Vindication of Answer About Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, Treatise · Part 1

Vindication of Answer About Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church · Treatise · Part 1

p. 6I. Of the Unity of the Catholick Church.

ANd here the point to be discussed, is, viz. Whether that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church, be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth?

(1.) The first thing I objected against it was, that a Part cannot be the Whole; but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part; and therefore it cannot be the One Catholick Church of Christ here on earth.

Here, to prevent cavilling, I must declare that I meant not the Roman Diocese or Province, but all the Churches which live in Communion with and Subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church; and look on it as necessary to Salvation so to do. And this I still assert to be but a Part of the Catholick Church and a corrupt one too.

The Author of the Defence saith, all this Riddle of Part and Pag. ….Whole comes from my Inadvertence. How so? Because I confound the Roman Diocese with the Roman-Catholick Church. No, I assure him I did take it in their own sense, for all that embrace the matters of Faith which are received in the Roman Communion. And He need not fear my doing otherwise; for I intend to discourse of no other Church but this; and this I deny, as so taken, to be the One Catholick Church. Doth not Catholic signifie all the Parts? I am sure it ought to do so; but I say it doth not, when Roman is joyned to Catholick; for then it excludes all those from being Parts of the Catholic Church, which do not joyn in the Roman Communion; and this I say is unreasonable. And here I expected some Proof in so material a Point; but there is not a Word farther, than that Catholic comprehends all; but I say again, Roman Catholic excludes all that are not in its Communion. As suppose any one should say the German Ocean is the whole Sea; and to prove it, should reason as this Gentlemen doth; Ocean is the whole Sea, is it not? And is it the less p. 7the Ocean, because German is added to it? No; the Ocean is just as large as ever it was; but the adding German to it restrains the sense of Ocean to it within certain bounds; and excludes many parts of the great Ocean, which are without those limits. Just so it is in adding Roman to Catholic; Catholic alone comprehends all the Parts of the Church, but Roman added to it confines the Sense of it to those who embrace the Faith received in the Roman Communion; and this excludes all other Parts of the Catholic Church: and so makes a Part to be the Whole.

(2.) I objected farther, that if this had been the Catholic Church meant in the Creeds, this limitation ought to have been expressed in the Creeds, and put to Persons to be baptized; which being never done in the Roman Church it self, I thence inferr'd that it did not believe it self to be the one Catholic Church, which we profess to believe in the Creeds.

Here the Author of the Reply answers, that Catholic and Roman Pag 5.Catholic were in the Language of Antiquity one and the same thing; and this point being never called in Question in the time when the Creeds were published, there was no occasion to put Roman into the Creeds; no more than of putting in Consubstantial with the Father till it was denied.

This were a substantial way of answering the Difficulty, if it would in any measure hold. But I shall now prove just the Contrary to have been the Sense of Authority by plain and undeniable Instances in matters of fact, in most of the Ages of the Christian Church; from the very next to the Apostolical, down to the Council of Trent. To which I shall only premise this, which I think no Roman Catholic will deny me, viz. that the Roman Catholic Church doth imply Obedience to the Bishop of Rome as Supream visible Head of the Church under Christ. For Bellarmin and others, make not only Faith and Sacraments De Eccl…s l. 3. c. 2.necessary to the Being of the Church, but submission to l…wful Pastors, and especially to the Pope as Christ's only Vicar upon Earth; and he placeth the Essential Unity of the Catholic Church Ibid. c. 5.in the Conjunction of the members, under Christ and h…s Vicar, as Head of the Church. And from hence he excludes Schismaticks out of the Catholic Church, though they have Unity of Faith and Sacraments p. 8and Hope and Spirit. And the Roman Catechism makes Catech. Rom. Part. 1. c, 10. …. 10.Union with the Pope as visible Head of the Church necessary to the Unity of the Catholi… Church.

And the Proofs I bring shall not be from short or doubtful sentences, but from remarkable passages and notorious Acts of the Church.

In the First Age of the Church the name Catholic was as little known, as the Authority of the Roman Church; it not being once found in the Apostolical Writings; for the Inscriptions of the Catholic Epistles are of latter times. And if they were allowed to be Apostolical, they would be far from proving any thing to this purpose, since the Roman Church is never mentioned in these Epistles, unless under the name of Babylon; and I suppose they would not like the Title of the Catholic Babylonish Church. But in all the directions of the Apostles concerning Unity of Faith, there is not one which gives the least intimation, that the Roman Church in any sense was to be the Rule or Standard of Faith or Communion.

In the Second Age we find two remarkable Instances that the Communion of the Catholic Church was not to be taken from Conjunction with the Bishop of Rome as Head of it.

The first is from the Bishop of Rome's approving the Prophecies of Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla. This would hardly appear credible, if Tertullian had not expresly affirmed it; and he farther saith that had it not been for Praxeas a Heretick, he had taken them into the Tertul. c. Pra…am c. 1.Communion of the Catholic Church; and he prevailed with him to revoke his communicatory Letters already past. What a Case had the Catholic Church been in at this time, if the Bishop of Rome had been look'd on as the Centre of Catholic Communion, and if he had not been better informed by Praxeas a Heretick?

The second in the same Age is when Victor took upon him to excommunicate the Eastern Bishops for not celebrating Easter at the same time they did at Rome. If now the Eastern Bishops did own the Roman-Catholic and Catholic Church to be the same, they must shew it at such a time by their regard to the Pope's sentence as Head of the Catholic Church: but they owned no such Authority he had over them; and instead of it Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, with a Council of No…a Collect. Concil. Bal…. p. 10.Bishops joyning with him about A. D. 197 wrote a smart Epistle to Victor, wherein they let him know they would go on in their p. 9way, notwithstanding his threats, and that it was better to obey God than Man. From whence it is observable, That they followed their own judgment against the Pope's; and that they believed the Pope required things of them so contrary to the Will of God, that they resolved to disobey him. And his requiring their compliance was no Argument of his Authority, but of his Us…rpation.

In the Third Age happen'd a famous contest between Stephen Bishop of Rome, and the Eastern and African Bishops, about Re-baptizing Hereticks. I meddle not now with the Controversie it self, but with the Sense of those Bishops upon occasion of it as to the Roman-Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome did at least threaten to Excommunicate the African Bishops. And if Firmilian may be believed, he did actually Excommunicate the Asian Bishops How did these Primitive Bishops behave themselves under this Sentence? They charge Stephen with Insolence, Folly, Contempt of his Brethren, and breaking the Peace of the Catholic V. Epist. Cypri. ep. 74, 75.Church; and cutting himself off from the Unity of it. The words are, abscindere se à Charitatis unitate, & alienum se per omnia fratribus facere. Now I desire to know, whether these Bishops believed the necessary conjunction of Roman and Catholic together? And whether Bishop of Rome were thought to be the Centre of Communion in the Catholic Church? It is plain, they made him the Cause of the Schism, and thought themselves never the less in the Catholic Church for being out of the Roman Communion.

In the Fourth Age the Government and Subordination of the Catholic Church was established in the Council of Nice according to ancient Custom; but we read not a word of the Roman Catholic Church there; or any Priviledge or Authority the Bishop of Rome had, but within his own Province, and such as the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria had in theirs. And when the Bishop of Rome in that Age interposed to restore some Bishops cast out of Communion by the Eastern Bishops, they declared against it as a violation of the Rules of the Catholic Church; and this became the Occasion of the first Breach between the Eastern and Western Churches. In the same Age Liberius, Bishop of Rome, joyned with the Eastern Bishops in casting Athanasius out of the Catholic Church, and subscribed the Arian Confession of Faith; as both Hilary and S Ierome witness; and it appears from his Seventh Epistle, and the old Lesson in the Roman p. 10Breviary, 19 Kal. Sept. which hath been since expunged for telling Tales

In the Fifth Age happened a greater breach …etween the Bishops of Rome and the Eastern Churches For Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople, not complying with what the Bishops of Rome desired from him, was solemnly excommunicated by Fe… III. But notwithstanding this, the Emperour and Eastern bishops continued still in his Communion; and they complained that the proceedings against him were against the Rules of the Church, and savoured of great Pride, as appears by the Epistles of Gel…sius, who succeeded Felix. And upon this a notorious Sc… happened, Epist. 4. 8.which the Eastern Churches charged the Church of Rome with; and believed themselves to be still in the Communion o… the Catholic Church.

In the Sixth Age Vigilius Bishop of Rome gives an undeniable evidence of the difference between Communion with the Catholic Church and with the Bishop of Rome. When he went to Constantinople, upon Iustinian's Summons, about the three Chapters, not only Fa…. l. 4. c. 3.the Church of Rome, but that of Africa, Sardinia, Istria, I…yricum and others, earnestly entreated him not to consent to the condemning them; accordingly when he came to Constantinople he was so warm and zealous in the Cause, that he forthwith excommunicates the Patriarch and his adherents; among whom the Empress her self was one: But soon after he was so much mollified, that he not only took off his Sentence, but privately agreed with the Emperour to condemn the Three Chapters. Which was discovered to the Western Churches by Rusticus and Sebasti…nus, who were then with him: Whereupon they cried out upon him for prevaricating and betraying the Council of Chalcedon; and the African Bishops not only condemned his Judgment, but excommunicated him and all that consented to it; and so did the …. …. Po… Co…. Ba…il X.Bishops of Illyricum. Which Schism continued many years, as appears by the Epistles of Pelagius II. and Gregory. Vigilius finding how the matter was resented in the Western Churches, yields to a General Council; which the Emperour Summon'd at Constantinople; in the mean time he publishes an Edict against the Three Chapters. Vigilius to recover his Credit with the Western Bishops, denounces Excommunication against those that yielded to it; but the Greeks despised his Censure, and immediately went to celebrate Divine Offices. When the Council sate he refused to come; which they p. 11regarded not, but went on and condemned the Three Chapters without him; but when the Council was ended he complied with it; as now appears from the Authentic Acts lately published.Nova Collect. Concil. p. 1551.

Let any Man now judge, whether Communion with the Bishop of Rome were then looked on a… a necessary condition of being in the Catholic Church, either by the Eastern or Western Churches.

In the Seventh Age there is a necessity to make a Distinction between the Communion with the Bishop of Rome, and with the Catholic Church; because Honorius then Bishop of Rome is condemned by the Sixth General Council, for contradicting the Apostolical Doctrine, and the Definitions of Councils, and for following the false Doctrines of Hereticks. And the same Judgment is confirmed by the Seventh and Eighth Councils, which are received for General in the Church of Rome. And Leo I…. in his Epistle to the Emperour, wherein he confirms the Sixth Council, expresly Anathematizes his Predecessor Honorius for no less tha… betraying the Catholic Faith. And in the Profession of Faith made by every new Bishop of Rome (extant in the Diurnus) Honorius is Anathematized by name. Was it then the Roman Catholic Church which joyned in Communion with Honorius?

In the Eighth Age the Bishop of Rome approved the Second Council of Nice; but notwithstanding the Western Churches stifly opposed it, as contrary to Faith; which they could not have done, if at that time the Pope had been looked on as the Head and Center of Catholic Communion.

In the Ninth Age happened the great breach between the two Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople, which in consequence engaged the Eastern and Western Churches against each other. And although the restoring of Photius after the death of Ignatius seemed to put an end to it; yet the difference increased chie…ly upon two points, that of Iurisdiction and the Addition to the Creed, made by the Western Church, which the Council under Photius did Anathematize; and the whole Greek Church, with the Four Patriarchs, joyned in it; as arguing Imperfection in the Creed and the Tradition of their Fore-fathers. And upon these two Points this Schism began; although Photius did charge the Latin Church with other things; which made Nicolaus I. to employ the best Pens they had to defend the Latins against the Greeks. One of which p. 12was Ratramnus lately …ublished; who lived at that time; and Ratra…. c. Graec. ap…d …. Spicil. To. 2. p. 3, 24, 27, 29, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62.it is observable in him, That he supposes both to be still Parts of the Catholic Church; and he often distinguishes the Latin Church or the whole Roman Communion, from the Catholic Church; which he saith, was extended from the East to the West, from the North to the South.

In the Eleventh Age this Schism brake forth with greater violence, in the time of Leo IX. and Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople. To the former occasions of difference, a new one was added, never mention'd in Photius his time, viz. the use of unleavened Bread in the Sacrament, by the Latin Church. Of this, with other things, Michael Cerularius complained; the Pope sends Three Nuntio's to Constantinople, who behaved themselves rudely and insolently towards the Patriarch; as he shews in his Epistles to the Patriarch of Antioch, published lately by Co…elerius; there he declares he would not treat with them about Religion without Monument a Graec. To. 2. p. 138. n. 6. p. 164. n. 3, 4, 5.the other Patriarchs; upon which they pronounced them obstinate, and proceeded to Excommunicate the whole Greek Church for not complying with them. And the Patriarch returned the kindness and Anathematized them. The Form of the Anathema against the Greeks is printed with Humbertus; and the short of Ca…is. A…tiq. Lect. To. 6. p. 197.it is, whosoever contradicts the Roman See is to be excluded Catholic Communion, and be made Anathema Maranatha.

This was plain dealing; but it was the Eleventh Age before things came to this height. And yet in that very Anathema one of the Reasons assigned, was because the Greeks like the Donatists con…ned the Catholic Church to themselves.Pag. 196.

In the Thirteenth Age Innocent III. writes to the Greek Emperour Innocent. III. Ep. l. 1. 353.to bring the Greeks back to the Unity of the Church; the Patriarch of Constantinople writes back again to know what he meant by it, and how he could call the Roman Church, the One Catholic Lib. 2. 208.Church, since Christians made but one Flock under their several Pastors, Christ himself being Head over all. The Pope answers, The Church is called Catholic two ways. 1. As it consists of all Ep. 209.particular Churches, and so he grants the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church, but a part of it, though the chief. 2. As it holds under it all particular Churches; and so, he saith, The Roman Church only is the Catholic Church. And so he makes owning the Roman Church to be Mother and Mistress of all Churches, as he there saith, to be a necessary condition of Catholic Communion. p. 13And thus it becomes the Roman Catholic Church. But this was a very new notion of the Catholic Church, which in the Fathers of the Church was taken in one of these two Senses.

1. With Respect to Faith; and so Catholic was the same with Sound and of a right Faith, in opposition to the notorious Heresies of the First Ages. So it was used by Ig…tius, against the Heresies of that time, which denied Iesus to be Christ; therefore, saith he, Whereever Christ Iesus is, there is the …. c… …. p. ….Catholic Church. After him Polycarp is called by the Church of Sm…rna, Bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. So the Council of Antioch speaking of the deposition of Pa… lus …. l. 4. c. 14. L. 7. c. 24.Samosatenus say, They must set another Bishop over the Catholic Church there. …lemens Alexandrinus saith, The Catholic Church is ancienter than Heresies; that it hath the Unity St…. l. 7. p. 764, …, 7…5. …. E…. 1.of the Faith, and subsists only in the Truth. Pacianus observes, That in those Ages the Hereticks went by other Names, but the sound Christians were known by the Name of Catholics, which had been of very ancient us… in the Church, though not found in Scripture; as Fulgenti…s likewise observes. But Lactantius Fulg…t. Op. p. 6…. Lactant. In it. l. 4. c. …lt. Sola … Catholi… … qu… …erum Cult… ….takes notice that the Hereticks had gotten the trick of using that Name; and then his Rule is to discern the true Catholic Church by the true Religion. For he not only saith before, That the Catholic Church is to be known by the true Worship of God; but when he comes to lay down the Notes of the true Church, the first of them is Religion. So I find in an old Lactantius, printed at Rome, A. D. 1470. but, for what Reason I know not, it is le…t out in the latte… Editions. In the Conference between the Donatists and the Catholic Bishops, both sides challenged the name of Catholics …. Concii. p. 286.to themselves; and the Roman Judge determined, It should belong to them who were found to have Truth on their side. Pope Innocent III. in a Council at Rome declares, That all the Churches in the World are called one from the Unity of the Catholic Faith. And in the Canon before, he mentions Supplem. Concil. Gall. p. 14. Can. 6.the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholic, but comprehended under it while it adheres to the Catholic Faith. Which was not then understood to be what the Roman Church declares to be so; but what was universally received in the Church from the Apostles times, and was delivered p. 14in the Creeds to the Persons to be admitted by Baptism into the Catholic Church.

2. With respect to Persons and Places. And so Catholic was first taken in opposition to the Iewish Confinement of Salvation to themselves; and of Gods appointed Worship to one Temple. So Ignatius faith, The …hurch is one Body, made up of Jews and Gentiles. Epist. ad Smyrn.And the Church of Smyrna writes to all the Members of the Catholic Church in all places: and the Council of Antioch writes Eus…b. l. 4. c. 14. l. 7. c. …4. Cyril…. Catech. 18. p. 220. …. …o. 2. p. …2. …. in 1 Cor. 12. 27.1 Cor 12:27to the whole Catholic Church under Heaven. S. Cyril saith, The Church is called Catholic from its Universal spreading and teaching the whole Doctrine of Christ to all sorts of Persons. Athanasius saith, It is called Catholic, because it is dispersed over the World. Theophylact saith, The Catholic Church is a Body made up of all …hurches, whereof Christ is the Head. And the African Bishops from the first beginning of the Dispute with the Donatists laid great weight upon this, That the Catholic Church was to be taken in its largest Extent; or else the Promises could not be fulfilled; as may be seen in Optatus, who saith, The Church is called Catholic, not only from its having the true Opt. c. Par. l. 2. C…m inde dicta sit Catholica, quod sit rationabilis & abique dissusa.Faith, but from its being every where dispersed. And S. Augustine hath written whole Books to prove it. In the Conference with the Donatists, the Catholic Bishops, and especially S. Augustin, plead, that they are called Catholics because they hold communion with the whole World of Christians; and not with th…se only of a particular Title or Denomination. Bal…z. Coll. Concil. p. 287, 288.For therein they made the Nos universo orbi Christiano communione cohaeremus. n. 100.Schism of the Donatists consist; not barely in a causeless Separation; but Et appellantur & merito sunt Catholici ipsa sua communione no…en testantes. Catholon enim secundùn tot…m dicitur. Qui autem à toto s…paratus est, partem …ue defendit ab uniniverso praecisam, non sibi u…rpet hoc nomen, sed nobiscum teneat veritatem. n. 101.in confining the Catholic Church to themselves, who at best were but a Part of it. And because the notion which Innocent III. gives, is liable to the same charge, it cannot be excused from the same guilt.

Thus we have found the Author of this Notion of the Roman Catholic Church, viz. for such as own the Supremacy of the Church of Rome, as he explains it more fully in the same Epistle.

p. 15But yet this Notion of the Catholic Church was not Uniniversally received after Innocent III. For in the Fifteenth Age, in the Council of Florence, Cardinal Bessarion disputing with the Greeks about the Authority of the Roman Church, Concil. Florent. Sess. 9.in making an Addition to the Creed, saith, That how great soever the Power of the Roman Church be, he grants it is less than that of a General Council, or the Catholic Church. From whence it follows, that the Notion of the Catholic Church cannot be taken from owning the Roman Church to be Mistress of all Churches; for then the Catholic Church is bound to submit to the Decrees of the Roman Church about Matters of Faith.

In the beginning of the same Age the Council of …onstance met, and in the Fourth Session declared, That a General ouncil represents the Catholic Church, and hath its Power immediately from Christ; and that in matters of Faith, Unity of the …hurch, and Reformation, all Persons, even Popes …hemselves are bound to submit to it. And truly it was but necessary for them to take off from the Popes Authority in matters of Faith, since they charge Ioh. XXIII. with no less than frequent and pertinacious denying the Immortality of the Soul. Was not this Man fit to be an Concil Constant. Sess. 11. Concil. Gen. To. 12. p. 87. De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14.Infallible Head of the Catholic Church, and the true Center of Christian Communion? Bellarmin saith, this Article was not proved, but only commonly believed, because of the dissoluteness of his Life. But this is but a poor defence; since this Article stands upon Record against him in all the Editions of the Council of Constance; which I have compared; even that at Rome, said to be collated with Manuscripts. And why should so scandalous an Article be suffered to stand, unless there were such a consent of Copies that it could not for shame be removed?

The Doctrine of the Council of Constance was confirmed by the Council of Basil, and is to this day maintained by the Clergy of France, as appears by their Declaration made A. D. 1682. From whence it follows, that the Church is not called Catholic from relation to the Roman Church; but to the whole Body of Christians: and that the Unity of it, is not to be taken from the respect it bears to an external Visible Head which may sail, but to Christ as the essential Head of the Church. This is the express Doctrine of the Cardinal de Alliaco, Ioh. Major, p. 16Almain, Gerson and many others; and follows from the Decree of the Council of Constance.

Thus I have briefly deduced the Sense of the Christian Church in this matter from the Apostolical times; and that not meerly from the sayings of particular Men; but from publick, solemn, and undoubted Acts of the Church. Which I have the rather done, because the Defender saith, we have no Antiquity on our sido in this …ause, but as much as since Luther. Des. p. 23.I think I have produced a little more, and too much for him to Answer.

It is time now to consider what proof the Replier brings, that Catholic and Roman-Catholic in the Sense of Antiquity were one and the same thing.

He produces the Testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian, wherein the Church of Rome is called the Catholic Church. Who Pag. 6.doubts that in those days there was a Catholic Church at Rome? For every particular Church which agreed in the Catholic Faith was then called the Catholic Church of such a place. And innumerable Instances of this kind may be gathered out of Antiquity; both as to the City of Rome, and other Cities as well as that; and surely they were not all Catholic Churches in his Sense; when he agrees there is but One Catholic Church; nay more, even Parochial Churches were called Catholic, as he may find in …otelerius.Not. in Mo…. Gra…. To. …. p. 601.

S Ambrose's Testimony signifies no more, than that Satyrus coming into a Place suspected for the Luciferian Schism, asked if the Bishop joyned with the Catholic Bishops, i. e. with the Roman Church. Which is no more than whether he agreed with his own Church; for Satyrus was a Roman born. But this would prove any other Church to be the One Catholic Church altogether as well as the Roman.

The Patriarch of Constantinople writes to Hormisda, that he would not hereafter recite in the Diptychs the Names of those who were excommunicated by the Apostolical See. And what follows? But he saith, They were sever'd from the Communion of the Catholic Church. And so were those excommunicated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. But the words are, who do not in all things consent with the See Apostolic; but the plain meaning is, of those who were cast out of Communion, for the words are too, Sequestrates à Communione Ecclesiae Catholicae. And doth p. 17this prove the Roman Church to have any more relation to the Catholic, than the Church of the meanest Bishop in the Catholic Church?

As to the calling of Catholics Romanists by the Gothic Arians; that relates to the Roman Empire, and not to the Roman Church.

And now let any impartial Reader judge whether the sense of Antiquity be not admirably cleared by these passages, as to the making out Roman and Catholic to be the same. But to proceed.

(3.) I said farther, that if the Roman Church believed it self to be the Catholick Church, it must void the Baptism of those who are out of its Communion; but since Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church, by its own Confession, the Catholic Church which is owned in the Creeds, must be of larger Extent than the Roman.

In Answer to this, they both tell me this point Reply p. 8. Defence p. 7.hath been over-ruled long ago by the Catholic Church; the Baptism of Hereticks being allowed to be good. But since it is granted, that Baptism doth enter Persons into that Catholic Church we believe in the Creeds, doth it not evidently follow, that the Catholic Church in the Creeds is larger than the Roman Communion? For it takes in those which the other doth not. Doth not the Catholic Church take in all that are admitted into the Catholick Church? but many more by their own Confession are admitted into it than are of the Roman Communion, and therefore it unavoidably follows, that the Roman Catholick Church cannot be the Catholic Church believed in the two Creeds.

And although according to S. Augustine, the validity of Baptism depends on the right form of words and not the good Disposition of him that administers; yet Baptism where it is valid must have its due Effect, which is entering Persons into the Catholic Church.

But say they, Doth not Heresie, &c. cast them out of the Catholic Church? Suppose it doth, yet if Heresie do cast them out, they were in the Church till they were cast out of it. Their being allowed to be in it doth my business; let them prove them cast out by Heresie when they please. p. 18But the Defender saith, I suppose what I should prove, and then Pag. 8.prove it by means of that supposition.

Here I am to seek; for do I not prove from their own Supposition and not from mine, that Baptism doth enter persons into the Catholic Church? and therefore from thence I prove, that themselves cannot believe the Catholic and Roman Church to be all one; since they allow many multitudes to be entred into the Catholic Church, which they deny to be of the Roman Church.

Yet he goes on, that such persons are not truly Members Pag. 9.either of the Catholic or Roman-…atholic Church. No? then Baptism doth not admit Persons into the Catholic Church. Which is very new Doctrine, and fit only for new Converts, and is directly contrary to the Roman Catechism, which saith, Baptism is the Gate by which we Catech. Rom. Part 1. c. 10. n. 20.enter into the Church. They were so far …embers, saith he, as Baptism could make them. And that I hope was to make them Members of Christs Body; or else what becomes of the Council of Trent, which so expresly asserts, and that with an Anathema, the Validity and Efficacy of the Sacraments in general? and of Baptism in particul…? And Se…. 7. Can. 7, 8, 9.there is a special Anathema against those who say that Children baptized are not to be reckon'd inter fideles, and I hope De Bapt. Can. 13.those are Members of the Catholic Church. Is there Remission of sins, Communion with the Holy Spirit granted out of the Catholic Church? yet these are the Effects of Baptism, owned by all Persons in the Church of Rome; or else they cannot themselves be of the Roman Communion. What is it then I pray to be as much Members of the Church as Baptism could make them? What can make them more Members than Baptism doth? According to their own Doctrine. But they are as far off the Roman Church as they are off the Catholic. Say you so? then no more is requisite Pag. 10.to make a Man a Member of the Roman …hurch, than is necessary to his Baptism. This great News, a… would be very welcome to the Christian World. I have h…rd of many Projects of Accommodation; but none seem to be like this. For then no more is necessary to make us Members of the Roman Church than of the Catholic, i. e. owning the Creed and our Baptismal Vow. Nay, hold there, saith p. 19he, the Profession of the Catholic Faith is necessary to make one a true Member of the Roman-Catholic Church. This is the meaning of a whole Page, or else it has none: Suppose this to be true; and it proves what I intend. For either this Catholic Faith is the same which was required to Pag. ….Baptism, or not. If the same, then no more is required than owning the Creeds, to make a Member of the Roman-Catholic Church; if not the same, then those who are Members of the Catholic Church by Baptism, are not Members of the Roman Catholic till a farther Profession of the Roman Faith; and consequently the Catholic Church and the Roman-Catholic are not the same, since those may be Members of the Catholic Church, who are not of the Roman-Catholic. Can any thing be plainer?

And the Replier is so much a Gentleman, to own the Truth of it. For these are his words, that Baptism enters Reply p. 8.persons into the Catholic Church, who though they be out of the Communion of the Roman Church, yet having the true form of Baptism are Members of the Catholic Church. Therefore the Catholick Church and Roman-Catholic cannot be the same. Which was all I intended to prove.

But he saith, that as Baptism enters them into the Catholic Church, so Heresie, Apostasie, or Infidelity casts them out; or else the old Hereticks, which he reckons up, were still Members of the Catholic Church. I answer, that my Argument was not concerning the old Hereticks, who rejected any Article of the …reed, which was delivered at Baptism, and the owning of it required in order to it; but concerning the Roman-Catholic Church, which makes the owning New Articles of Faith necessary in order to its Communion; and if this Church reject any from its Communion who do own the Articles of the Creeds, it follows from thence, that it is not the Catholic Church into which Persons are admitted by Baptism.

But no Man if an Heretick, though baptized, can remain in the Church. If he be convicted of renouncing the Creed, Pag. 9.upon the owning whereof he was received to Baptism, he casts himself out of the Church; for he doth not stand to his Promise. If you mean that any thing which the Roman-Catholic Church declares to be Heresie, casts a Man out of p. 20the Catholic Church, I do utterly deny it, and I see no Reason brought to prove it.

(4.) I argued, that in a divided State of the Church there may be different Communions, and yet both may remain Parts of the Catholic Church; for which I instanced in the Excommunications of old about keeping Easter, and the Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches; but to appropriate the title of the One Catholic Church to any one of the divided Parties, so as to exclude the rest, was to charge that Party with the Schism, as in the case of the Novatians and Donatists; and consequently, to apply the One Catholic Church to the Roman, was to make it guilty of the present Schism in the Christian World.

Both the Defender and Replier behave themselves in their Answers to this, as if they did not understand what I aimed at; and therefore run out into things by the bye, as if they thought there were no difference between saying something to a Book, and giving an Answer to it. What I can pick up, which seems material, I will set down distinctly.

The Replier takes notice that I said, that before the Unhappy Divisions of the Christian Church it had been no difficulty to have shewed that one visible Church which Christ had here upon Earth; to which he answers, that there were Divisions in the Apostles Pag. 9, 10.times, and the same Means which were then used to preserve the Unity of the Catholic Church, did equally serve for after Ages and continue to this day, and so the Unity of the Catholic Church is still as visible as ever it was. This in few words I take to be the force of what he saith. But certainly there was a time when the Unity of the …atholic …hurch was a little more discernable than now it is. Doth not the Scripture tell us, the Multitude was of one heart and one Soul? Are all Christians so at this day? I grant afterward there were Schisms and Heresies in the Apostolical Churches. But the Apostles had an Infallible Spirit, which they manifested by the Power of Miracles going along with it, by which means the Heresies were laid open and the Schisms stopped. But what were those Heresies? Such as contradicted the Articles of the Creed, as about the Truth of Christ's Incarnation, and the Resurrection of the Dead &c. and therefore the Apostles by the Assistance p. 21of that Infallible Spirit did write Epistles to the Churches, to declare that which was to be the standing Faith of all Ages; and by an unquestionable Tradition (in the Church of Rome) they summ'd up these Fundamental Points of Faith in that which is therefore called the Apostles Creed. This was therefore the Standard whereby to judge of Faith and Heresie; and by this, they proceeded in the Ages succeeding the Apostles. Afterwards, some did not bare faced contradict the Articles of the Creed, but broached such Doctrines as did by consequence overthrow them; as the Arians by making a Creature God, the Nestorians and E…tychians denying in effect the Truth of Christ's Incarnation; against these the General Councils assembled and the Eastern and Western Churches joyned in condemning them; not from their own Authority as Supreme or Infallible Judges; but as the most Authentic Witnesses of the true Apostolical Doctrine. And thus the Creed was enlarged by general Consent through the whole Catholic Church, and that which was called the Nicene Creed was made the standard of Catholic Communion.

But to prevent any Mischief by overcharging the Creed, the General Council of Ephesus did absolutely forbid any farther additions Concil Ephes. Part 2. Act. 6. Chalcedon. Act. 5.Acts 6Acts 5to be made to it, and the Council of Chalcedon ratified that prohibition. All that they pretended to, was only to give the true Sense of the Articles therein received about the Incarnation of Christ, and the same was declared by the fifth and sixth General Councils; whereof the one was to clear the Council of Chalcedon from favouring Nestorianism, and the other to shew that the Humane Nature in Christ was perfect, as to the Affections of the Soul as well as the Body.

But after this, a mighty Breach happen'd between the Eastern and Western Churches; and setting aside the different Customs in both (which might easily have been composed) there were two things, which made this breach irreconcileable.

1. The Western Churches taking upon them to make a New Addition to the Creed; as to the Spirit's proceeding from the Son; without asking the Consent of the Eastern Churches.

2. The Bishop of Rome's assuming to himself an Authority of Headship over the Catholic Church. They did not deny him a Primacy of Order, as he had the first Patriarchal See; but when he p. 22took upon him to exercise Jurisdiction in the other Patriarchates as well as his own, and sent Legates for that purpose, they rejected his Authority, and so the Breach continued.

But the Defender saith, the Popes Supremacy, if his Memory fail him not, was not so much as made a pretence till near 200 years after Des. p. 14.the Schism began, nor any where more acknowledged than in Greece, nor by any body more than by him that began the Schism. If his Memory fail him not, I am sure, something else doth. For nothing can be more notorious from the very Epistles of the Popes on Occasion of this Schism, than that this was at the bottom of all; whatever pretences might be made use of sometimes to palliate the matter. Let him but read the Epistles of Leo I. to Anatolius and concerning him; the Epistles of Gregory I. about the title of Oecumenical Patriarch; the Epistles of Nicolaus I. concerning Photius; of Leo IX. concerning Michael Cerularius, and I think he will be of another Opinion; and that the Controversie about Supremacy, to the Scandal of the Christian World, was the true occasion of that dreadful Schism. But all the Eastern Churches I said however different among themselves to this day, look on the Pope's Supremacy as an Innovation to the Church.

To which the Replier saith, the Eastern Churches were divided from the Roman-Catholic Church by such Doctrines as are inconsistent with the Pag. 15.Church of England which professes to hold with the four first General Councils.

I will not deny but the breach as to the Nestorians began on the account of the Council of Ephesus; but whether the Christians under the Turk and Persians in Asia are truely Nestorians is another Question: I think not, for this Reason. In the beginning of this Century, the Patriarch of those Christians called his most learned Men about him to consider what their Doctrine really was, and how far they differ'd from the Roman Church about Christ; since the Missionaries from thence, still charged them with Heresie: and they declared the difference to be only in Words and the manner of explication. For however they say that every Nature hath a Person inseparable from it (by which they mean no more than a Subsistence) yet from the Union of these two in Christ, they hold that there is but one Persona they c…ll it, or One Son resulting from the Union of both Natures. And as long as they hold a real Union of both p. 23Natures and one Filiation (as they speak) resulting from it, it is beyond my understanding that they should be guilty of the Nestorian Heresie. And this account was given to Paul 5. by one sent from their Patriarch, and ordered to be Printed by him at Rome. But is it not really a very hard Case for 300000 Families, ….who as is there said were under that Patriarch, to be excluded the Catholic Church, and consequently from Salvation, for not right understanding the Subtilties of the distinction between Nature and Person; as, whether Subsistence can be separated from Individual Nature; or whether an Hypostatical Union doth imply that the Individual Nature doth lose its own Subsistence? I appeal to the Conscience of any good Christian, whether he thinks Christ and his Apostles did ever make the knowledge of these things necessary to Salvation; which the subtilest of their Schoolmen are never able to explain to the capacities of the sar greatest part of Mankind.

The like may be said, as to those called Eutychians, I do not doubt but the Confusion of both Natures in Christ was a Doctrine justly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, because he could not be true Man, if the Nature of Man were lost in him; but I think there is no Reason to condemn those for that Heresie, who declare they reject the Doctrine of Eutyches, and that they hold two Natures in Christ making up one Personated Nature without mixture or Confusion, as their Patriarch explained their Doctrine to Leonardus Abel Bishop of Sidon, when Gregrory 13. sent his Nuncio into those parts, on purpose to understand A… Thom. à …esa. l. 7. c. 14.their Doctrines. And the latter Missionaries confirm the same thing; that they do not deny two Natures in Christ, but say that two Natures are as parts making up by their Union Philipp. à SS. Trinit. Itiner. Orient. l. 5. c. 5. …. Hist. S…iet. Jesu. l. 6. 12. 123.one Nature with a Person. And herein they say, Dioscorus, whom they follow, differ'd from Eutyches. And must such infinite Numbers of this perswasion in the Eastern and Western parts be excluded from the Catholic Church for not knowing the difference between a Person resulting from the Union, of two Natures; and one Nature without a Person arising from two Natures without mixture or Confusion? A late Writer of the Roman Voyage du Mont. Li…an … Da…dini Remarques s…r Chap. 2…. p. 383.Communion is so ingenuous to acknowledge that the Heresies charged on the Eastern Churches are imaginary and that they differ only in terms, from that which is owned to be the Catholic Faith.

p. 24And Faustus Naironus hath lately published a Book at Rome Diss…rt. de Origine, Nomine & Religion? Ma…o…itar…m.to prove that the Maronites have been all along good Catholics; although the Popes in their Bulls from the time of Innocent III. have still charged them with Heresie.

As to the Greeks, there is yet less Reason to charge them with Heresie; since they adhere to the Four General Councils; and out of Zeal for the Decree of the Council of Ephesus, will not allow the Addition which the Western Church made to the Creed.

So that upon the whole matter, there is nothing to exclude the Eastern Churches from being Parts of the Catholic Church, but denying the Popes Supremacy.

But he tells us, some of these (if his Authors deceive him not) as the Egyptians and Ethiopians have often made Overtures to the Pope for Pag. 15.Peace and Communion, owning him for Supreme Head of the Church, provided only they might not be obliged to renounce Eutyches and Dioscorus. I am extremely afraid his Authors have deceived him, I wish he had named them that others might beware of them. I suppose he means that which Baronius printed at the end of his sixth Tome, of a solemn Embassy from the Patriarch of Alexandria and all the Provinces of Egypt to own the Pope as Supreme Thom. à Jesu. de Concil …mn. Gent. l. 7. c. 6.Head of the Church; which was soon after found to be a meer cheat and imposture. How far the Ethiopians are from owning the Popes Authority he may find in Ludolphus, or Balthasar Tellez. It is true the Pope sent a Patriarch into the East upon a Division among themselves; but after a while, he was forced to withdraw to the remotest parts of Persia, and to leave their own Patriarch in full Power. The Bishop of Sidon relates, what ill success he had with the Patriarch of the Iacobites. And it is well known how soon the Greeks returned to their old Opposition after the Council of Florence. I had therefore Reason to say, that all the Churches of the East however different among themselves agreed in rejecting the Pope's Supremacy, and to this day look on it as an Innovation in the Church.

As to what he afterwards speaks of their Blasphemies against Pag. 16.the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, I now leave the World to judge of them; and if they be true, all Men must condemn the Popes Missionaries for notorious Liers; for the Judgment I make of them, is from the Relations they have given us. And if these be true, I can by no means allow them to be excluded p. 25from being Parts of the Catholic Church; and so that must be of far greater extent than the Roman-Catholic Church. But to go on.

I observed that which I thought a material difference in the Schisms of the Church, some I said were consistent with both Parties remaining in the Catholic Church; for which I instanced in the Bishops of Rome Excommunicating the Bishops of Asia, about Easter; and those of Asia and Africa about Re-baptizing. Others were for excluding all out of the Church but themselves, as the Novatians and Donatists.

The Replier tells me he doth not think this difference at all material. For what Reason? Because the Church is the last Tribunal Pag. II.in all differences; and whosoever separates from her is to be reputed as a Heathen or a Publican. It seems then the Bishops of Asia for not keeping Easter with Pope Victor, were as very Heathens and Publicans as the Novatians and Donatists. I hope this Gentleman after all, will not make the Church so severe in all its Censures, to cut Men presently off from being Members of the Catholic Church. I had learnt from S. Augustin, That Excommunications are A…g. …. Donat. p. 6. Collat. c. 20.sometimes used by way of Discipline to bring Persons to a sense of their Fauits, and not to cut them off from the People of God. But suppose Excommunications should always cut Persons off from the Catholic Church, is it not to be supposed that they are just and reasonable? Suppose the matter doth not deserve it, or there be false suggestions, or a precipitate sentence; is it really all one, if the Church happens to Excommunicate? But beside all this, suppose one Bishop in the Church takes upon him to Excommunicate others for little or no cause, and against the advice of his Brethren; which was the Case of Victor about the Asian Bishops; must they be cut off from the Catholic Church as effectually, as if they had been guilty of the greatest Heresie or Schism?

But not to affix too severe a censure on the Replier, in the next Page he doth acknowledge a material difference; which he saith Pag. 12, 13.was, That the whole Church was not yet engaged, and till a Decision be made by the whole Church, the Parts may Excommunicate each other, and remain Parts of the Church still. Now this, in my Opinion, makes very much for me. For in this divided state of the Christian World, the whole Church is not engaged as to any Decision of the present differences; and therefore no Parts can be cut off p. 26by other Parts from the Catholic Church. For, since the breaches of Christendom, there hath been no Representative of the Catholic Church; and is not like to be; and so the divided Parts remain Parts of the Catholic Church still. The Council of Trent was so far from it, that the famous Abbot of S. …yprian called Prejugbs legit. contre le Jan…. p. 135.it a Cabal of Schoolmen influenced by the Pope. And there is a great deal of difference between the Decision of Schoolmen and of the Catholic Church.

I cannot but still think it material to observe, that in Schisms of the most dangerous nature, the fault was laid on that Part which appropriated the Title of the Catholic Church to it self, as in the Novatians and Donatists.

Here the Defender puts in his Exceptions; for he saith, It sounds, as if I would have that Title never rightly applied, but to those Pag. 14.who do not challenge it; in likelihood because they have no pretence to it. The insinuation is, as if I were willing any should be called the Catholic …hurch, but that which is. But in earnest, I am as much against any one Part being called the Whole, as another. And from the Case of the Novatians and Donatists I have learnt to charge the Schism on those, who at best being but a Part challenge the Whole to themselves. But he cannot understand how it comes to be Presumption, and a cause of Schism in one part of a Division to assume it. I am very sorry for it, that he cannot understand it to be a presumption in a Part, to call it self the Whole. He saith, In a Division, it is not well intelligible how more than one Part can bear it. I say it is not at all intelligible how any Part can bear it. What thinks he of the Novatians and Donatists? Was it not Presumption in them to arrogate the Title of the Catholic Church to themselves? And were they not therefore guilty of the Schism?

In the ancient Church there were two sorts of Schisms, which I think it material to observe.

1. A Factious Schism.

2. A Sacrilegious Schism.

(1.) A Factious Schism; when Men out of opposition to their lawful Governours, in the Church set up separate Assemblies. Which by the Fathers are called foreign, as by S. Basil in his Epistle to Amphilochius, where he distinguisheth Heresie, Schism and unlawful Meetings. Heresie is against some necessary point of Faith; Schism is a Separation from the Catholic Church p. 27about matters of Discipline; And unlawful Assemblies are such as are set up against the Rules of the Church. Those who were guilty of these were received upon due submission; those who were guilty of Schism were to renounce their Schism; and those who were guilty of Heresie, were to be re-baptized. This was S. Basil's Judgment, and is followed by Balsamon, Zonaras and Arist…nus. And S. Basil himself saith, This was the Sense of the Fathers before him.

(2.) A Sacrilegious Schism is that which robs the Church of God of that which belongs to it, i. e. which excludes all but their own Number from being true Members of the Church. And this was the Schism charged on the Novatians and Donatists. C. Parmen. l. 1. c. ult. l. 2. c. 1, 11. C. Cresom. l. 4. c. 10, 11.This S. Augustine very often charges upon the latter, as a very high piece of Schism; for, saith he, while they confine the Church to their own Communion, they are guilty of manifest Sacrilege, both against Christ and his …hurch.

And whosoever follow their steps, and exclude any Parts of the Church from being so, and confine the Church to their own Communion, they are guilty of the same Sacrilegious Schism; which is of a higher nature than a meer Factious Schism. But the Defender saith, The Language of the World has always preserved the Title of Catholic to one Part, and given the name of Sect or Part Pag. 14.cut off to the other.

By the Language of the World, he must mean of that Part which excludes the rest. Which he calls the World by the very same Figure by which a Part challenges to be the Whole. But in consequence to this, for all that I can yet see, these who were excluded out of the Catholic Church, must be taken in by Baptism. And S. Cyprian, Firmilian, and S. Basil saw this well enough. I confess it was after carried, That Hereticks were to be distinguished, and those only to be Re-baptized who renounced the Baptismal Faith, in Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And the meaning, I suppose wa…, that nothing but that exclude Persons out of the Catholic Church; and those Hereticks whose Baptism was allow'd, were of an inferiour sort; and by not disowning their Baptism, they shew'd they looked on them only as corrupted Parts of the Church. And so did the Councils of Nice and Arles; which did Concil. Nic. c. 19. Arel. c. 8.not utterly reject Re-baptization, but only of those who preserved the Baptismal Faith. It was not therefore the Sense of the Ancient Church, that upon every dissension in matters of Faith from p. 28the general Doctrine of the Church, one Party must be excluded from the Catholic Church, and that Title belong to the other.

But he proceeds, That this Presumption cannot be the Cause of Schisms, which must happen before the Presumption.

This is very easily answered. For a breach there must be before; but the Schism belongs to those who were the true Causes of the Breach. If therefore any one Part assumes to it self the right of the whole, and requires the owning it from all that joyn in Communion with it, this very act makes it justifiable (not to separate from the Catholic Church) but not to joyn in Communion with that Part on such unreasonable terms.

Well, saith he, Suppose the dividing Parts do still continue Parts Pag. 11.of the Catholic Whole; cannot the Roman-Catholic be that Whole, i. e. Suppose there be many Parts, why may not one of them be the Whole? For still, the Roman-Catholic is but a Part, though Catholic be the Whole; as though the Ocean be the whole, yet the British, or Gallican, or Spanish, or Atlantick Ocean, is but a Part of the Whole Ocean. I am ashamed to pursue so clear a point any farther.

But he hath one fetch behind still, viz. That it is one Faith Pag. 12.which makes the Catholic Church one; if therefore the Roman Catholic Church be a Part of this Catholic Whole, the other Parts must believe as she does, or else they cannot be Parts.

I will endeavour to make this clear to him, and so end this Dispute.

The Church is a Society of Persons who own and profess the Christian Faith; Therefore Faith is necessary to the very being of a Church; for unless they believe the Christian Doctrine, they cannot be the Christian Church. This Faith which is necessary to make them Christians, is to be embraced by all who are Members of this Church; their entrance is by Baptism; the Faith is the Creed delivered to those who are to be Baptized; which being universally received by Christians, that makes the common Bond of Union in the Parts of this great Body; and this is the One Faith of the Catholic Church.

But if he thinks the Roman-Catholic Church can make all its Decisions a Part of this one Faith, he is extreamly mistaken. As will more fully appear in the following Discourse.