 8. p. 161.go farther, and convince them of Schiſm, without entring upon any diſcuſſion of either their Doctrine or their Miſſion, by their ſeparation alone.

All that he ſayes upon that ſubject, may be well near reduc'd to this; That there is a Church, from which one ought never to ſeparate, under any pretence whatſoever, and from which all thoſe who ſeparate themſelves are Schiſmaticks, and out of the ſtate of ſalvation. That the infallible and perpetual mark to know this Church, according to S. Auguſtine and the other African Fathers is, viſible extenſion throughout all Nations, becauſe that viſible extenſion according to them contains the Church at all times, and that it is a Negative mark, that is to ſay, that every Society which has not that extenſion, is not the Church; ſo that this reaſoning is alwayes ſound, your Society is ſhut up in a little part of the world. Therefore it is not the Church; and that it is by this Principle, that S. Auguſtine has diſputed againſt the Donatiſts, and convinced them of Schiſm. This is the ſumm of his eighth Chapter. In the ninth, he labours to apply theſe general Maxims to our Separation: and 1. He ſayes, That our Communion is not ſpread over all the world, any more than that of the Donatiſts; and that not having that viſible extenſion, which is the perpetual mark of the True Church, it follows, that it is not ſo, and by conſequence, that we are all Schiſmaticks. 2. He p. 80ſayes, We carry the principle of the Donatiſts much higher than thoſe Schiſmaticks ſtretch'd it; for as for them, they did not ſay, that there ever was a time in which the Church had wholly fell into Apoſtaſic, and that they excepted the Communion of Donatus; but as for us, we will have it, that there has been whole Ages in which all the world had generally apoſtatized, and loſt the faith and treaſure of ſalvation. 3. He labours to ſhew, that the Societies of the Berengarians, of the Waldenſes and Albigenſes, &c. in whom he ſayes, we ſhut up the Church, could not be this Catholick Church of which S. Auguſtine ſpeaks. And laſtly, He concludes from thence, that we are Schiſmaticks, and by conſequence, out of a ſtate of ſalvation.

Before we enter upon the particular Examination of the Propoſitions whereof this Objection is made up, it will be good to note, that there is nothing new in all that, and that it is nothing but that ſome mark of viſible extenſion that the greateſt part of the Controverſial Writers of the Roman Communion have been wont to propound, when they would give the marks of the True Church. There is this only difference to be found in it, that the others labour to ground this upon what they produce out of the paſſages of the Scripture, whereas the Author of the Prejudices grounds his argument upon the ſole Authority of S. Auguſtine and ſome Fathers. But when it ſhould be true, that S. Auguſtine and the African Fathers diſputing againſt the Donatiſts, ſhould have preſt this viſible extenſion of the Church too much, and urged it further than they ought, will the Author of the Prejudices believe, that he ought to hold all thoſe things that the Fathers have advanc'd in their diſputes for infallible, and all their reaſonings and hypotheſes to have been ſo? Does he not know what Theodoret himſelf who was a Father, has noted concerning ſome of Theod. Dial. 3.thoſe who were before him, That the vehemence of Diſputation had made them fall into exceſſes, juſt as thoſe who would rectifie a crooked Tree, turn it too much on the other ſide from that ſtraightneſs which it ought to have? And is he ignorant of what S. Athanaſius ſaid concerning Dionyſius of Alexandria, whoſe Authority the Arians objected …. Epiſt. … Dion. Alex.to him, That Dionyſius had ſaid ſo, not with deſign to make a ſimple expoſition of his faith, but occaſionally having a reſpect to the times, and perſons. That a Gardiner is not to be found fault with, if he cultivate his Trees according to the quality of the ſoil, ſowing one, planting another, pruning this, and plucking up that. We muſt, ſayes S. Jerome, diſtinguiſh between the different kinds of writing, and eſpecially …. Epiſt. … Pammach.of Polemical and Dogmatical. For in the Polemical, the diſpute p. 81is vagous, and when they anſwer to an adverſary, they propound ſometimes one thing, and ſometimes another; they argue as they think fit; they ſay one thing and do another: or as the Proverb ſayes, they offer bread, and give one a ſtone. But in the Dogmatical, on the contrary, they ſpeak openly and ingenuouſly. We may eaſily apprehend by that, that we ought not to hold for Canonical all that the Fathers may have wrote in the heat of their diſputes, or to take what they have ſaid according to the rigour of the Letter, ſince they themſelves acknowledge, that having the Pen in their hands, they often advance things, that on other occaſions ought not to be preſs'd. So that though it ſhould be true, that S. Auguſtine and the African Fathers had made that viſible extenſion an inſeparable and perpetual mark of the True Church, yet we ſhould not fear to ſay, in reſpect of them, what S. Auguſtine himſelf has ſaid concerning S. Cyprian whom the Donatiſts objected to him. I do not Aug. contr. Creſcon. lib. 2. cap. 32.hold the Writings of Cyprian for Canonical; but I examine them by the Canonical Scriptures. That which I find in them conformable to the holy Scriptures, I receive with praiſing him, and I reject with the reſpect that I owe to his perſon, what I find in them diſagreeing thereto. We ſhould make no ſcruple to apply to them, what the ſame S. Auguſtine Aug. Epiſt. 48.has ſaid, on the ſubject of S. Hilary and ſome other Fathers whom they alledg'd to him. We muſt throughly diſtinguiſh theſe ſorts of writings, from the Authority of the Canonical Books. For however we ſhould read them, yet we cannot draw convincing teſtimonies from them, and it is allow'd us to depart from them, when we ſee that they themſelves have departed from the truth. It is therefore certain, that the Author of the Prejudices has but weakned his proof, when inſtead of labouring to eſtabliſh it on the Scripture, as the reſt have done, he reſtrains it to the meer Authority of S. Auguſtine and ſome Fathers.

We have thought that we ought to have freely repreſented this to the Author of the Prejudices, to oblige him a little to moderate his pretenſions; for he imagin'd that the ſole Authority of S. Auguſtine and ſome Fathers was enough to convince us. I will, ſayes he, convince them, we have frequently told him already, and ſhall tell him here again, That the Scripture is the only rule of our Faith, that, we do not acknowledge any other authority able to decide the diſputed Points in Religion, than that of the Word of God; and that if we ſometimes diſpute by the Fathers, it is but by way of condeſcention to thoſe of the Church of Rome, to act upon their own principle, and not to ſubmit our conſciences p. 82to the word of men. But becauſe that he may alſo imagine, under a pretence of this declaration, that we have no other way to anſwer his argument, I ſhall undertake to anſwer here, and ſhew him, if I can, that he has abuſed the Authority of S. Auguſtine, and that he has neither compriſed, or had a mind to comprehend, either the true ſentiments of that Father, or ours. This is that which I deſign to ſhew him in this Chapter and in the following. But before we enter upon this matter, it will be neceſſary to clear in a few words the Hiſtory of the Donatiſts, and to repreſent what was the beginning of their quarrel, and what their Separation was. The Author of the Prejudices had ſome intereſt to leave his Readers in the ignorance of thoſe particular matters of fact; but ſince he and I have not the ſame view of things, he ought not to take it ill, that I ſupply his defect, and that I lay down that which he would not.

In the year 306. God having given peace to the Church, after the cruel perſecutions of Diocleſian, the people of Carthage being aſſembled by the direction of ſome neighbouring Biſhops, choſe Cecilianus for their Biſhop in the place of Menſurius who had been dead ſome time before, and Cecilianus afterwards received his Ordination at the hands of Felix Biſhop of Aprungis. This Election had diſpleaſed ſome of that Church through their private intereſts; ſo that they formed a party againſt him; and this party having called Secundus Primate of Numidia with a great many other Biſhops to the number of Seventy, they made his Ordination void, and ordained one Majorinus in his place. Cecilianus was upheld by a great part of the Church, and kept himſelf in his Biſhoprick. Majorinus was upheld alſo by thoſe of his party, and the Biſhops of Numidia; which made them ſet up at Carthage Altar againſt Altar; that is to ſay, that each Biſhop ſet up his Aſſemblies apart; and ſo the Church of Carthage was rent. But this Diviſion did not ſtop at Carthage; for the Biſhops of Africa took part, ſome with Cecilianus, and the others with Majorinus; one of theſe was called Donatus, from whoſe name all that Sect came in the end to be called Donatiſts.

Each party laboured to fortifie themſelves by reaſons; the Donatiſts, on their ſide, at firſt accus'd Felix the Ordainer of Cecilianus, and afterwards Cecilianus himſelf, of having been Traditors, that is to ſay, of having delivered their Bibles to the Pagans for them to burn them, during the perſecutions. The others, on the contrary, maintained, that it was a falſe accuſation, of which p. 83they had neither conviction nor proof, becauſe that Cecilianus had not been heard before his condemnation; and they alſo accuſed ſome of thoſe who had condemn'd him, of having been themſelves Traditors, and to have mutually abſolv'd one another of that crime in a Synod which they had held. The quarrel growing high, the Donatiſts preſented a Petition to the Emperour Conſtantine, to intreat of him ſome Judges; becauſe that in Africa they were all divided and parties; and the Emperour commiſſioned for that purpoſe, Milciades Biſhop of Rome, Merodes Biſhop of Milan, Maternus Biſhop of Cologne, Reticus Biſhop of Autun, and Marinus Biſhop of Arles. Theſe Judges met together with ſome other Biſhops of Italy, all in number to nineteen, and having taken an exact knowledge of that buſineſs, they juſtified Cecilianus, and confirmed him in his Biſhoprick: nevertheleſs, without making void either the Ordination of Majorinus, or that of his Succeſſors: but the Donatiſts would not acquieſce in this judgement. They ſaid, that Milciades had himſelf been a Traditor, and that he defended the Traditors. They had recourſe again to the Emperour, who ordain'd, that the cauſe ſhould be ſearch'd again, and determined in a Council at Arles, where the Donatiſts having been again condemn'd, they appealed to the Emperours own perſon; and the Emperour having taken cognizance of it himſelf, condemned them.

After all this, the Opinionativeneſs of the Donatiſts was ſo great, that inſtead of ſubmitting themſelves to ſo many judgements, they choſe rather to ſeparate themſelves from the whole Church. They made therefore a General Schiſm with the whole Chriſtian World; and to colour it with ſome appearance of reaſon, they maintained, that all the world had fallen into Apoſtaſy through the meer Communion which it had with the Traditor Cecilianus. They would no more own either any Church or Chriſtianity in the world, but what was in their party; and they rebaptized all thoſe, who had been baptized in the Church ſince the buſineſs of Cecilianus. S. Auguſtine and the other Fathers of Africa, had fairly told them, that Cecilianus was innocent, that though he ſhould not have been innocent, the Judges could have done no leſs, than to have abſolved him, there having been no proofs againſt him, and that though even the Judges ſhould have judg'd wrong, yet all the world could not have been guilty of that crime, ſince the greater part of the Churches, and of the perſons that compos'd them, had had no knowledge of that affair, p. 84that though they ſhould have had knowledge of it, they could have done no otherwiſe than referr'd it to Judges; or laſtly, not being willing to refer it to Judges, prudence and charity would have oblig'd them to have bore with the wicked in the external communion of the Church, rather than to have broken Peace and Chriſtian Unity for perſonal crimes, which were not communicated to them who had no part in them. All theſe reaſons did not hinder the Donatiſts from remaining obſtinate in their concluſion, which was that, all the Church had loſt its righteouſneſs by the Communion which it had with Cecilianus; and that there was no more any Chriſtianity in the World, except in the party of Donatus. From hence it was, that the Queſtion aroſe between them, which of the two Parties was the Church.

Upon this Hiſtory, we muſt make four Obſervations, which it may be, will not be impertinent in the end. The firſt is, That the Donatiſts would not own that Party for Orthodox which was contrary to them, whom they accuſed neither of any Error in the Faith, nor any depravation of Worſhip, and that the Church on its ſide did not accuſe the Donatiſts of any Hereſie in the Faith. For as for the Queſtion of the Validity or Invalidity of the Baptiſm of Hereticks, neither the one nor the other, made that the occaſion of their breach, and it was not upon that that the Donatiſts founded their Separation. We confeſs both one ſort and the other, ſaid Creſconius, one and the ſame Jeſus Chriſt, born, dead and Aug. cont. Creſcon. lib. 2. cap. 3.riſen again. We have one and the ſame Religion, and the ſame Sacraments, and there is no difference between us about the practice of Chriſtianity. S. Auguſtine ſaid alſo, That their difference was not about Aug. lib. de unit. Eccleſ. cap. 4.Eccl 4the head, but about the body; that is to ſay, that their diſpute was not about Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour, but about his Church, And elſewhere, That they agreed in Baptiſm, in the Creed, and in the other Sacraments Aug. Ep. 48.of our Lord. All the pretence of this Rupture, was the perſonal faults of two or three Biſhops, which were not proved on one ſide, nor owned on the other, and whereof the greateſt part of the world had no knowledge. So that the Diſpute concerning the Church, was not between two Communions that conteſted one with the other about the purity of Doctrine, but between two Communions, which mutually acknowledg'd one another to be Orthodox, yet diſputed one with the other, the title of the quality of the Church of Jeſus Chriſt.

The ſecond Obſervation that I ſhall make is, that the oppoſite Party to the Donatiſts, and which the Donatiſts acknowledg'd to p. 85be Orthodox, was then actually and in effect, ſpread over the whole Earth; that is to ſay, that it had a great extent among the Nations of it: whereas that of the Donatiſts, was ſhut up within one ſmall part of Africk. It was upon this, that they abuſed a paſſage of the Canticles, which they read after this manner, Tell Cant. 1. v. 7.Song 1:7me (O thou whom my ſoul loveth) where thou feedeſt, where thou makeſt thy flocks to reſt in the South: explaining this in the South, as if he would have noted the place, and ſaid in Africa, whereas it ſhould be read at noon-day, meerly to note the hour of the day, Aug. lib. de unitat. Eccleſ. cap. 14.Sir 14when the Shepherd led his flock under ſome ſhade for their reſt. This is that which makes S. Auguſtine alſo ſpeak to them ſometimes of the Apoſtolical Churches, and thoſe to whom S. John wrote his Apocalypſe, with whom they had no communion, and to reproach them ſo often for being ſeparated from all the World.

The third Obſervation is, That that Society which the Donatiſts acknowledged to be Orthodox, and which was in effect ſpread over many Nations, had not cut off the Donatiſts from its communion, nor had ſeparated the former from it; if they had not excommunicated them, nor pronounced Anathema's againſt thoſe who ſhould not hold Cecilianus to be innocent, or the Traditors to have been good men. When any one of them return'd to the Church, they did not ſeek to make them renounce any other thing than their Schiſm, nor to embrace any thing beſides peace. And even in the judgement of the Synod of Rome, Milciades Aug. Epiſt. 162and his brethren, offered to hold communion with the Biſhops that Majorinus had ordained; and in the Conference at Carthage, they offered to the Donatiſt Biſhops, to own them for Collat. Cart. 1. art. 16.Biſhops, and to preſerve their Sees to them, without requiring any other condition of them, than that of brotherly Unity. It was therefore the Donatiſts, who ſeparated themſelves wilfully out of a meer ſpirit of diviſion, and the Church was in reſpect of them, in a paſſive Separation.

Laſtly, The fourth Obſervation is, That although the Donatiſts ſhould have had any juſt occaſion to ſeparate, yet they had urged their Separation notwithſtanding as far as it could go; for they had carried it ſo far, as even to break that general bond which yet in ſome manner united all thoſe who make an external profeſſion of Chriſtianity good and bad, Orthodox and Hereticks, which yet in ſome manner make but one body, in oppoſition to Pagans and other people abſolutely Infidels. Their p. 86Principle was, That all the Chriſtians in the World, except the party of Donatus, being ſullied with the contagion of the Traditor Cecilianus, all that they had alſo done became ſullied, by the uncleanneſs of their perſons; and upon this Principle, they condemned the Chriſtianity of the Univerſal Church, they rejected her Baptiſm, and her Sacraments, although at the bottom, they had the ſame with hers, and they look'd upon that Society to be no otherwiſe than an Aſſembly of Pagans and Infidels, with whom they would have nothing common. This is what St. Auguſtine reproaches Aug. contr. Epiſtol. Parmen l. 1. …. 2. Ibid. lib. 2. cap 2. & ali…i paſſim. Aug. lib. de Eccl. unit. cap. 16. Aug. contr. Gaud. lib. 3.them with in divers places in his Writings. They ſay, ſayes he, that they are Chriſtians; but they ſay alſo that they only are ſo. They make no ſcruple to ſay, that they know that out of their Sect there are no Chriſtians. You hold, ſayes he to them elſewhere, that all Chriſtian Holineſs has been aboliſh'd among the Nations where the Apoſtles had eſtabliſh'd it, becauſe they have communicated with thoſe whom your Fathers condemned in their Council of Carthage. Therefore it was that they thought themſelves grievouſly affronted, when the Catholicks called them their Brethren, they fled from their Communion, they would not ſo much as ſit together with them, and they re-baptiz'd all thoſe who had been baptiz'd in the Church, when they came over to their Communion, neither more or leſs than if they had come out of Paganiſm, becauſe they maintained, that in effect the Church was abſolutely periſh'd, throughout all the Earth, except in their Party.

Theſe are the matters of fact that I have thought my ſelf bound to explain. We muſt now return to the Objection of the Author of the Prejudices, and examine it in the meaning of S. Auguſtine and the African Fathers: the propoſition of which it is compoſed. The firſt is, That there is a Church from which it is never Prejug. ch. 2. pag. 102.allow'd any man to ſeparate himſelf, under what pretence ſoever, and from which all thoſe who do ſo ſeparate themſelves, are Schiſmaticks. This firſt Propoſition is ambiguous, and ſo confuſed, that we can very hardly comprehend in what ſenſe the Author of the Prejudices has meant it. Every one knows that there is in the World a Body of people, or of Nations, who profeſs themſelves to be Chriſtians, and to whom one may yet, in ſome manner, give the name of the Church, becauſe that all ſuch Chriſtians are yet in ſome reſpect within the General Call of the Goſpel. It is therefore this Church of which he means to ſpeak? But what likelihood is there, that to accuſe us of Schiſm, he ſhould have form'd ſo vagous an Idea of the Church, ſince he knows very p. 87well, that we are no more ſeparated from this body, than the other communions that compoſe it are, or than the Church of Rome her ſelf in particular is? Every one knows that this body of Chriſtians is divided into divers communions, or particular Societies, that bear the name of Churches, as the Greek, the Roman, the Proteſtant, the Coptick, the Jacobite, the Neſtorian, the Armenian: Does he mean any one of theſe Churches? But if that be ſo, why does he not diſtinctly and without any heſitation, tell us which it is, and if he would that it ſhould be that of Rome, what ground is there to believe that he would have it ſo? why did he not explain himſelf, why did he make an end, even to ſay, That Chap. 3. p. 177.it ſhould be in our choice, whether that Church ſhould be the Greek, or the Neſtorian, or the Jacobites, and that he did not pretend to determine it? To what purpoſe are all theſe goings about? Every one knows yet that God alwayes preſerves in the world his truly faithful and his Children, who are the true Church, which he has predeſtinated to eternal Salvation. But the Author of the Prejudices has formerly declared himſelf againſt this notion of the Church, and he is ſo very earneſt to reject it, that we cannot impute it to him, without doing him wrong. We cannot even believe that he means, That we ought not to ſeparate our ſelves from a Communion, when it is Orthodox, and when thoſe who ſeparate themſelves from it are Schiſmaticks. For he has alſo declar'd himſelf againſt this Notion of the Church, becauſe, ſayes he, Pag. 174.in taking this way, the examination of Schiſm would be remitted to that of the Opinions, and that we muſt alwayes know, whether the Communion that they forſake, is Orthodox, which is that which he would avoid. What therefore is this Church? It is, ſayes he, the Catholick Church Pag. 177.whereſoever it be. We are now as wiſe as we were before; for it alwayes remains to be enquir'd into, What is that Catholick Church. I freely confeſs, that it ſeems to me, that he would point it out to us, by a certain mark, which is the viſible extenſion throughout all Nations; but in effect, he does it not: for he ſayes, in the end, that this is but a Negative mark, that is to Pag. 184.ſay, that every Society which has not that mark, is not the Church: So that according to him, this is a mark only proper to ſhew what it is not, and not to ſhew what it is. Whence therefore ſhall we know what this Church is? Moreover, his Propoſition is not only ambiguous through the word Church, but it is further ſo, through that of Separation, for there is more than one ſort of Separation. There are ſuch as are unjuſt and criminal in their own p. 88nature, and there are others which are only ſo in cauſes and circumſtances; there are alſo ſuch as are permitted, and thoſe that deſerve to be condemned; there are neceſſary ones, and ſuch as are raſh; ſo that one cannot make any general propoſition upon this matter, which would not be captious, and proper to make a Fallacy. It is neceſſary therefore, in order to his acting with ſincerity, that the Author of the Prejudices ſhould openly explain his meaning, which he labours to eſtabliſh by the Authority of S. Auguſtine and the other Fathers; and after having ſo cleared and eſtabliſh'd it, he ſhould propound his concluſion, that he would pretend to draw from it; for then, we ſhould ſee whether we ought to yield or deny it. But to begin a convincing argument by a principle ſo vagous and ſo confuſed as this that we have ſeen, and even to affect that confuſion, without being willing to explain himſelf, is in my judgement, a procedure very fit to be ſuſpected, and which may juſtly make us doubt, that inſtead of a convincing argument, he gives us nothing but a Fallacy.

To clear this doubt, it will be here neceſſary to give a clear and diſtinct Idea of the Doctrine of S. Auguſtine upon this ſubject about which we are diſputing. Firſt, Then we muſt know, that this Father acknowledg'd, that the truly Faithful only, and the truly Juſt, in oppoſition to the Wicked, the Wordly, Infidels and Hereticks, were the true Church properly ſo called; and this is what may be proved by an infinite number of paſſages. It muſt not be imagin'd, ſayes he, in his anſwer to Petilianus, that the Aug. adverſ. litt. Petil. l. 2. cap. 8.wicked belong to the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which is the Church, under a pretence that they corporally partake of the Sacraments. The Sacraments are holy even in ſuch perſons; but they ſerve only to increaſe their condemnation, becauſe they give and receive them unworthily. And as for them, they are not in that aſſembly of the Church of Jeſus Chriſt, which conſiſting in his members, increaſes by being compacted and fitly joyned with the increaſe of God. For this Church is built upon a Rock, according to what our Saviour ſaid, Ʋpon this Rock I will build my Church, and the others are only built upon the ſand, as the ſame Lord ſaid, I will liken him who heareth my words, and doth not what they teach, to a fooliſh man who built his houſe upon the ſand. And elſewhere, Both the good and the wicked may baptize; but there is but one Aug. contr. Creſcon. lib. 2. cap. 2.only God, alwayes good, who can waſh the conſcience. The wicked are therefore at preſent condemned by Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe they have a wicked and defiled conſcience, and at preſent, they are not of his Body p. 89which is the Church, although the Church her ſelf is ignorant that they are not; for Jeſus Chriſt cannot have any of his members condemned. So that they baptize, being themſelves out of the Church. For God is not pleaſed that all theſe Monſters ſhould be reckon'd among the members of that only Dove, nor that they ſhould enter into his encloſed Garden, the keeper whereof can never be deceiv'd. And elſewhere, Whether they Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. l. 2. c. 17.ſeem to be in the Church, or whether they be openly diſcover'd to be out of it, that which is fleſh is alwayes fleſh. That the chaff, as it is unfruitful, flyes in the air, whether it be blown thither by the occaſion of ſome temptation, as by the wind, or no, it is alwayes chaff. Thoſe who being hardned by carnality, are mingled in the Aſſembly of the Saints, ceaſe not to be ſeparated from the Ʋnity of that Church which is without ſpot or wrinkle.

It is therefore certain, that S. Auguſtine acknowledg'd none to be properly the Church, but the truly Faithful and truly Righteous. But becauſe that theſe faithful and theſe righteous are mix'd with the wicked, the worldly, and Hereticks, in the circle of the ſame External Call, as the chaff is with the good ſeed in the ſame Floor, or as the Tares are mingled with the good Wheat in the ſame Field: We muſt note, in the ſecond place, that S. Auguſtine gives another notion of the Church, which he calls the mixed Church, and it is to explain this notion, that he ſets before Aug. paſſim.us all the compariſons that the Scripture makes uſe of to repreſent the mixture of the good with the bad in the ſame Call; that of the field, where the Son of Man caſt his ſeed, and where the Enemy aroſe in the night and ſowed his Tares alſo, ſo that the Wheat and the Tares muſt grow there together till the time of harveſt; that of the Net that the Fiſherman caſt into the Sea, and which incloſed equally the good and bad Fiſh; that of the Floor, where the good Grain is mixed with the Chaff; and that of the Houſe, in which there are Veſſels of Gold and Silver, and others of Wood and Earth. It is for the ſame thing that he makes uſe of the diſtinction of the true body of Jeſus Chriſt, and the mixed body of Jeſus Chriſt; meaning by true, the truly faithful and righteous Aug. de Doctr. Chr. l. 3. c. 32.only, and by mixed, the faithful and righteous joyned with thoſe who are not ſo; and that both together by reaſon of their mixture in one and the ſame external call, make in a manner but one and the ſame body. He makes uſe for the ſame purpoſe of Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. l. 7. c. 51.the diſtinction, of being of the Church, and being in the Church, and he would that none but the truly faithful and righteous are of the Church; but that the others are in the Church; and by this p. 90means he forms two Idea's of the Church, the one diſtinct, and the other confuſed; the diſtinct reſtrains the Church preciſely to thoſe in whom ſhe properly conſiſts, and who are her true members, and theſe are the truly righteous and faithful; but the confuſed, includes all thoſe who externally profeſs themſelves to be Chriſtians, the good Wheat and the Tares, the Chaff and the good Seed, the good and the bad Fiſh, the Veſſels of Gold and Silver, and thoſe of Wood and Earth; and in this confus'd notion, the Church is the Field, the Floor, the Net, and the Houſe that the holy Scripture ſpeaks of.

But as this mixture which I have ſpoken of, may be underſtood two wayes; either in reſpect of Manners, or in regard of Doctrines; we muſt note in the Third place, that this notion of the Mixed Church according to S. Auguſtine, is divided into two, for he would have us ſometimes conceive of it, as a Body wherein the righteous are only mingled with the unrighteous, that is to ſay, with the wicked, whoſe manners are vitious and corrupted, and ſometimes alſo, he would have us conceive it, as a Body where the Hereticks are mixed with the truly faithful, as well as the righteous with the unrighteous. In the former caſe the mixed Church is a pure communion in reſpect of Doctrine; but corrupted in regard of manners: and in the ſecond, it is a communion not only corrupted, in regard of manners; but impure alſo and corrupted, in regard of its Tenets. Theſe two ſorts of mixture are without doubt in the Hypotheſis of S. Auguſtine; the firſt made all the ground of his diſpute againſt the Donatiſts; and as for the ſecond, he often explains himſelf in his Books, and particularly in the Pſalms againſt the Donatiſts, where Aug. Pſ. contr. Donat.he ſayes, That after Jeſus Chriſt had purged his floor by the preaching of the Croſs, the righteous were as the new ſeed which he ſpread abroad over all the Earth, to the end they ſhould make another harveſt at the end of the world. But that this harveſt grew up amidſt the Tares, becauſe there are Hereſies every where. Haec meſſis creſcit inter zizania quia ſunt haereſes ubique. In that ſame Pſalm and elſewhere in divers places, he quotes the Example of the Jewiſh Church, in which he ſaies, that the Saints, the Prophets and the righteous were mixed not only with the wicked, whoſe manners were debauched and criminal, but alſo with the ſuperſtitious and Idolaters; that which leaves no difficulty about it; for Idolatry is the greateſt of all Hereſies.

We muſt note in the Fourth place, that S. Auguſtine would have p. 91us conſider the mixed Church in two different States. For as for that which reſpects mens manners, he ſayes, that ſometimes the wicked do not prevail over the righteous, either in number, or Authority; but that ſometimes alſo, they prevail in ſuch a manner, that the good are often oppreſs'd under their multitude, and this is that which he treats particularly of in his Third Book againſt Parmenianus. And ſo in regard of Hereſies, he means, that ſometimes they grow ſo powerful, as to infect almoſt all the Body: and this is what he expreſly ſhews in a Letter to Vincentius Aug. Ep. 48. & Ep. 80.a Donatiſt Biſhop, and in that which he wrote to Heſychius.

Thus it is that S. Auguſtine has conceiv'd of the Church, and according to theſe different notions, and theſe different ſtates, he has ſpoken differently of ſeparations from it. As for that which regards the truly righteous and faithful, there is no queſtion, but that he thought that we ought to have not only an internal communion of charity with them founded upon the Unity that is between all the members of the Myſtical Body of Jeſus Chriſt, who have all but one and the ſame faith, one and the ſame piety and the ſame righteouſneſs; but an external communion alſo, which conſiſts in joyning with them in the ſame Aſſemblies, in partaking of the ſame Sacraments, in approving their faith, piety, good works; and in one word, in accounting them their brethren, as far as it is poſſible for them to know them. But this is not that which makes the difficulty, all the Queſtion is concerning the mixed Church, and all the diſpute is to know how, according to S. Auguſtine, the Corn and the Tares, that is to ſay, the truly faithful and the Hereticks, ought to remain together in the ſame communion, and in what caſe they might ſeparate themſelves. We muſt therefore note in the Fifth place, that in the Doctrine of that Father, there is a certain ſeparation that a man can never make, under any pretence whatſoever, without being a Schiſmatick; and that there is another that he may lawfully make, and which it is ſometimes neceſſary that he ſhould. He has diſtinguiſh'd between two external bonds that ſhould unite us to one another; the firſt is, that of the External and General Call to Chriſtianity, the ſecond is that of the participation of the ſame Sacraments, and the ſame Aſſemblies. It is the firſt bond that S. Auguſtine would have to be inviolable, not only in regard of the faithful between themſelves; but alſo in regard of the wicked and Hereticks, and not only while we ſuffer them to be in the publick Aſſemblies; but even then when we excommunicate them, p. 92and deprive them of the communion of the Sacraments. And thus it is that he underſtands that which Jeſus Chriſt ſaid in his Parable, That the Tares ought not to be pluck'd up which the Enemy had Matth. 13. v. 29, 30.Matt 13:29Matt 13:30ſown among the good Wheat in the ſame field; but that he would leave both to grow together until the harveſt: and it is this kind of Unity whereof he ſayes, that there is no juſt neceſſity of ever breaking: praecidendae unitatis nulla eſt juſta neceſſitas, it is the Unity of the Aug. contr. Ep. Parmen. lib. 2. cap. 11.ſame Net that enclos'd both good and bad Fiſh, the Unity of the ſame Floor that contain'd both the good Seed and the Chaff; the Unity of the ſame Field where the Tares grew up with the Wheat, the Unity of the ſame Houſe where there are Veſſels of Wood and Earth, with thoſe of Gold and Silver: and in a word, this Unity that we call the external and general call to Chriſtianity. It is therefore firſt of all, in this ſenſe that he means, that there is a Church from which we ought never to ſeparate our ſelves, under any pretence whatſoever, and from which all thoſe who ſeparate themſelves are Schiſmaticks; for he underſtands it of that mixed Church, that Field, that Floor, that Net, that common Houſe, out of which we muſt never go forth, nor drive out others, howſoever wicked and Heretical they may be, there being none but God who can make this ſeparation, and who will in effect make it at the end of the world. And as it was thus that the Donatiſts had ſeparated themſelves, ſo it was chiefly upon this, that he convinced them of Schiſm; for they own'd none for Chriſtians, but thoſe of their own Party; they rejected the Baptiſm of all the reſt; they looked upon them as Pagans, who had no more any ſhadow of Chriſtianity; and when Proſelytes came over to them, they made them paſs through all the degrees of the Catechumeni, before they would receive them; and they began to make them Chriſtians anew, as if they had come out of a Society of abſolute Infidels, as I have noted in my Fourth Obſervation on their Story. This Diſtinction that I have of theſe two ſorts of ſeparation, is clearly to be found in the Doctrine of S. Auguſtine. Aug. contr. Ep. Parmen. l. 3. cap. 2.He notes both the one and the other in his third Book againſt Parmenio, where he treats of this matter very largely. When any brother, ſayes he, that is to ſay, any Chriſtian among thoſe who are in the Society of the Church, falls into ſo great ſins, that they judge worthy of an Anathema, I would have them proceed to his Excommunication, if that may be done without any danger of Schiſm; but yet it ought to be done with that charity that S. Paul recommends to us, to wit, that we ſhould not treat him as an Enemy, but as a Brother; for you are p. 93not called to pluck up, but to correct. If he does not acknowledge nor correct his fault by repentance, he wilfully goes out of himſelf from the Church, and it will be his own will that ſeparates him from the Chriſtian Ʋnity. Our Lord himſelf ſaid to his ſervants, when they would pluck up the Tares mixed with the Wheat, leave them to grow up together until harveſt; and he gives the reaſon, to wit, leſt, ſayes he, that in plucking up the Tares, you pluck up the Wheat alſo. See here preciſely theſe two ſeparations whereof I ſpeak, the one that deprives one of the communion of the Sacraments, and the other which breaks of Chriſtian Unity; one which is but to correct, and the other which goes as far as to pluck up. This Father alledges, Ibid. cap. 1.for the ſame thing, the Example of S. Paul, who in the Excommunication of the Inceſtuous perſon in Corinth, did indeed deliver that miſerable perſon to Satan; but only for the deſtruction of the fleſh, that the ſpirit might be ſaved in the day of the Lord Jeſus; that is to ſay, that he depriv'd him of the communion of the Sacraments; but that he did not wholly pluck him up out of the field Ibid.of the Church. He alledges yet further, what the ſame Apoſtle wrote to the Theſſalonians, If any man obey not our word by this 2 Theſſ. 3. v. 14, 15.2 Thess 3:142 Thess 3:15Epiſtle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be aſhamed, yet count him not as an enemy; but admoniſh him as a brother. He alledges laſtly, that which S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians Ibid.touching the ſame inceſtuous penitent, that they ought to pardon him; Leſt Satan ſhould get an advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his devices. What means the Apoſtle, ſayes he, by theſe words, leſt Satan ſhould get an advantage over us, for we are not ignorant of his devices? It is that under the appearance of a juſt ſeverity, he ſometimes perſwades to a violent cruelty, deſiring nothing more than to break the bond of peace and charity, well knowing that while that bond ſhall be preſerved among Chriſtians, he cannot hurt them, and that his devices and deſigns would vaniſh. There cannot be a more perfect example of that firſt ſeparation given, than that of the Donatiſts in reſpect of the Church; for as I have ſaid already, they ſo abſolutely ſeparated themſelves from it, that they did not own it to be any longer Chriſtian in any manner, and therefore it was that they re-baptiz'd all thoſe, who came over to their party. But we cannot alſo give a better example of the ſecond, than that of the Church it ſelf, in regard of the Donatiſts; for although they would ſeparate themſelves from the Church, yet the Church did not fail to look upon them as Chriſtians, and in ſome manner, as Brethren. The Donatiſts, ſayes S. Auguſtine, are impious in p. 94Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. l. 1. c. 1.going about to re-baptize all the world; but as for us who have better ſentiments, we dare not even diſapprove of the Sacraments of God in a Schiſmatical Communion. In reſpect of the things about which we agree, they are yet with us; and in reſpect of the things about which we differ, they are ſeparated from us. This approach to us, and this ſeparation, are not ordered by the motions of the body, but by thoſe of the mind; and as the union of bodies is made by the continuity of the places they fill up, ſo the union of ſpirits alſo is made by the conſent of wills. If thoſe who have forſaken the Ʋnity of the Church, do other things than thoſe that are done in the Church, they are in that regard ſeparated from her, but if they do that which is done in the Church they remain as yet in that regard in a common union. The Donatiſts are therefore with us in ſome things, and they are ſeparated from us in ſome others.

I cannot here avoid taking notice of the Error into which the Author of the Prejudices ſeems to have fallen, about the meaning of theſe words of S. Auguſtine in the ſecond Book againſt Parmenianus, praecidendae unitatis nulla eſt juſta neceſſitas. There is no juſt neceſſity to break off Ʋnion. For it ſeems that he thought that this Maxim regarded all manner of ſeparation, not conſidering, that it only reſpects that of the Donatiſts, which conſiſted in the breaking the general bond of Chriſtianity, and not that which conſiſts in refuſing our communion to thoſe who corrupt Religion by their pernicious Superſtitions and Errors. If he had taken the pains to have read ten or twelve lines higher, he had found that S. Auguſtine had ſtrongly eſtabliſh'd the neceſſity of ſeparating our ſelves from Hereticks. S. Paul, ſayes that Father, writing to the Galatians, Aug. contr Ep. Parmen. lib 2. cap. 11.manifeſtly forbids them to hear thoſe who did not preach Ieſus Chriſt, but a falſhood and a lye. If any one ſhould preach another Goſpel to you than what you have received, let him be Anathema. He would that we ſhould pronounce an Anathema againſt thoſe who preach to us any thing beyond what we have received. He would elſewhere, that there can be no juſt neceſſity of breaking of unity: Who ſees not that he muſt make a diſtinction, and that according to him, there is a ſeparation that is good, juſt and neceſſary; and another unjuſt, unlawful and ſchiſmatical?

Although this Diſtinction is unqueſtionable, yet I ſhall not fail to produce here a Canon that eſtabliſhes it, out of the very Doctrine of S. Auguſtine, as clearly as we can deſire it. It is in the Decree of Gratian under the name of Pope Ʋrban in theſe terms, Some men ſay, that when we excommunicate perſons who have deſerv'd to be excommunicated, we go againſt the Parable of the Goſpel, where p. 95our Lord forbids us to pluck up the tares out of his field. They ſay alſo, that this contrary to S. Auguſtine, who aſſures us, that we ought not to divide its unity, and that we muſt tolerate the wicked and not reject them. But, firſt of all, we anſwer, that if we ought not to excommunicate the Hereticks and the wicked, S. Auguſtine would have done ill to have joyn'd himſelf to the Legates of the Holy Church of Rome, and to the other Holy Biſhops to excommunicate Pelagius and Celeſtinus, and to ſeparate them from the Church, becauſe they brought in a new Hereſie into it. But why alſo did the ſame S. Auguſtine, with the whole Church of God, hold the Donatiſts to be juſtly excommunicated, againſt whom theſe things are written; and why did not they receive them into their communion, but only after ſigns of repentance, and the impoſition of hands? Jeſus Chriſt who propounded the Parable of the Tares, did not he clearly ordain excommunication, elſewhere, ſaying, that if our brother would not obey the Church correcting him, we ought to reckon him as a Heathen and a Publican? That which manifeſtly ſhews us, that it is one thing to excommunicate, and another to pluck up; the Diſcipline of the Church excommunicates, but it does not pluck up. See here preciſely that which S. Auguſtine himſelf ſaid, non eſtis ad eradicandum, ſed ad corrigendum. From whence the truth of that which I have ſaid appears, that according to this Father, there is a bad ſeparation, and that is ſchiſmatical in its own nature, and another that is not ſo; and that although it is never permitted us to make the former; yet it does not follow, that we may not make the latter, provided we do it upon juſt cauſes, and obſerve the rules of Prudence and Charity in it.

We muſt therefore lay it down as a certain truth, that S. Auguſtine thought, that we might ſometimes break the communion of the Sacraments and Aſſemblies, we are only concerned to know in what caſe he thought that that ſeparation ſhould be made.

To make this point clear, I ſhall ſay, in the Sixth place, that when S. Auguſtine conſidered the Church in the meer mixture with the wicked; that is to ſay, in the mixture with thoſe whoſe manners are vicious and criminal, he taught, that thoſe who are in office in the Church, may proceed to the excommunication of impenitent ſinners, when thoſe ſinners are few in number, and when there is ground to believe, that they may diſturb the peace of the Church; but if the crime includes a whole multitude, and that the Body in general is infected, then he would that the good ſhould content themſelves to preſerve their own righteouſneſs, p. 96without partaking of the ſins of the wicked, he would that they ſhould groan under it, and pray to God; but he would not that they ſhould ſeparate themſelves. When the evil, ſayes he, has ſeized the greater number, nothing remains for the good to do, but to groan and lament. And a little lower, If the contagion of ſin has Aug. contr. Fp. Parmen. lib. 3. cap. 2.invaded the multitude, then it is neceſſary that Diſcipline ſhould be uſed with mercy, for the counſels of Separation are vain, pernicious and ſacrilegious. But when he conſiders the Church, not only as a mixture of good and wicked; but alſo as a mixture of the truly faithful and Hereticks, I maintain that he has formally acknowledg'd the juſtice and neceſſity of a ſeparation, not only in regard of ſome particular perſons; but in regard even of entire Societies, provided they go not ſo far as that which he calls Eradication. We have already noted that he would that we ſhould according to S. Paul, pronounce an Anathema againſt thoſe who preach another Goſpel, than that which he has preached. But this very thing gives the faithful a right to reject the communion of Heretical Societies, and to ſeparate themſelves from their Aſſemblies. In his Book of the True Religion, he aggravates it as a very ſtrange thing, and very much deſerving to be condemn'd, that the Heathen Philoſophers who had other ſentiments concerning Divinity, than the people, ſhould partake in the worſhip of the people. In their Schools, ſayes he, they had ſentiments differing from Aug. de ver. Relig. cap. 1.thoſe of the people, and yet notwithſtanding they had Temples common with the people. The people and their Prieſts were not ignorant that theſe Philoſophers had opinions contrary to theirs touching the nature of the Gods, ſince every Philoſopher was not afraid of publiſhing his opinions, and of labouring at the ſame time to perſwade them and others, and yet nevertheleſs with that diverſity of ſentiments, they did not fail to aſſiſt at the publick worſhip without being hindred by any body. A man that ſpeaks after this manner, would not think it ill, that any ſhould ſeparate themſelves from Heretical communions. But he yet further explains himſelf more clearly afterwards. For he ſayes, That if the Chriſtian Religion ſhould do nothing elſe but correct Ibid. cap. 5.that vice, it would deſerve infinite praiſes. And he adds immediately after, That it appears by the example of ſo many Hereſies that have deviated from the rule of Chriſtianity, that they would not admit to the communion of the Sacraments thoſe who taught concerning God the Father, his Wiſdom and his Grace, otherwiſe than the truth would allow them, and who would perſwade men to receive their falſe Doctrine.—But that is not only to be found true in regard of the Manichees, p. 97and of ſome others who have other Sacraments than we, but alſo in regard of thoſe who having the ſame Sacraments, have ſentiments differing from us in other things, and errors which they obſtinately defend; for they are ſhut out from the Catholick communion, and the participation of thoſe ſame Sacraments which they have common with us.

From whence comes it to paſs therefore, you will ſay, that S. Auguſtine ſeems ſometimes to aſcribe to the Orthodox the right only of a paſſive ſeparation, in regard of Heretical Societies? that is to ſay, that he would not that we ſhould ſeparate from them even then when they ſeparate themſelves. For he ſayes in ſome place, that though the Traditors ſhould have openly maintain'd in the Church, that their Action was good and holy, that is to ſay, that they ought to have delivered up their Bibles to the Pagans for them to burn them, and that though they ſhould even have wrote on that ſubject, provided they had not ſet up their Aſſemblies Contr. Creſcor. lib. 3. cap. 38▪apart, nor ſeparated themſelves, yet we ought not to have abandoned, for them, the good wheat: which ſignifies this to us, that we ought not to ſeparate our ſelves from thoſe, though their Doctrine whereof he had ſpoken was deteſtable, contrary to the faith, conſcience and good manners. In effect, he ſpeaks almoſt alwayes of the Heretical Societies of his time, as of thoſe who were themſelves cut off from the communion of the Church, and whom the Church had not rejected. I anſwer, that S. Auguſtine would have us ſuffer the communion of Hereticks in certain caſes, but that he would have us alſo in other caſes to ſeparate our ſelves from them. While we are in no danger of partaking with their errors, neither in effect, nor in appearance; but that we may preſerve the profeſſion of our faith pure, without conſenting to impiety, or ſeeming to conſent to it, and that there ſhould not be on the part of the Hereticks that obſtinacy of opinion, he would have us ſuffer their communion. For it is the manifeſt Doctrine of this Father, that in the Society of the Church, no one is reſponſible but for his own crimes, and not for thoſe of others, at leaſt if he take no part with them, or do not approve them, or conſent to them. So that, while there is no obſtinateneſs to maintain error, while there is no danger of being ſeduced, and while one is not bound to take any part in the evil, nor to hide ones faith and piety under the vail of hypocriſie, this Father yields, that we ſhould have communion with Hereticks, as the ancient Prophets had communion with p. 98the Idolaters of their times, and as Jeſus Chriſt and his Diſciples had communion with the Phariſees and Sadducees, and were found among them in the ſame Aſſemblies. But when there is an invincible opinionativeneſs, and error is ſo deeply rooted, that there is no more hope of its being healed, S. Auguſtine would, in this caſe, that a man ſhould ſeparate himſelf from their communion. This is that which he teaches in the ſame Book of the True Religion, The Church, ſayes he, ſuffers their error, while they Aug. de ver. Relig. cap. 6.have no accuſers, or do not defend their falſe opinions with obſtinacy; but when they are accuſed, and defend themſelves obſtinately in their opinions, ſhe ſeparates them from her communion, which is formally to acknowledge the right of active ſeparation in an Orthodox Church. And from the ſame we may evidently conclude, that this Father does not approve that we ſhould remain in an Heretical Communion, when there is the leaſt neceſſity of partaking in error, wickedneſs, or ſuperſtition, whether in effect or appearance; and that he would on the contrary conclude, that in this caſe the good ſhould ſeparate themſelves for the conſervation of their own righteouſneſs. But to give a yet greater light to this matter, we muſt note, that according to the Doctrine of this Father, every Society whatſoever it be, that determines a falſe Doctrine, and publiſhes Books of it, to teach it poſterity, and who will have none receive its communion, but thoſe who approve that Doctrine, in giving the Orthodox a juſt occaſion to ſeparate themſelves, ſhe her ſelf firſt of all breaks the bond of Unity, and it is ſhe that makes the active ſeparation, and becomes ſchiſmatical. This is that which he teaches in his Treatiſe againſt Creſconius. This Donatiſt had ſaid to him, that if he did not approve of the crime of the Traditors, if on the contrary it diſpleaſed him, he ought to fly from and abandon the Church of the Traditors. To anſwer to this, S. Auguſtine ſayes, firſt of all, that though there ſhould have been Traditors in his Church, yet he ought not to forſake it, while he did not communicate with their crime; and that on the contrary, he condemned it, and laboured to correct it by preaching and diſcipline. He proves it by the example of S. Cyprian, who declaimed againſt the vices of the Church; but who did not ſeparate himſelf from it: and by that of David, of Samuel, of Iſaiah, of Jeremiah, of Zachary, and other Saints, who cryed out againſt the Tranſgreſſors of the Law, yet without ſeparating themſelves notwithſtanding. Since immediately after he adds, Is it that the Traditors have inſtituted p. 99Contr. Creſcon. lib. 3. cap. 38.ſome new Sacraments, or ſome new Baptiſm? Is it that they have compoſed Books to teach others to do or imitate the action of the Traditors, or that they have recommended thoſe Books to poſterity, or that we hold and follow that Doctrine? If they had done ſo, and ſuffered no perſon to have been in their communion, but thoſe who would read their Books, and approve that Doctrine, I ſay, that they would have ſeparated themſelves from the Ʋnity of the Church, and if you ſaw me in their Schiſm, you would then have reaſon to ſay, that I were in the Church of the Traditors. Theſe words note clearly what I have ſaid, that when a Church teaches a falſe Doctrine, which it makes to enter into the uſe of the Sacraments, and that it would receive into its communion, none but thoſe who approve it, it is not only juſt to ſeparate from her, but it is ſhe her ſelf that breaks the bond of the Unity of the Church, and caſts her ſelf into Schiſm. But this is preciſely that which the Church of Rome does in reſpect of us; for ſhe has not only decided as of faith, the Doctrines that we do not believe to be true; ſhe has not only ſet forth Books to teach thoſe Tenets to Poſterity, but ſhe has cut off all thoſe from her communion, who will not believe them after the manner that ſhe teaches them. So that we have in this regard a juſt reaſon to ſay, that it is ſhe that has made the active ſeparation; and if it be true, that we have reaſon in the foundation, it is ſhe that has broken the Chriſtian Unity, and to which the Schiſm ought to be imputed, and not to us, who are in a meer paſſive ſeparation. From whence by the way, it further follows, that to the deciding the Queſtion of the Schiſm that is between us, and to know which of the two parties is to blame, we muſt neceſſarily come to the diſcuſſion of the controverted Articles. For if the Church of Rome has decided nothing, that is not conformable to the Goſpel, ſhe has a right to reject all thoſe from her communion, who refuſe to believe her Doctrine; we will grant this: But if ſhe has decided Errors, it is certain alſo, that the neceſſity which ſhe has impoſed on others to believe and practiſe them in order to their being in her communion, renders her guilty of Schiſm. All depends therefore on the diſcuſſion of the foundation. For there is no ground left of doubting that according to the Doctrine of S. Auguſtine, it is not only permitted, but even neceſſary to the Orthodox in ſome certain caſes, to be no longer joyned in the aſſemblies of thoſe who teach thoſe errors, and to live ſeparated from their communion. We ſhall ſee in the cloſe, whether that multitude and viſible p. 100extenſion can take away that right from a ſmall party reſtrain'd to a few perſons and places; for there remains nothing but this doubt to be taken away; but to effect this, we muſt go on to the examination of the ſecond Propoſition of the Author of the Prejudices.

The infallible and perpetual mark, ſayes he, to know the Church by, according to S. Auguſtine and the other African Fathers, is a viſible extenſion throughout all Nations; becauſe that viſible extenſion according to them, agreed with the Church in all Ages, and that it is a negative mark; that is to ſay, that every Society which has not that extenſion, is not the Church; ſo that this arguing is alwayes juſt; your Society is ſhut up in a ſmall part of the world: therefore it is not the Church. It is, adds he, by this principle, that S. Auguſtine has diſputed againſt the Donatiſts, and convinc'd them to be ſchiſmaticks.

This Propoſition is not leſs captious, nor leſs ambiguous than the former. For if the Author of the Prejudices means, that that viſible extenſion is a perpetual mark of the Orthodox communion, that alwayes diſtinguiſhes it from impure or heretical communions, ſo that this Orthodox communion, as far as it is viſible, can never be reſtrained to a few perſons and places, it is certain that this was not the opinion of S. Auguſtine, nor that of the other Fathers; and it is certain alſo, that the celebrated Authors of the Church of Rome reject the Propoſition in this ſenſe, as falſe and abſurd; and that in effect, it is manifeſtly contrary to experience. To ſet forth the truth of what I propound, I will begin with experience, and as that of our Age preſents it ſelf firſt to our view; I ſay, that if we muſt act at this day according to the principle, That the true Orthodox Church ought to be viſibly extended over all Nations, we muſt conclude, that there is no true Orthodox Church in the world. For it is moſt true, that of all the communions which at this day divide Chriſtianity, there is not any one to whom this mark can agree. I will not ſay, that there are divers parties in the known world which have not ſo much as yet heard of Chriſtianity, nor that there are others who after having received it, have abſolutely rejected it to embrace the Mahometan Religion. I will not here ſpeak of the Greek communion ſeparated from the Roman, nor of the Coptick or Neſtorian, or of the Jacobites, or Armenian, which evidently have not that viſible extenſion throughout all Nations. I will only ſpeak of the Roman and the Proteſtant as they are at preſent. He muſt, Chap. 2. p. 198.ſayes the Author of the Prejudices, be wholly blind, that can dare to p. 101maintain, that the ſociety of Calviniſts, which is wholly ſhut out of Italy, Spain, Flanders, a great part of Germany, Swedeland, Denmark, Muſcovy, Aſia, Africa, of almoſt all America, is that which Jeſus Chriſt has ſpread over all the world. But before he argues after this manner, he ought to take heed, that we cannot ſay the ſame thing of the Roman communion. For is it not true, that it is at this day excluded from Swedeland, Denmark, a great part of Germany, a part of Switzerland, a part of Greece, Muſcovy, Africa, Aethiopia, Perſia, Tartary, China, Japan, of the Indies, and from the greateſt part of America? And the Author of the Prejudices ought not to pretend the prevailing of ſome Colonies of Miſſionaries whom the Pope ſends here and there to gain Proſelytes. For ſince he will not have it, that we ſhould gain any thing by the Colonies of Engliſh and Dutch, who have eſtabliſh'd themſelves in all the parts of the world, why would he help himſelf by the Miſſionaries and Penſionaries that the Congregations de fide propaganda maintain in foreign Countreys? Why ſhould they be more reckon'd for any thing, than thoſe Colonies of Engliſh and Dutch, who have the exerciſes of their Religion, as free as thoſe of the Roman Communion? They are, ſayes he, ſuch Merchants as are in Pag. 199.thoſe Countreys, only for the ſake of Trade. But do not thoſe Merchants pray to God in the form of their Religion, in what Countreys, and with what deſign ſoever they are? Is it that thoſe Merchants being ſo much ty'd as they are to their Trading, make no open profeſſion of their Religion, or that they have not in the greateſt part of thoſe places where they are, their ordinary Aſſemblies, with their Miniſters, as well as the Miſſionaries? He muſt yield in good earneſt, that the Chriſtians are now divided and ſeparated from one another, about matters of faith and worſhip, in their different Societies, or communions, of which each one has its ſeat and bounds apart, beyond which we cannot ſay they are viſibly extended, if we would ſpeak with any reaſon; and that there is no one that is throughout all Nations in the form of a communion of viſible Society. From whence it follows, that all this diſpute of the Author of the Prejudices, is but a beating the air, and which he can never apply to any real ſubject.

The Experience of former Ages is not leſs contrary to the Propoſition of the Author of the Prejudices, than that of our Age. For if we conſult Hiſtory, we ſhall find, that it has fallen out often, that an Heretical communion has ſpread it ſelf every p. 102where, while the Orthodox communion was ſo limited, that it did not ſeem to take up any ſpace. If in the time of the Arians, they had diſputed by this principle, by which the Author of the Prejudices would decide our differences; I mean if they would have treated that communion as Heretical, that was not viſibly ſpread over all the Nations, and that as Orthodox which was, the Arians had eaſily overcome. The Hereſie of the Arians and Eunomians, ſayes S. Jerom, poſſeſs'd all the Eaſt, except Athanaſius and Paulinus. Hieron. contr. error. Joan. …. Hi…ar. de Syn. In vitâ Greg. Naz.S. Hilary ſayes the ſame thing: The greateſt part of the Ten Provinces of Aſia, excepting Eleuſius and ſome others, do not truly know God. In thoſe time, ſayes the Author of the Life of S. Gregory Nazianzen, the Church was oppreſſed by the Arian Hereſie, many Biſhops were baniſhed and vexed by torments and calumnies a thouſand wayes, many Presbyters, and many numerous Flocks were brought down to the utmoſt miſery, expoſed to the injuries of the weather, as no more having any houſe of prayer where they might meet. That Hereſie had almoſt fill'd all the Earth, and it triumph'd, being upheld by the power of the Emperour; ſo that good men had not ſo much as the juſtice of the Laws againſt the wicked. And becauſe the Paſtors, or to ſay better, the concealed Wolves, under the appearance of Paſtors, had the liberty to drive the Orthodox Biſhops out of the Churches, who alone were worthy to ſerve Jeſus Chriſt the Soveraign Biſhop, it hapned, that ſome overcome with fear, others deceived by fair words, others gained by money, others ſurprized through their own ſimplicity, embrac'd that Hereſie, and opened their boſoms and gave their communion to their adverſaries. This was that that oblig'd the Fathers to elevate the little number, and the little flock above extenſion and multitude. Where are thoſe men, ſaith Gregory Nazianzen, who reproach us with our poverty, and inſolently boaſt themſelves of their riches, who would define the Church by Greg. Naz. Grat. 25.multitude, and contemn the little flock? They meaſure Divinity, they weigh the people in the ballance, they eſteem the illiterate, and cover with injuries the lights of the world, they heap together the common ſtones, and deſpiſe the pretious, not remembring, that the more the thick darkneſs ſurpaſſes in number the Stars, the more the ordinary ſtones ſurpaſs the pretious in quantity, the more thoſe Stars and pretious ſtones ſurpaſs the ordinary ſtones in purity and excellency. This Father, who had ſeen in his time the Hereticks maſters of the whole Church, and their communion ſpread very wide and far in the Eaſt and in the Weſt, while the Orthodox durſt not appear, was ſo far from having the Faith and the True Orthodox Church to be regulated by that extenſion, that he made on the contrary, p. 103this extenſion a ground of reproach to the Arians, taking that for a mark of Hereſie, which the Author of the Prejudices would have us take for a mark of Orthodoxy. Are you ignorant, ſayes he, that the faith as miſerable and forſaken as it is, is a thouſand Gregor. Nazianzen. Orat. 32.times more pretious, than impiety in ſplendor and abundance? Is it ſo, that you prefer the multitude of the Canaanites, before one only Abraham, or all the inhabitants of Sodom, before one only Lot, or all the Midianites to one only Moſes? Notwithſtanding you know, that theſe Saints were but ſtrangers and foreigners among thoſe people. I pray tell me, whether the three hundred that lapped the water with Gideon, were not more to be eſteemed, than all thoſe thouſands, who cowardly forſook him; whether the ſervants of Abraham who were few in number, were not to be preferr'd to all thoſe Kings who with their innumerable Armies, were overcome? But I pray yet farther tell me, how you underſtand that which is ſaid, when the number of the children of Iſrael ſhall be as the ſand of the ſea, a remnant only ſhall be ſaved; and this other paſſage, I have reſerv'd to my ſelf ſeven thouſand who have not bowed the knee to Baal? The matter will not go as you imagine; no without doubt; for God takes no pleaſure in a multitude. As for you, you reckon your thouſands; but God reckons thoſe who work out their ſalvation; you heap up a great pile of duſt; but I aſſemble the veſſels of election. There is nothing ſo great before God, as the pure Doctrine, and a ſoul that is filled and adorned with the Tenets of the Truth.

S. Athanaſius, or if you will Theodoret, is not leſs expreſs about the ſubject of a ſmall number, in oppoſition to that extenſion and multitude than S. Gregory Nazianzen. Shall we not, ſayes he, Athanaſ. tom. 2. tract. Quod veritas non multitud. Judic.hearken to Jeſus Chriſt, who ſayes, That many are called, and few choſen; that ſtraight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find that gate, or this way? What man of good underſtanding, will not rather chuſe to be among this ſmall number that enters into life, than to be joyned to this multitude that goes to perdition? If we had lived in the age of S. Stephen, ſhould we not have rather choſe his party, though it ſhould have been forſaken by all elſe, buried under ſtones, and expoſed to all manner of reproaches, than the party of that multitude which thought that the faith ought to follow the greateſt number? One man alone who has the Truth on his ſide, is more to be eſteemed, than ten thouſand raſh men, and this is what the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament confirm; for when millions of men fell under Gods ſword, one Phineas alone oppos'd himſelf in the breach, and put a ſtop to the anger of the Lord. If he had not reſiſted that torrent p. 104which bore down all the others; if he had approved that which the multitude did, he had never himſelf been commended above all, he had never put a ſtop to the flood of divine vengeance, nor had ſaved that remnant, which was after that, the object of Gods mercy. It was therefore a thing worthy of praiſe, that one man alone ſhould boldly maintain right and juſtice againſt the opinion of the multitude. Go if you will, and be drowned with the multitude that periſhed in the deluge, but give me leave to ſave my ſelf in the Ark with that ſmall number. Be conſumed if you pleaſe with the inhabitants of Sodom, I ſhall not fail to go out of it with Lot alone. Thus theſe Fathers ſpoke concerning the ſtate whereto the Orthodox communion might be ſometimes reduced, and into which it had been in effect reduced; which evidently ſhews us, that this viſible extenſion is not a perpetual mark of the True Church, and that it is not ſo very neceſſary, that this arguing ſhould be always juſt: Your ſociety is not ſpread every where over the world; therefore it is not the Church. This Vincentius Lirinenſis has alſo acknowledg'd in his Admonition againſt Hereſies; for he acknowledges, that it may ſometimes fall out, that Hereſie invades the whole Church, and he makes a queſtion what he ought to do in that caſe. What ought we to do, ſayes Vinc. Lirin. Common. 1. cap. 4.he, when ſome new contagion endeavours to infect not one part only, but the whole Body of the Church in general? Quid ſi novella aliqua contagio non jam portiunculam, ſed totam pariter Eccleſiam commaculare conetur? What viſible extenſion could the Orthodox communion have throughout all Nations, in thoſe unhappy times, in which the ſame Vincentius Lirinenſis ſayes, that the greateſt part of the good were put to death, or impriſoned, or baniſh'd, or condemned to the Mines, or hid in Deſarts and Caves, expoſed to ſavage Beaſts, to hunger, thirſt and nakedneſs? Horum pars maxima interdictis urbibus protruſi, atque extorres, inter deſerta, ſpeluncas, feras, Ibid. cap. 6.ſaxa, nuditate, fame, ſiti, affecti, attriti, & tabefacti ſunt. What viſible extenſion could that ſame Orthodox communion have in the time wherein S. Athanaſius cryed out after this manner, Who is there among the ſervants of Jeſus Chriſt, that theſe rebells Athanaſ. Ep. ad vitan ſolitar. ag.have not calumniated, or whom they have not lain ſnares for? Who is there that the Emperour has not baniſhed upon their falſe accuſations, he who has alwayes ſo readily hearkned to them, who has alwayes ſo conſtantly refuſed to hear whatſoever ſhould be ſaid againſt them, and who never refuſed to believe all that they have ſaid againſt others? Where now a dayes ſhall we find a Church that worſhips Jeſus Chriſt with liberty? If Churches have any piety, they are in danger; if they diſſemble, p. 105they are alwayes in fear. The Emperour has fill'd all with wickedneſs and hypocriſie, as far as things depend on him. I know that there are every where many perſons who have piety and a love of Jeſus Chriſt; but in what place ſo ever they are, they are forced either to conceal themſelves, as the Prophets, and as the great Elias, till they find ſome faithful Abdias, who ſhould hide them in a Cave, or to to go dwell in the Deſarts. For it is moſt true, that theſe wicked men, make uſe of the ſame calumnies againſt the good, that Jezebell made uſe of againſt Naboth, and the Jews againſt Jeſus Chriſt. And the Emperour, who ſtirs up himſelf to defend Hereſie, and to overthrow the Truth, as Ahab overthrew Naboth's Vineyard, refuſed nothing to the deſires of theſe Hereticks, becauſe theſe Hereticks alſo ſpake to him only according to his deſires. The Fathers had then no regard to ſeek for the true Church either in that viſible extenſion, or in that temporal glory or ſplendor; or in a word, any where elſe, than in the True Faith, and there it is that they ſeek for it in effect. The Church, ſayes the Author of the Commentary on the Pſalms Hierom. Comment. in Pſal. 133.Ps 133attributed to S. Jerom, does not conſiſt in her Walls, but in the truth of her Tenets. She is where the true Faith is. For, as to the other, it is but fifteen or twenty years ſince the walls of theſe Churches were in the power of Hereticks. They poſſeſs'd all theſe Churches which you ſee. But the Church was, where the True Faith was.

As the Author of the Prejudices has not ſcrupled ſometimes to make uſe of the Teſtimonies of our own Authors, when he thought he could draw any advantage from them, he will not, it may be, take it ill, if I oppoſe to him alſo upon the ſubject about which we now diſpute, the Teſtimony of two men famous in the Roman communion, and who well deſerve to be heard; the one is Driedo, whom Bellarmine calls a moſt learned man, and the other is Bellarmine himſelf, both very great defenders of the Church of Rome. See here therefore what Cardinal Bellarmine hath wrote in the name of both, in his Controverſies of the Church. We muſt note, ſayes he, according to the Doctrine of Driedo, that it is not neceſſary Bellarm. de notis Eccl. l. 4▪ cap. 7.Sir 50:4that the Catholick Church ſhould have that extenſion in all places, all at once, or in the ſame time, that is to ſay, that there ſhould be the faithful in all Provinces, and that it is enough if that be ſucceſſively done. From whence it follows, that when there ſhould remain but one Province alone that ſhould retain the true Faith, this Province would not fail to be truly and properly called the Catholick Church, provided that we ſee clearly that it is the ſame Church, which ſometimes or at divers times, is found ſpread over all the p. 106world. Could any one have more clearly contradicted the Author of the Prejudices? He would that this viſible extenſion through all Nations ſhould be a perpetual mark of the True Church; and theſe here ſay, that it is ſufficient that it is ſometimes, and even in divers times ſucceſſively, he would that this extenſion ſhould be the mark of the Church for all following Ages; and theſe here maintain, that it is not neceſſary. He would that this reaſoning ſhould be alwayes juſt, your ſociety is ſhut up in a ſmall part of the world. Therefore it is not the Church; and theſe here ſay, that when there ſhould remain but one only Province that ſhould retain the true faith, this Province would not ceaſe to be properly and truly called the Catholick Church.

But it may be that Bellarmine had not obſerved, that his opinion and Driedo's favoured the Donatiſts, and that it was contrary to the doctrine of S. Auguſtine. This may be ſo in effect; not only becauſe a man in writing may not have all things in view, but becauſe alſo, at the bottom, the ſentiment of theſe Doctors is very remote from that of the Donatiſts, and that it does not encounter that of S. Auguſtine. It is yet true, that Bellarmine ſaw that they could make that Objection, which he has prevented and anſwered; this I ſay, to the end the Author of the Prejudices may ſee, that this which he has treated of as an Argument, and as a convincing Argument for which he has made two Chapters, Bellarmine has look'd on as a very trivial objection, which he propoſes and reſolves in a few words. They will ſay, ſayes he, that this is to fall into the Error of Petilianus and the Donatiſts, who maintain'd that in truth the Church had been ſpread over all the world, but that it was afterwards loſt in all the Provinces, and remain'd no where but in Africa, which S. Auguſtine diſputes againſt. I anſwer, that the Error of the Donatiſts conſiſted in two things; the firſt, that they would have it that the Church ſhould be in Africa only in a time wherein it manifeſtly increaſed throughout all the world: the ſecond, in that they could not connect their Church of Africa with that which had before been ſpread through all the world; for in that Church there, they had alwayes good and bad, as S. Auguſtine proves, whereas they would compoſe theirs of the righteous only.

This Anſwer of Bellarmine overthrows all the pretenſions of the Author of the Prejudices; for it eſtabliſhes theſe following Propoſitions. 1. That Viſible Extenſion is not a mark of the true Church, but in a certain time, that is to ſay, when we ſee it manifeſtly increaſe throughout all the world; from whence it p. 107follows, that this mark is vain at other times. 2. That the Argument of S. Auguſtine concludes only for the time then being, by reaſon of that manifeſt fruitfulneſs; from whence it follows, that it is very impertinent, that the Author of the Prejudices goes to apply it to theſe laſt Ages, wherein we maintain the field of the Church has been fruitful only in Errors and Superſtitions. 3. That if the Donatiſts had accuſed all the world to have fallen into Hereſie, and if they had ſaid, by conſequence, that it was not the time of fruitfulneſs for the Church, it had been in vain for S. Auguſtine to alledge to them the viſible extenſion of his Church, to exempt himſelf from entring into the diſcuſſion of that accuſation; from whence it follows, that it is alſo in vain that the Author of the Prejudices propounds the viſible extenſion of his, ſince we ſay that it is fallen into fundamental errors. 4. That the Argument of S. Auguſtine concluded, becauſe the Donatiſts agreed, that his communion was Orthodox; from whence it follows, that that of the Author of the Prejudices concludes nothing, ſince we queſtion that Orthodoxy of his Church. 5. That by conſequence viſible extenſion is not a mark, that can make us know which is the True Church, when the diſpute is between two Societies conteſting that Orthodoxy between themſelves, but at fartheſt only when the diſpute is between two Societies that mutually own one another to be Orthodox; from whence it follows, that the Author of the Prejudices makes uſe of this mark to no purpoſe, ſince our chief queſtion is to know, whether the Church of Rome is Orthodox or no. All theſe conſequences, which flow naturally from the anſwer of Bellarmine, contradict the Argument of the Author of the Prejudices; and it concerns him to ſee after what manner he can decline the Authority of this Cardinal.

But ſome will ſay, laſtly, It may be Bellarmine was deceived, and that he had not well underſtood the ſtate of the queſtion, which was between S. Auguſtine and the Donatiſts, nor well comprehended the true Hypotheſis of that Father. I confeſs that this may be; but it may be alſo, that he did well underſtand it, and that the miſconſtruing ſhould be on the ſide of the Author of the Prejudices. This is that which muſt be further cleared, and for this effect, we muſt note a thing that the Author of the Prejudices ſeems not to have comprized; which is, that if the Donatiſts had accuſed the Society of S. Auguſtine of Hereſie, S. Auguſtine had been very well able to have prov'd, that they were Schiſmaticks; p. 108but that he had not notwithſtanding been able to conclude from thence, that his Society was the True Church. The reaſon of this is, becauſe they had broken the general bond of an External Call, that S. Auguſtine would have them obliged to keep, even in regard of Hereticks; ſo that according to him, they might very well have been Schiſmaticks, although the Church which they had forſaken had not been the true Church. He prov'd therefore, that his Society was the true Church, only becauſe they acknowledg'd it to be Orthodox, and did not lay to its charge either any Error in the Faith, or depravation in Worſhip. For in ſuppoſing that confeſſion, it manifeſtly appears, that that time was a time of the increaſe of the Church, ſince it cannot be deny'd, that the Church does not then encreaſe, when the true Doctrine is ſpread abroad in all places, from whence would follow, that the Society that taught that true Doctrine throughout the world, was the true Church, rather than a ſmall party that were ſhut up within one only Province. So that the Error of the Donatiſts conſiſted in this, in that they would have reſtrain'd the Church in their Africa in a time wherein it manifeſtly increaſed in all Nations; and this increaſe was manifeſt, by the acknowledgement which they themſelves made, that the Society that was ſpread over all the world was Orthodox. This is that preciſely that Bellarmine would ſay: He would have S. Auguſtine reaſon after this manner; in a time wherein it manifeſtly appears, that the Church encreaſes, it is an error not to acknowledge that Society that is ſpread over all the world, to be the true Church of Jeſus Chriſt, in oppoſition to a ſmall party. But in this time, it manifeſtly appears that the Church increaſes, ſince by your own confeſſion, it is the true Doctrine, and not Hereſie that multiplies it ſelf. Therefore it is an error not to acknowledge at this time, the Society that is ſpread over the world, to be the true Church. This is in effect, the true reaſoning of S. Auguſtine; and Bellarmine is no wayes deceiv'd in it. But it clearly follows from thence, that according to S. Auguſtine, that viſible extenſion may be ſometimes a mark of the true Church in oppoſition to a ſmall party; to wit, then when the true and pure Doctrine is ſpread abroad every where, becauſe that is the time of the increaſe of the Church: But it does not follow, that this mark is perpetual, ſince the time of that increaſe does not laſt alwayes. From whence it appears, that the arguing of S. Auguſtine can have no place in the queſtion that is between the Church of p. 109Rome and us. In one word, then when we conteſt the title of the true Church with a Society that does otherwiſe own us to be Orthodox, then viſible extenſion decides the queſtion according to S. Auguſtine. But then when we conteſt that title with a Society that accuſes us with falſe Doctrine, that viſible extenſion decides nothing; and the difference cannot be determined, but by the diſcuſſion of the foundation it ſelf. S. Auguſtine alledg'd it in the former caſe, and the Author of the Prejudices alledges it in the latter.

What need we to do more to ſet down this truth in its full evidence, and to give the Author of the Prejudices entire ſatiſfaction? Do we need to let him ſee that if they had accuſed the Society of S. Auguſtine of falſe Doctrine, that Father had not pretended in this caſe, that that viſible extenſion ſhould have decided the conteſt, but that he would have decided it at the foundation? Need we to go yet farther, and to ſhew him that S. Auguſtine has formally acknowledg'd, that there have been in effect, times wherein the true Church has had no viſible extenſion? If we could ſhew him theſe two things, he would methinks have ſome reaſon to be contented, and to leave us in peace about this buſineſs of extenſion. Let us therefore endeavour to ſatisfie him about theſe two Articles. The firſt will be decided, if we here appeal to what I have related of that Father on the occaſion of what Creſconius had ſaid to him, that he ought to withdraw himſelf from the Church of the Traditors. Is it, ſayes he, that the Traditors have compoſed Books, to ſhew, that we ought to do, or imitate their action? Is it becauſe they have recommended thoſe Books to poſterity? Is it becauſe we hold and follow that Doctrine? If they had done that, and if they would have permitted none to remain in their communion, but ſuch as would read thoſe Books and approve that Doctrine; I ſay that they would have ſeparated themſelves from the Unity of the Church, and if you ſaw me in their Schiſm, you would then have reaſon to ſay, that I am in the Church of the Traditors. We need no great learning, to underſtand by this diſcourſe, 1. That S. Auguſtine had acknowledg'd, that if in effect his Society had determined a falſe Doctrine, if it had framed Books about it, and ſuffered no perſon its communion, who had not approved it, it had loſt the title of the True Church, although that viſible extenſion ſhould have been ſecured to it. 2. That if the Donatiſts who were but a ſmall party, had accuſed it, it would have admitted them to proof, without a wrangling p. 110with them about that extenſion. For he who ſayes, Is it becauſe we hold and follow that Doctrine? makes us ſufficiently ſee, that he would not have refuſed them liberty to come to a proof if his adverſaries had ſaid, that they held and followed it indeed. And it ought not to be ſaid, that S. Auguſtine makes not that ſuppoſition only in regard of the whole of his Society, but only in regard of ſome Traditors? For he makes that ſuppoſition in regard of that ſame Society that Creſconius had called the Church of the Traditors, and theſe words, Is it becauſe we hold and follow this Doctrine? leave no place for that evaſion.

See here the firſt Article; the ſecond is yet more formal in S. Auguſtine; for no one can doubt, that he has not acknowledg'd, that there have been, in effect, times wherein the true Church has ſcarce had any viſible extenſion. This is that which he has in his Letter to Heſychius, wherein he treats of the ſtate of the Church in thoſe miſerable times, which Jeſus Chriſt foretold in Aug Ep. 80.the four and twentieth of S. Matthew. Then the Sun, ſayes he, ſhall be darkned, and the Moon ſhall not give her light, the Stars ſhall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens ſhall be ſhaken. The Church ſhall not appear, becauſe the wicked becoming perſecutors, ſhall no more obſerve any bounds in their cruelties. Temporal Proſperity ſhall accompany them every where; ſo that ſeeing no occaſion of fear, they ſhall ſay, peace and ſecurity to themſelves. Then the Stars ſhall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens ſhall be ſhaken, becauſe many in whom grace ſeem'd to be reſplendent, ſhall yield to the perſecutors, and ſome of the moſt firm among the faithful ſhall be troubled. The Church, ſayes he, ſhall not appear, Eccleſia non apparebit. She will not therefore have then, that viſible extenſion which the Author of the Prejudices would have to be her perpetual mark for all Ages. He further acknowledges the ſame thing in his Epiſtle to Vincentius, where he treats of the ſtate of the Church under the Aug. Ep. 48.Arians. There he teaches in expreſs terms, That the Church is ſometimes obſcured and covered with clouds, through the great number of offences, that ſhe is then only eminent in her moſt firm defenders, while the multitude of the weak and carnal is overwhelmed with the floods of temptation. That under the reign of the Arians the ſimple ſuffered themſelves to be deceiv'd, that others yielding through fear, diſſembled, and in appearance conſented to Arianiſm. That indeed ſome of the moſt firm eſcaped the ſnares of thoſe Hereticks, but that they were but few in number in compariſon of the reſt. That nevertheleſs p. 111ſome of them generouſly ſuffer'd baniſhment, and ſome others lay hid here and there throughout the Earth. I pray tell me, what viſible extenſion could the Orthodox communion have then, which ſubſiſted only in a ſmall number of the firm, of whom even the greateſt part had ſuffered exile, or lay hid here and there throughout all the Earth? I confeſs, that Hiſtory notes, that there were yet ſome ſmall flocks in ſome places of the Eaſt and of the Weſt, who ſet up their Aſſemblies apart as at Edeſſa, at Nazianzen, at Antioch, and in ſome Provinces of France and Germany; but what was this in compariſon of the Arian communion, which had fill'd the Churches, and held Councils, as we have ſo often proved.

We muſt therefore ſeriouſly profeſs, that this viſible extenſion is a vain and deceitful mark, when they would make it perpetual to the true Church, as the Author of the Prejudices would make it, and that no one could abuſe with greater injuſtice the Authority of S. Auguſtine than he has done. We muſt profeſs alſo, that a ſmall handful of the Faithful, a little party, have right to ſeparate themſelves from the whole multitude; I mean, from a communion ſpread over all the world, which has on its ſide, the Miniſtry, the Pulpits, the Councils, the Schools, Titles, Dignities, and all that retinue of temporal ſplendour, when it has not the true Faith. For the reſt, that which I have handled in this Chapter about the two former Propoſitions of the Author of the Prejudices, already ſufficiently lets us ſee the falſeneſs of his argument. For if he would take the pains to read this Chapter with never ſo little application, he will ſee all theſe following Propoſitions well eſtabliſh'd there. 1. That in General, this Author has not compris'd the true Hypotheſis of S. Auguſtine, nor the ſtate of his diſpute againſt the Donatiſts. 2. That he can draw no advantage from the divers wayes in which that Father conceived the word Church. 3. That the ſeparation which that Father judg'd to be fit to be condemned and wicked, under what pretence ſoever it ſhould be made, is wholly different from that which is between the Church of Rome and us. 4. That there is not any Chriſtian Society from which one may not lawfully ſeparate ones ſelf, in a certain caſe and manner. 5. That that which is diſputed between the Church of Rome and us being of this number, they muſt conſider the cauſes and circumſtances of it, rightly to judge of it, and not pretend to convince us of Schiſm, without entring upon any other diſcuſſion. 6. That according to p. 112the principles of S. Auguſtine, the Church of Rome is Schiſmatical, in reſpect of us, ſuppoſing that ſhe is in error, becauſe it is ſhe that has broken Chriſtian Unity, and that we are in reſpect of her, in a paſſive ſeparation. 7. That it is abſurd to make that viſible extenſion, a perpetual mark of the true Church, which way ſoever they take it. 8. That this pretended mark is contrary to the experience of our Age, and does not properly agree to any one of theſe Societies, that at this day divide Chriſtianity. 9. That it is contrary to the experience of the Ages paſt, and to the Doctrine of the Fathers. 10. That it is rejected in the ſenſe of the Author of the Prejudices, by the famous Doctors of the Roman communion. 11. That it has no foundation in the diſpute of S. Auguſtine againſt the Donatiſts. 12. That it is even directly oppoſite to the Doctrine of that Father. Theſe are the juſt and natural conſequences that are drawn from the things which I have handled in this Chapter; I will examine in the following, the other Propoſitions of the Author of the Prejudices.