CHAP. I. The Church of Rome taken in the latitude of her Communion is God's onely Church.

THis titular Thesis will seem a Pa­radox, by reason of the strong pre­judice our Country is in­fected [Page 2]with against an ap­parent truth: but the suc­ceeding discourse will de­monstrate by lineary de­duction the most assured certainty of it.

Paucis opus est ad bonam mentem litteris; Sen. ep. 106.

I shall be brief; yet I hope sufficiently large, be­cause as St. Cyprian, tract. 3. de simplicitate Prelatorum. Tractatu longò atque argu­mentis non est opus. Probatio est ad fidem facilis compendio veritatis. Our holy faith needs no tedious proofs, but onely compendious declarations. That the Church of Rome did hold, and openly profess the true faith of Christ in the [Page 3]Apostles time, St. Paul Rom. 1.8. is an abundant wit­ness: That also the other Churches through the world did in faith commu­nicate with her, is there manifest; and that she kept the same faith sure and un­touched, for the first six hundred years from Christ to Gregory the great; not onely the learnedst Prote­stants for the most part confess, but by this, even to the blind is apparent, that all Councels assembled in those times, and especial­ly the first four general ones; as is most evident in the Acts or actions (as they call them) of each Councel agreed in the [Page 4]same profession of faith, held very strict communi­cation against all heresies; as in the condemnation of Arrius in the Nicen; of Macedonius in the first Con­stantinopolitan; of Nestori­us in the first Ephesian; of Eutiches, and Diostorus in the Chalcedon Councels: So that thus far we are secu­red of the integrity of the Church of Rome, that is, till St. Leo the Pope who was contemporary with the Chalcedon: whence is concluded also that all Churches then dispersed through the whole world; and their Doctors (except such as have been branded with some heresie or o­ther) [Page 5]did alwayes commu­nicate in faith with the Church of Rome. The fore­named general Councels witnessed the faith of all Churches; therefore if the erred, it is necessary that all the other Chur­ches erred also, and conse­quently that Christ had no true Church upon earth. He who desires to look in­to these things in a most compendious way, let him onely read the Epistles of S. Leo, and the Register of St. Gregory, and there he shall see most evidently, as in a mirrour the connexi­on and agreeing of things together with the former and succeeding ages. I [Page 6]speak to those that know the Law, therefore to have given but a hint is suffi­cient.

Now Gregory the great (who is not noted to have innovated any thing in the faith which he received from his Ancestors, espe­cially of St. Leo; who, as we declared was contem­porary to Chalcedon, and held by all the world in­tire in his faith) this needs no other proof then the confession of the Greeks, who alwayes reverenced him and intitled him a Saint, and therefore num­bred him among the Fa­thers; as appeareth even by the Schismatick Greeks [Page 7]in the dispute of Purgato­ry in the Councel of Flo­rence; St. Damasene, who was contemporary to St. Bede, and a little above one hundred years after St. Gregory gives so much cre­dit to his writings, that he confesseth all the East and West to adhere to them, even in some smaller things which are not ge­nerally received amongst us; whence it is most evi­dent that he was Univer­sally esteemed a follower of his, and their forefa­thers in faith.

To bring this evidence more home, we will stay in the 4 first general Coun­sels: They did before se­cure [Page 8]us of the integrity of the Roman Church, and they will do as much for St. Gregory, for no man is ignorant that he taught all the world to reverence their faith, next to the four Evangelists, whence is concluded, that he was of the same faith with them; now St. Gregory sent over the same faith to Eng­land, then involved with the darkness of infidelity by St. Austin the Monk, and other holy and learned men, who devoutly re­ceived it, and constantly and faithfully kept it until the revolt of Henry the eighth. But that the Chri­stian faith which we recei­ved [Page 9]from St. Gregory by St. Austin may to every body appear to be the same, which not onely the west­erne, but the Easterne Church did profess; that is, what the whole univer­sal Church did profess, besides what I have said before, it is demonstrable by the Epistles of St. Grego­ry directed to the East, in which he signifieth that England was converted to the faith of Rome, as ap­pears more particularly in his thirtieth Epistle, which is to Eulogius the Patriarch of Alexandria, and by re­ciprocal congratulatories received from them, for so great a gain of souls &c. [Page 10]whence it followeth mani­festly, that the Greeks and the East were of the same communion of faith with the Church of Rome, other­wise there had been no mutual entercourse of congratulatory letters in things of this nature; this is clearer then can be con­troverted. Moreover that England never erred from the faith first received, or left in any thing that faith, is manifest even to chil­dren if they cannot read; in looking upon the pi­ctures in glass-windows & graves, in seeing the altars still in some places extant, in seeing the very Chur­ches, Monasteries, old Ho­spitals [Page 11]and Colledges, with the old forms of go­vernment and Statutes, which without book are conveyed from hand to hand, as in fasting, keeping such and such holy daies in memory of certain mira­cles obtained by invocati­on of particular Saints, Annual obsequies and so­lemn prayers for the dead benefactors, institution of certain Masses to that and such other ends: if they can read, in running over the Chronicles and Histo­ries of our country, where you shall observe a con­stant memory of all these old truths, but not any in­novation or change of [Page 12]faith was ever noted by a­ny Historiographer for so many ages together; in­somuch that our country­man Gulielmus Neubrigensis in his History. l. 3. c. 3. wit­nesseth, that neither Purita­nisme nor any other heresy could fasten upon England, though in alijs mundi parti­bus tot plluluaverint haereses all other parts of the world had been infected with them. A great testi­mony written by so know­ing a man in point especi­ally of our Histories: And Wicklef's case confirms all, for he got grounds a thou­sand miles hence, as in Bo­hemia, but here was decay­ed before he was well [Page 13]born: or what is more brief, that the Church of England retained her pri­mitive communion as well with the Roman, as with all other Churches disper­sed throughout the world (except those which for heresie or schism, were no­ted by the Councels) be­sides our own Histories, no Councel, no Ecclesiastical History ever imposed the contrary upon our nation; yea it appears by all monu­ments, holy and profane, that England did positively and clearly communicate with all other, or what is all one, that England con­served her primitive faith untouched: and that was, [Page 14]as is shewed before, the Catholick faith, or the faith of the Catholick Church: therefore Eng­land till Henry the eighth was a member of the true Church of Christ; from which he revolting, made her Schismatical. All this is witnessed by Ball in his Catalogue, and Dr. Hum­fries Jesuitismes p. 2. and B. Usher in his tract of Suc­cession, whereunto an in­finity of Protestant wri­ters agree.

Some will say, as of late a Protestant Doctor did; that England was not there­fore noted in this, because there was none to note her besides her own in the [Page 15]West; but it appears, that invocation of Saints and many other doctrines were brought in as a matter of faith against the ancients: that is to say, that the Church of Rome did bring in those innovations in the Councel of Trent.

To this I answer: First, that the Doctor did not well observe into what a precipice this would cast him; for if there were no known professions of Christ but such who were ours, it's evident that then the Roman Communion was the onely Church of God, even then when it was in his judgment at the worst, or else there was no [Page 16]Church: This many of their greatest men have acknowledged; as Perkins saith, that for many hun­dred years this Communi­on had possessed the whole world; Napier upon the Revelations, that for a thousand years Popery had over-swayed the world; to the same tenure many more of them speak: All which concludes what I said.

I answer secondly: That the first and purest times of the Church taught the same Truths, as almost e­very one of them is con­fessed by those of Magde­burge in the fourth Centu­ry dedicated to Q. Eliza­beth; [Page 17]where they give us a list of Justification by works, merits, Sacramen­tal confession, Tradition, Invocation of Saints, Pur­gatory, Transubstantiati­on, the propitiatory sacri­fice of the Mass, miracles obtained at the reliques of Saints, &c. This testimo­ny had from Protestants; that is, from a body of the most learned Protestants, who joyntly had studied and examined ex professo the differences betwixt us, were enough alone.

Daneus, in his tract of the Church, a very fierce Pro­testant, dividing the whole time since Christ into ages, giving to the Apostles the [Page 18]first age, specifies that e­ven then virginity was in­troduced as more worthy then marriage. The Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ; and there was re­verence used to the very symbols Parum importune; a great deal to soon Traditi­onum indigesta moles, whole heaps of Traditions were unwisely brought in; or­dination of Church mini­sters with anointing them, which was also used in baptism, extream unction, and the like, Bishops, Pri­matus ecclesiae Romanae nescio qua credulitate in coelum subla­tus est. The Roman seats Supremacy, I know not by what easie belief, was [Page 19]even then cryed up to the very heavens, and so be­gan mysterium iniquitatis the great mystery of iniquity.

A fair confession; and in the next age he is more prodigal, but here is enough for any ingenious man; if you would also read him upon St. Augustine his tract of heresies, how he inverts the judgement of the old Church, and will have those doctrines which then were esteemed heresies, to be true do­ctrines; and in this he shews how Protestants are constrained to turn the Church upside down, which is indeed true Pro­testancy to make all old [Page 20]and first Christians here­tiques with us. To whom our country-man Perkins in his Problems agreeth, bewayling that Gods Church above thirteen hundred years ago was polluted and overspread with these errors. Usher in his latine book of Suc­cession of Protestant Reli­gion, which in the fron­tispiece promiseth a de­duction from the Apostles downward; in the book it self he doth not once make any reall pretence to it, as if he had wholly forgot­ten what was promised in the title; he turns himself to discover where there is the least shadow, the im­perfections [Page 21]of our forefa­thers, as if he gloried to see their nakedness, which Christian Charity and mo­desty would cover; but to shew the existence of a­ny Protestantisme he doth not once touch it, till the Albigenses began 1170. years after Christ, wherein it is also most evident, that he gaineth little to his purpose, though after much strugling. All this must needs convince what before in gross was decla­red from consent of Coun­cels, and the constant sense of the whole Church.

I answer thirdly: As Christians have in all ages upon the same pretences [Page 22]replied to sectaries, that some of these points were more explicitly declared in the councel of Trent a­gainst these new hereticks; but they were generally preached, & every where, even by the Greeks beleev'd before, as all writers even our adversaries confess: Nay, Luther's own writings free the councel of Trent from this calumny, because he accused the Church of all these things before the Councel of Trent was dreamed of; it being con­vocated to repress his in­novations, or new con­demnations of these gene­ral received truths: other­wise not Luther, but those [Page 23]Catholicks which first op­posed him, had been noted and accused of novelty by the rest of the body of the Church: And further, no man is ignorant, that before the Councel of Trent, England by Henry the eighth, by B. Fisher, by Sir Thomas Moore in his works, as also in his Tindal, &c. Germany by Eckins, Daven­trius, Vervesius, Hofmesterus, and others; yes the uni­versal Church by infinite writers of that age, of this and the other part of the world, did rise against these upstarts, and laid novelty to their charge.

Therefore England and other nations remain­ed [Page 24]in their primitive and Apostolical faith, until the aforesaid revolt; nay, these upstarts themselves never came to that impu­dency, to accuse Catho­licks of novelties then ri­sing, but referred it to for­mer; that is, latter pre­ceding ages, accusing their forefathers of innovation; and this hath always been, and is the practise of up­starts: Therefore Catho­licks who imbrace this faith derived from the A­postles themselves, and e­stablished by continual succession, ought not to be too solicitous of the truth of it, seeing they hold it by constant succes­sion, [Page 25]and no way interupt­ed possession.

Neither will the breach which the Greeks have made from the Latins any way help them; because they in England are as well broken from the Greeks, as they are from the Ro­mans: which evidently appears, in that they can not give their letters of communication to them no more then to us. They hold the propitiatory sa­crifice of Mass; they hold Transubstantiation, seven Sacraments, prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, veneration of images, the Supremacy of a Tope, though some of them pre­tend [Page 26]exemption, &c. As Balsamon for the patriarch of Constantinople, which Zonaras, though a Greek Schismatick acknowledg­eth to be in the B. of Rome, as the rest were accustom­ed to do; nay Nilus, after he hath much violented authorities for his preten­ces against the Popes Su­premacy, in conclusion yeelds up the bucklers, and confesseth that they are bound to obey him in all lawful commands. I said that the Greek Church ac­knowledgeth a Suprema­cy: which I therefore said, because that some of those who follow rigidly Photius his heresie, touching [Page 27]the procession of the holy Ghost, pretend that the Latin Church for that lost the Supremacy, and ipso jure et facto it was transfer­red to Constantinople, but the Abettours of this last point are almost vanished, as by divers councels, espe­cially the great Laterane, Linos, and last Florence ge­neral Councels sufficiently appears, where it was not once arrogated, neither doth Hieremy their patri­arch, or any of their poste­rior writers once say it. How ever this fundamen­tal rock of scandal of the sea of Rom's Supremacy, if removed according to those few Greeks pretences [Page 28]it would not avail you, for you deny any Supre­macy: they grant this, and would onely chalenge it for themselves injurious­ly which pretence is also ceased: These are the stones of scandal betwixt you and us, which ye force all to abjure. So that the main West and East Chur­ches have nothing to do with you, ye are no mem­bers of their communion; some smal conventicles you may finde here, and there in the West in some things agreeing with you, though no notable part at all of your communion, no not in this very nation. But the Roman in her commu­nion [Page 29]over all the world, communicates intirely without any dissection of faith; we therefore have all security in religion: but the reason concerning Protestants is clean other­wise, for seeing they have separated themselves from the Roman Church, com­mended by the Apostles, the mother from whom they sucked their faith; in which their forefathers lived, and continued, and what is proper to here­ticks and schismaticks, they went out from us, (as St. Augustiue used the like argument against the Do­natists, fusely and fre­quently out of St. John) [Page 30]they I say, are bound to make inquiry into the cause of their separation, and not so lightly beleeve the masters of their error, and as it were one part be­ing onely heard to give sense in a matter of so high concernment, but they ought diligently to hear the reasons of Ca­tholicks, and exactly to weigh all things on which their eternal salvation de­pends, or if they fear any fallacies may be used by us in proof of our Religion, let them judiciously read the reasons in Chollingworth which moved him to be­come Catholick, and counterpoise them with [Page 31]those which he puts down for his virtiginous revolt, and truly they will be for­ced to confess, that the former are unanswerable, and the latter wholy in­considerable. The ground of our hopes of salvation dependeth upon the inte­grity of our faith, and therefore we must look into it, for as St. Augustine Cont. Lit. Petil. l. 1. c. 1. It is a dangerous thing to de­fend the haughty pervers­ness of their forefathers with a more foolish obsti­nacy; neither doth it sa­tisfie as St. Augustine there noteth l. 3. c. 5. if one should say I will follow him, be­cause he made me a Chri­stian [Page 32]for none preaching the name of Christ, or mi­nistring the Sacrament of Christ, is to be followed a­gainst the unity of Christ. This is often heard from the mouths of many of the wifest amongst them; here I wax baptised, here I will re­main: but 'tis raw and filly to be born and baptised in this or the other Church, except it be in the unity of Christ; if from the other we or our forefathers have revolted, or been any way seperated, we must return from whence we have re­voked by schism or he­resie. That therefore we may proceed in so weigh­ty a matter, with more [Page 33]care and solicitude, we will shew in the following Chapters in what danger of eternal damnation (I speak not of every parti­cular person, whom how far invincible ignorance may excuse, we leave to Gods secret counsel) they have miserably precipita­ted, and cast themselves headlong by separating themselves from the Church of Rome: I do not mean here to treate of the infinite subdivisions of schism, which are this day risen up within the lati­tude of Protestantism (as in time pasts amongst the Donatists) and what sort soever of seperatists have [Page 34]always been, among whom they labour sometimes to patch up together, but ne­ver so much as think to do it with Catholicks: but I will consider how piously the Catholick root dili­gently seeketh the bough, that is broken from her, if the bough likewise shall labour to close up that breach which is made by it. August. apud Baron. 411.

Here therefore with all reason and truth may be averred, what Tertullian in his excellent book of praescriptions Chap. 29. religiously incultateth a­gainst all sectaries: If your state of division is lawful; if your souls are [Page 35]secure in this lamentable separation, the holy Gos­pel hath been falsly taught to all the world, all Chri­stians have salsly beleeved; so many thousand thou­sands falsly baptized; so many acts of faith; that is, all Sacraments falsly admi­nistred; so many acts of religion; so many mira­cles adulterously done; so many priesthoods; so ma­ny Sacrifices; last of all, so many Martyrdoms falsly undergone for the faith of Christ: all hath been in vain which in testimony of Christ hath been per­formed, if Christ Church were not the Roman, in, and with her communion, [Page 36]since there was no other acknowledged till ye came.

CHAP. 2. Catholicks may certain­ly be saved.

IT may be convinc'd with irrefragable arguments; that Catholicks in the Church of Rome remain­ing, beleeving, and doing what she propounds and prescribes shall attain unto eternal salvation; which sufficiently followeth out of what hath been said in the first Chapter, if well [Page 37]attended; much more al­so might be produced from Christian discoursing upon principles of holy Scripture and consent of old and modern Doctors.

But to bring our Do­ctors here is superfluous labour, seeing Protestants with whom I have dealt sincerely acknowledge, and ingeniously confess so much; and many of them of no small account, have delivered in books that the Church of Rome is the Church of God, and that the errors in her, are not so much as do overthrow the foundation of Salvati­on; and therefore with them many have and may [Page 38]now be saved: So Morton, Regn. Jer. page 94. the Pa­pists are to be thought of the Church of God, be­cause they hold the foun­dation of the Gospel, which is faith in Christ Je­sus the Son of God. Hoo­ker, Eccles. Polit. page 140. we willingly acknowledge Papists to be of the family of Christ. Covel. Apol. ad Archep. Cant. we affirm those who are of the Churh of Rome to be part of the Church of Christ, and those who live and die in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved: and he accuseth the Puritans of ignorance that think the contrary. [Page 39] Soame, Apol. p. 146. if you think that all Papists that die in the Papistical Church are damned, you think absurdly, and you dissent from the judgment of learned Protestants. D. Burlo in his 3. Sermon ad Clerum saith: I dare not deny, &c. D. Laud, late Arch-Bishop of Canterbu­ry in his great volume a­gainst the Jesuite, doubt­eth not of ordinary Papists salvations; and of late Doctor Taylour in his liber­ty of Prophecying; out of his principles necessarily concludes so much in his twentieth Paragraph, and number the 3^d. he speaks thus. They keep the foun­dation [Page 40] &c. and therefore all the wisest personages of the adverse party allow­ed to them possibility of Salvation, whilest their errors are not faults of their will, but weaknes­ses and deceptions of the understanding, &c. The foundation of faith stands secure enough for all these vain and unhandsome su­perstructures, &c. Chilling­worth hath both the same tenents frequently, and as you may gather by his ma­ner of expression, he grants them, yet very plainly, though unwillingly; som­times he saith that they are not damnable, other­times that they are damna­ble [Page 41]in themselves; but not to Catholicks except they stick to them out of affe­ction of error: It was well he added this, else he had in one stroke broken the whole phantastick fabrick of his verbal, not rational volume, flashy, no way substantial, as any sober man will judge.

The whole result of his work, is; that every man beleeving Scriptures, and feriously labouring to de­duce a probable sence out of them, is sufficiently pro­vided for in order to his salvation; which is to ex­clude a necessity of com­munion with any in point of Religion, as every man [Page 42]seeth against all Scripture, and the Creed. This is by the way.

There are indeed some amongst them, as Field, Usher, and others, who seem somtimes to speak more rigidly touching Ca­tholiks Salvation.

But they observe not how repugnant this is to a generally admitted, and cried up principle amongst them; which is this, name­ly, that they differ not from us in fuundamentals or necessaries.

By this they labour hard to make their breach from from us, not to be damna­ble, being they differ not in points of necessary be­lief.

Which if it hath force, doth it not inevitably, and with more strength con­clude a security for us?

We must therefore conclude, that whether they will or no, they do all conclude a possibility of salvation for us, adhere­ing to our faith delivered from our forefathers; and to omit innumerable o­thers, King James shall serve for all, for he speaks in the name of all in his speech to the Parliament, Novemb. 9. 1605. we right­ly (saith he) confess that many Papists, especially our progenitors, putting their onely trust in Jesus Christ, and his merits, [Page 44]may, and are frequently saved, detesting according to that, and judging the cruelty of the Puritans worthy of fire, who will grant no salvation to any Papists. Yea, D. Potter in his book set forth by the command of King Charles, pag. 76. & 77. confes­seth that those things which Protestants think erroneous in the Ro­man Church, are not in themselves damnable to those who beleeve as they profess; and that all may be saved with them, who bona fide beleeve and pro­fess the Roman Religion, as long as they finde no motives sufficient where­by [Page 45]their judgment is con­vinced, that they be in er­ror. To conclude all Pro­testants of any moderati­on, who are not poyson­ed with the tincture of ri­gid Calvinisme, freely con­fess, that Catholicks in their religion may be fa­ved, and do accuse them of want of Charity, that they do not think so of them. So our adversaries are our judges, as appears by their own confession, that we may attain unto salvation in the Church of Rome. I could give you a longer list, but it were superfluous in a confessed doctrine.

CHAP. 3. Schism is an enormous Crime.

SChism, if we look up­on the force of the word, it signifieth division; if it be in the civil com­mon wealth, it is called Sedition; if in the Church, Schism; or the same word may be used for both, and be distinguished by Epi­thites: in the one case it is civil Sedition, in the o­ther Ecclesiastical Divisi­on. The Church may be divided two wayes; first, by revolting from faith, [Page 47]which doth not only make Schism but heresie: hence it is that they who fall from the faith and doctrin of the Church, setting up their contrary opinions, as Arrians, Macedonians, and the like, are not onely termed Scismaticks, but Hereticks. Secondly, the Church is divided by re­volting from the chief Pa­stor, or general Councels by disobedience; or from communion with the o­ther members, although faith be conserved intire: and this makes pure Schism as it is distinguish­ed from heresie. So the Donatists, and Meletians at first keeping the faith of [Page 48]the Church, but abstain­ing from communion with the other members in divine worship, prayer, and other holy rites; or when they erected altar against altar, then, and not before, they were properly ac­counted Schismaticks; from whence it is gathered that although Schism con­tinuing, is wont to degene­rate into heresie, because as St. Hierom saith in Tit. 3. There is no Schim which doth not frame to it self some heresie, that they may seem to have just cause to revolt from the Church: Hence St. Augustine l. 2. contra Cresco­nium c. 7. Schism is a new [Page 49]revolt; Heresie is an in­veterate Schism: yet speaking in rigour heresie violating the faith of the Church, Schism breaking her charity, they are both grevious sins, seeing they seperate from the Church, and consequently from the head, which is Christ. But now we will onely treat of the greviousness of Schism.

There are a sort of peo­ple who cannot conceive, that a Christian Common-wealth, remaining obedi­ent to the civil Magistrate, can be guilty of Schism: because they do so far sub­ject Ecclesiastical persons and causes to civil magi­stracy, [Page 50]that they do scarce­ly acknowledge any Ec­clesiastical power at all con­tradistinct from the Tem­poral in a Christian Com­mon-wealth; except in things internal: as Mr. Hobbs holds, Chap. 17. n. 21, 22. &c. though afterwards he gives some smal no­things to them: he will have the Prince supreme, even in spirituals; c. 18. n. 13. and therefore they must depend on the Prince in the use of all; and at last in his last chap­ter and number, he re­peales all he had granted. The truth is, he is so zea­lous in his structure of a civil Common-wealth [Page 51](wherein he hath some excellent things) that he either neglects, or redu­ceth the spiritual common-weath or Church almost to a Platonical inexistent Idea.

Reason tells us, that as natural, so moral powers and offices are known to be specifically different, and not onely numerically distinct by their several o­perations; the difference of operations is known by their several objects, or sometime by the very se­veral tending to the same specifical object as Philo­sophers know.

Now the offices of eccle­siastical and civil magistra­cy [Page 52]are obviously known to have these ways to declare their real and specifical differences. St. Paul in his fifth chapt. to the Hebrews, even from the very begin­ning sufficiently declares it from their operations and objects, and tells us that the Priest is taken to his office from amongst men: by men is understood the temperal power, from whence this other power is severed by St. Paul. I wish the ingenuous Rea­der to peruse it all, and compare Mr. Hobbs his grounds to St. Paul and what I annex in the ensu­ing discourse.

I am sure besides scrip­tures; [Page 53]the judgement o [...] ancient Christians was fa [...] otherwise. There were bounds for ecclesiastical and temporal magistracy alwayes acknowledged great Athanasius in his Epi­stle to these who observe Soli­tary life to this purpose re­citeth, and applaudeth an [...] epistle of Hosius of Cordub [...] to Constantius the Arriar [...] Emperor. Cease I beseech thee and remember that th [...] art mortal, fear the day of judgment, intermeddle not with ecclesiastical matters, neither do thou command us in this kinde, but rather learn them of us; to thee God hath com­mitted the Empire, to us he hath committed the things that [Page 54]belong to the Church: and as he who with malicious eyes carpeth thine Empire, gain­sayeth the ordinance of God: so do thou also beware, least in drawing to thee Ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a horrible crime: It is written, give ye the things that are Cae­sars to Caesar, and the things that are Gods to God: There­fore neither is it lawful for us in earth to hold the Empire, neither hast thou (O Emperor) power over incense and sacred things. This extent is far beyond internals, or Mr. Hobb's limits. St. Ambrose also to Valentinian in his fifth book of Epistles in his oration of delivering up of Churches (Valenti­nian [Page 55]by ill advise of his mo­ther Justina an Arrian, re­quired to have one Church deputed in Milan for the Arrians) saith thus, We pay that which is Caesars to Caesar, and that which is Gods to God: Tribute is Cae­sars, it is not denied: The Church is Gods, it may not ve­rily be yeelded to Caesar, be­cause the Temple of God cannot be Caesars right. Which no man can deny but it is spoken with the honour of the Empire; for what is more honorable then that the Emperor be said to be the Son of the Church, for [...] good Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church He is diametpically oppo­site to Mr. Hobbs.

Out of these, and infi­nite other texts, or mo­numents of antiquity it is most clear; that all Chri­stians grounded upon Scriptures, as they concei­ved, did beleeve that the Church taken rigidly, and strictly was understood to consist onely of spiritual men; and a city, or a com­mon-wealth did, and doth import a body of Christi­ans considered as not con­secrated to divine service and functions, but as members of the civil or temporal body: and that therefore though as civil persons, they were subject onely to this, or that city or country, namely in civil [Page 57]or temporal things, yet in Ecclesiastical they might be subject to Eccle­siastical power; though sometimes seated in for­rain countries, (Spiritual things are not circumscri­bed by place) and conse­quently my own temporal Prince according to St. Am­brose, might be a fellow subject with me in this; which depends not at all upon the temporal power, but is wholy of another, and a higher nature; though Mr. Hobbs denies it, which I wonder at; reason me-thinks will necessarily carry us to prefer spiritu­al before temporal: and therefore St. Peter in his [Page 58]first Epistle Chap. 2. calls temporal magistracy a hu­man creature, that is in a peculiar way derived from man: But St. Paul Acts 20. speaking of Ecclesiastical magistracy saith, the Holy Ghost hath placed you to rule the Church of God: and St. Ignatius contempo­rary to the Apostles, gives us his own, and the sense of Christians in those days, when he exhorts the peo­ple of Smyrna in his Epi­stle to them, first to ho­nour God, next the Bi­shop, and then the King.

They are not therefore in the sense of Christians the same thing, a Bishop, and Christian King, nor [Page 59]their office the same; the one tending immediately to things which belong to God in order to souls: The other immediatly to things of this world, name­ly, to the external peace of Subjects; though secon­darily with reference to God also, but the Ecclesi­astical by supernatural me­diums; the other proper­ly by natural, which is more remote and indirect; and therefore St. Paul to the Hebrews cap. 5. saith, this power is conversant circa ea quae ad Deum sunt, which is no where simply asserted of the other, and in the law those are called Sors Domini in a peculiar strain.

And to speak truth Mr. Hobbs had done very well, if he had taken St. Paul a­long with him in framing his new model of a Chri­stian City; who distin­guisheth each members office very often.

All authority is not in the Princes, but Hebrews 13. lay people are com­manded to obey their Pro­vosts, and to be subject to them, &c. where he sufficiently distinguisheth the Tribunals. No Chri­stian can be ignorant of the authority which the Holy Ghost giveth to Prae­lates regere Ecclesiam Dei to govern the Church of God; so that this spiritu­al [Page 61]government is of God; and it is a government, and therefore not onely decla­rative or instructive, as Mr. Hobbs saith even of Christ himself, c. 17. n. 13. but it is a regitive power, els S. Peter had most heavily transgressed his commissi­on in adjudging Ananias, and after his wife Saphira to present death for a spi­ritual crime: St. Paul in his excommunicating the for­nicator: St. John and the rest had abused their pow­er also; which I touch in the seventh Chapter, who went beyond pure decla­ration of their guilt ex­pected not the cities sen­tence in it. Mr. Hobbs ac­knowledgeth [Page 62]indeed in Pastours a power to exe­cute a spiritual sentence, in case the Church, that is the city judgeth of the of­fence, and in like man­ner Priests may absolve, if the city judgeth it fit, else not. St. Athan. in the place cited. Quando ab avo condito auditum est; Mark M. Hobbs, Quando judicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit

It was never heard from the beginning of the world, that the Church hath her power from tem­poral power. In earnest I wish he had taken the sence of Christians along with him; in his expound­ing [Page 63]holy Scriptures, he should have read the old Councels in making Eccle­siastical lawes, which power Christian Empe­rors submitted unto as from God: Constantine in the Nicen, Martian, Leo, and all others whom the Chri­stian world esteemed not Antichristian, as they did Constantius for intrench­ing.

St. Nazianzen in his ora­tion concerning moderati­on in disputations, tells us that Praelates have power to make lawes, &c. in order to the soul. St. Damascen in his second oration of I­mages saith, Kings have no power to prescribe lawes unto [Page 64]the Church, and proves it out of St. Paul and there­fore he shews, that in framing the Church of God; that is, in declar­ing Christs model of his Church, St. Paul never at all mentioneth Kings.

In fine: I finde all Chri­stianity from the infancy to these daies growth to have conveyed to us this sence, as delivered from Christ without contradi­ction.

Which Topicks, I in­sist upon, by reason Mr. Hobbs will not be thought to reject them, neither doth he use any other considerable principles, though sometimes he glan­ceth [Page 65]at heavie inconveni­ences to a civil common­wealth, if this be granted. But I am not willing to take too much notice of it, least any might fear his aim to be, to destroy Chri­stian Religion: for surely the Romans insisted most upon that, as the Roman Histories shew, and it is clear in Julian the Apo­state.

All which the very great Turk admits as a truth; namely, a spiritual power of governing among Prae­lats, most consistent with his supreme rights over Christians; and therefore stumbleth not at the spiri­tual power of the Patri­arch [Page 66]of Constantinople, which he exerciseth over Christi­ans, and corresponds with them in this kinde, though not subject to the Turk; and therefore Mr. Hobbs needs not fear in Christi­ans, what the Turk doubt­eth not. Out of all this it followeth, that there may be Schism in defect of obe­dience, in order to the Church, without breach of duty to the Prince.

Sacriledge of Schisms saith St. August. l. 1. cont. ep. Far. c. 4. exceedeth all o­ther crimes: and St. Je­rom. gives the reason, be­cause they cut and divide the great and glorious bo­dy of Christ, and as much [Page 67]as in them lieth kill it: and therefore as he who should tear in peices the bo­dy or members of a man, should be thought to do the greatest injury and damage: So he who divi­deth the Church, which is the body of Christ, which he so loved, that he gave himself for it, doth commit a grievious fin a­gainst him.

Therefore we finde in holy scripture no crime more grievously punished, or revenged with a more dreadful torment, then Schism.

For when Core, Dathan, and Abiron (by whom what other things is signi­fied, [Page 68]saith St. Ambrose l. de 42. mansi. mans. 15. then, those who bring Schism Heresie into the Church) had separated them­selves by wicked Schism from Moses and Aaron, not onely they but their wives and children with all their substance were swallowed up into the earth, and de­scended alive into hell: Numb. 16. & this truly hap­pened to them visibly, to be an argument to future ages, how enormous the crime of Schism is before God, & to deter men from plotting or following the same.

Neither are present Schismaticks punish'd with [Page 69]lesser paines, though they appear not to our eyes. By the aforesaid example St. Augustine ep. 164. writing to Emiritus the Schisma­tick, gathereth how much this crime of Schism is e­steemed in the divine judgment. Read, which I make no doubt you have read, you shall finde Da­than and Abiron devoured by opening of the earth, the rest who consented to them consumed with fire, being in the midst of them. Therefore our Lord God brandeth that sin with pre­sent punishment, as an ex­ample to be avoided; that whom he patiently spar­eth, such he sheweth to [Page 70]reserve to the last punish­ment. For as the same St. Augustine elsewhere saith: whosoever is sepa­rated from the Gatholick Church, although he thinketh he liveth lauda­bly; for this onely fin, that he is disjoynted from the unity of Christ he shall not have life, but the anger of God remains upon him and after him: St. Fulgen­tius de fide ad Pet. c. 39. Hold certainly & doubt not, that what Schismatick or Here­tick soever, is baptised in the name of the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, if he be not joyned to the Catholick Church, what alms soever he shall do, [Page 71]though also he shall spill his blood for Christ, can never be saved. In fine; we need not go further then to blessed St. Paul to learn the horror of Schism, who in the 1 Cor. 13. If I should speak with the tongues of men and An­gels, and not have Chari­ty, I am but as brass sound­ing, or a Cymbal gin­gling; and if I have the gift of prophesie, and shall know all misteries and all sciences; and if I have so great faith, as to remove mountains; yet if I have not Charity I am nothing: If I shall distribute all I have amongst the poor; if I deliver my body up to [Page 72]the fire; if I have not Charity, that is; if I shall adhere to Schism, all is worth nothing. A heavy sentence, if deeply consi­dered: Alas, what will follow out of this, St. Pauls doctrin touching all those whom we have known, and of others whom yet we do know; who have been of untouched lives, liberal to the poor, of pi­ous inclinations, or what you will; all is lost accor­ding to St. Paul, being they were members of this Scis­matical body.

Contrariwise, who do not onely in themselves a­void Schism, and keep in­violated the Church uni­on; [Page 73]but where they per­ceive any danger of breach, each man in his rank and degree indeavou­ring with all his possible diligence to preserve it; they piously and laudably bestow themselves and their endeavours, and tru­ly merit much of God and man. Of such it may be tru­ly said, that the Charity of their neighbour doth urge them, and the love of God as St. Augustine saith, l. 15. de Trinit. doth divide be­twixt the children of the eternal kingdom, and the children of eternal perditi­on, thinking, and worthi­ly, that they have not the charity of God, who do not [Page 74]love his Church, & as much as in them do not procure her unity: It is all one from what head insolent disobedience springeth, from whence floweth Schism; or I would say the reason of Schism is not al­tered in it self, for the di­verse motive of rebellion; for whether from the am­bition of Bishops, as too of­ten it happneth, of which we have sad examples in Histories; or whether from emulation of equals: or to conclude, for what cause soever of the pride of subjects it ariseth; if it maketh separation it is Schism, and divorceth the souls of all those that for­mally [Page 75]& knowingly adhere unto it, as from the union of the Church, so from the love of Christ.

I am not ignorant what the school men teach in a speculative sense touching the extent and effects of invincible ignorance, in order not onely to Schism but Heresie; but we ab­stract now from speculati­ons or from cases which are accidental or onely im­maginary: and therefore considering Schism as it is understood in the com­mon and practical notion, which the word gives in the sence of Christians; I have universally conclu­ded that it separateth us [Page 76]from the love of Christ, and consequently from heaven.

CHAP. 4. Catholicks and Prote­stants divided by Schism.

VVE said before, that Schism was some­time taken for Separation from the Catholick faith, sometimes taken for sepa­ration from communion onely, although faith be kept entire. Now what­soever may be said of [Page 77]Schism of the first kind, of which for the present I do not treat: we say that Protestants are divided and separated from Catho­licks, whom they terme Papists, at least by Schism of the latter kinde, and that appears so manifestly; that it needeth no proof; for not onely Catholicks and Protestants do so ab­hor mutual communion in divine worship, Sacra­ments, prayer, and holy rites; that no Protestant will frequent Catholick service, especially the ho­ly sacrifice of Mass: and every Catholick will a­void whatsoever is esteem­ed religious among Prote­stants; [Page 78]as the bread of sor­row, and esteem all that shall but touch them, con­taminate and defiled.

Moreover, Catholicks excommunicate Prote­stants every year, and Pro­testants Catholicks fre­quently in England, yea they exhaust such as in law shall be convicted with pe­cuniary mulcts; and by the publick statutes and lawes of the Land, any one who shall convert a a Protestant to the Catho­lick faith, is guilty of death, but a Priest who shall celebrate Mass is made guilty of high trea­son. How therefore can one Church grow up toge­ther [Page 79]of such different members? Or who will deny that here is manifest Schism and division, if e­ver any Schism was or can be made?

O how far is this from the spirit of old Christians: they gloried in that which the ancient called [...], a sweet, humane, or neighbourly tenderness to delinquents of this kinde. Spiritual sins the old Chri­stian Church cured by spiritual Cataplasms, at most proportioned to them; when they con­tained not themselves within the compass of spi­rituallity, but made e­ruptions into sedition, and [Page 80]disturbance of the publick peace; then their Authors justly lost the benefit of Ecclesiastical mildness, and tasted sometimes the im­perial severity, but with­out death for many ages: If our persecutors would limit their cruelties within this verge, it would be less execrable; they complain of the severity of Q. Maries daies, and yet far exceed what they condemn in her.

Mr. Hobb's will put a dif­ference in these cases, for Chap. 13. n. 5. he tels us that Princes do against conscience, who permit their subjects to practice a religion, which they judge [Page 81]to be damnable to them. This was Q. Maries case as all know; but the case is far otherwise with us, for it is evident that our Prin­ces have professed, with their Doctors, that Salva­tion may be had in our Church; and therefore according to Mr. Hobbs they should not disquiet their subjects in using their liberty in their Religion. But to let Mr. Hobbs pass, and come a little neerer to the business, I will say one thing (though not tak­ing upon me to discuss or excuse her proceedings in every particular) that the state of the question is wholy changed: She pu­nished [Page 82]for innovation in re­ligion, which even a­mongst Jewes, Turks, and the very Romans was reckoned a most enormous crime. These punish us because we will not inno­vate, but stick close to the religion of our and their forefathers; a crime un­heard of amongst all who have had any taste of God, but most especially among true Christians.

Many indeed have for some years cryed out for immunitie, in order to ten­der consciences: and yet they themselves; who were the heads of those Tenderlings, did not en­dure to have Recusants [Page 83]accounted such, who have title to it above all, all things considered, as being best able to manifest to the world, their reluctancie in matter of conformity to all Changeable religions. In­deed to be grounded upon true tenderness of consci­ence that is upon religious fear of offence of God, and yet for this they are most strictly treated.

Is it not an unparalel'd exorbitancy with such high cruelties, as quarte­ring, hanging, and setting up the disserted quarters upon gates, and cittadels for fouls to tear, and de­vour, of persons most inno­cent in their lives towards [Page 84]God, and mens lawes, most quiet in order to the weal publick; onely for imbra­cing, or teaching that reli­gion of Christ, which our and their forefathers in this nation followed for al­most a thousand years: a crime most horridly oppo­site to the first principles of nature. Is it not parri­cide thus to profane the urnes of their forefathers? Is it not to the uttermost of their power, to exer­cise the forenamed cruel­ties upon them their own progenitors; in doing them upon those who are guilty of no other crime, then what they knowingly pro­fessed and endeavoured to [Page 85]transfuse to their posteri­ty? Their sanguinary pro­ceedings against these, clearly maketh known to the world their hearts ve­nemous and bloudy ran­cor even against their Pa­rents.

They commonly say, that they do not punish us for religion, but for acts of treason or fellony, &c. but it is not so common as impertinent: Thus all persecutors of Christians did palliate their cruelties. The Roman Historiogra­phers will tell us, it was for sedition that those cruel persecutions were against us, the Jewes thus labou­red to baptise their false [Page 86]accusations against our blessed Saviour, and after against St. Paul, Minutius, Felix, and other antient writers, as Eusebius, Theodo­ret, &c. will tell you of Christians accused of con­federate conventicles a­gainst all their lawes when they had their religious solemnities. Thus Juli­an to take the glory of Martyrdom from our con­stant religious progenitors laboured to deceive the vulgar. The Roman Em­perors made many edicts, and some capital against all Christian conventions: Julian against Christians children frequenting their Schooles; against Bishops [Page 87]residing in their Seas, &c. For this point of debar­ring Chistians from their schools, he had a specious prenence, which he shrewd­ly urged, that is, because the Authors who taught in Schools (Christians being not yet so commonly ma­sters of Sciences) were Eth­nicks, and therefore we had no title to them; but this is far otherwise with you, for all your learning is ours: examine all your Schools fee the prefection of your studies of Philoso­phy, Theolgie, Can on or civil law, Phisick, are they not all ours? Nay, are not the founders of all Col­ledges ours? And yet be­yond [Page 88] Julian ye debar us of our own Schools. The truth is the laws are made against religion, and a­gainst the propagation of it, against the professing of it, in frequenting Sa­craments, onely admini­stred by Priests.

When a town or castle is besieged, convoys stop­ped, all hanged who at­tempt to bring ammuniti­on, viures, hath any inter­course with them; are not these in this case persecu­ted for their allegiance, if they expose themselves to all these dangers out of du­ty to their Prince, or what­soever is Supreme Sove­raignty? This is our case, ye [Page 89]hang and quarter all who would bring unto us spiri­tual ammunition, and Sa­cramental vivers, by death ye obstruct all convoys, and why all this? Is it not to extirpate our religion; is it not to force us to ren­der the small holds we have, wherewith God al­mighty hath intrusted us, of his holy religion in our Souls?

There are some who would seem to abolish all persecution from Catho­licks, in blood and for­tunes, pretending it to be injustice to persecute for religion; and upon this glorious title of Christian liberty, and neighbourly [Page 90]tenderness, do cover ma­lice beyond all proceed­ings of Christians, even a­gainst Jews, or of the Turks, even against Chri­stians, subject to their ci­vil empire; and truly what human nature ab­hors, namely to take their children from them, and educate them in their own aiery and uncertain wayes. The Church of God in her most flourishing times as under Constantine, and The­odosius, when all Insidels and Jewes were under their power, never at­tempted such a cruelty, a­gainst the law of nature.

Nay, the Turks never do it, except upon faile of [Page 91]their ordinary exactions: which truly are nothing to the burthens of Catholicks here. If it be unlawful to persecute (as they hold) in their fortunes for religi­on, its most in consequent to hold it more lawful to persecute in children. Lands and goods are ap­propriated onely, jure gen­tium, children jure naturae: wherein no power, except God himself can dispense. To take away goods or land, is theft or rapine: This must be reduced to Homicide. Nature is so little acquainted with it, that there is not a proper appellative yet appointed for it. Christian Divines out of this principle have [Page 92]judged it unlawful even to baptise Infidels, or Jewes children against their pa­rents wills, by reason of the high title of the natural law of parents to children: hence some have taught, that baptism so attempted would not be valid. But to let that pass; here is a forti­ori, as Logitians speak, concluded: That to dis­possess parents of their children, in all schools of Christ, of law, of reason, is abominable; and there­fore I cannot beleeve, that our laws will admit such acts to be lawful: especi­ally since by precedent Sanctions its already felo­ny to take away children [Page 93]upon any pretences.

There are yet another sort, who seem more ten­der then all the rest; and pretend to reduce all to an Henoticon, or Unitive; namely, that we may all in offensively retain our own faith, referring the examine of all differences to Gods court, to whom alone as the gift of faith; so the animadversion or punishment of transgressi­ons in it proportionably and consequently is to be­long, as they say: what real effect will this pro­duce time will discover, if they proceed consequently to their principles, it must needs take away many un­christian-like [Page 94]animosities, which hitherto have been nourished. Michael Balbut, as Zonaras in his An­nals witnesseth, promised in the beginning of his Empire, that he would not compel any to follow any other opinions of God, then what each man would himself: but soon after he persecuted Catho­licks cruelly, permitting all others to do what they listed, he was a man indeed full of all wickedness. But Josephus l. 2. against Apion saith, that it was ho­norable in the Romans, that they would not com­pel their subjects to vio­late their ancient lawes and [Page 95]neligion; but content them­selves with such honors and duties, as the giver may with piety and equity give them: for they ac­count not of forced ho­nors, or duties, which come of compulsion. A course certainly worth all Princes observing in order to their subjects, and the onely way to be secure of their loyalties; as the li­berty of France in order to Protestants, and Holland to Catholicks manifestly shew. However, it is evi­dent out of these premi­ses, that there is a great Schism betwixt us in Eng­land.

Protestants are wont [Page 96]to say, that they are not separated from Catho­licks, or the Catholick Church, no not from the Roman; but that they do communicate with all the members thereof, fearing and worshiping God truly, and make one Church with them: they onely se­parate themselves from Papistry; which is not (say they) the Church, but an Imposture, adhering to the Church, or an heap of errors brought into the Church, by the tyranny and fraud of the Bishops of Rome. That they and Ca­tholicks are not two fields, sepatated the one from the other, but one; where­of [Page 97]one part is covered with nettles and darnel, over­sowed by the Pope, but the other part is purged by the labour and industry of the Protestants; but this if it were true, doth not infringe, but rather con­firm what we have said be­fore: for when we see with our eyes Catholicks and Protestants to abhor from mutual communion, who in his wits will deny that there is Schism and division betwixt them; or who will affirm, there is any unity among them re­quisite to make one Church? And that they add, that they are separa­ted from Papistry, and the [Page 98]errors of the Pope; that they are as it were the one part of the field, purged and cleansed; Catholicks the other part covered with errors: Although all this were granted (which yet is never to be granted) it makes nothing at all to the diminishing, but adds much to the augmenting of Schism, because accor­ding to this, Protestants are not onely separated from the communion of Catholicks, which is suffi­cient for Schism; but like­wise from the doctrin, which as I said before ma­keth heresie. So whilest they strive to take away, or patch up Schismatical [Page 99]division, they bring in he­retical confusion; which is much more pernitious, and more difficultly con­sistent with Catholicks.

Therefore it remains for certain, that there is a true Schism betwixt Ca­tholicks and Protestants, the question will be onely to see, which of these made first the breach.

The other main Achilles which they use, that they withdraw themselves from the obedience of the Bi­shop of Rome without Schism; is, because he had onely Patriarchall power over them, introduced onely by human right, and custom, is frivolous for to [Page 100]omit that right, that he hath from Christ over the whole Church which is Papal.

I will onely give this touch.

We indeed are principal­ly accused for adhering to the Popes supremacy as be­ing a novelty: But how clearly it was acknowledg­ed in the 4 first councels, needs no other proofs then themselves: Nay, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Ire­neus, the first writers ac­knowledge it, though in some perticulars they were offended with the Popes. Tertullian though persecuted for Monta­nism, by that sea; yet ac­knowledges [Page 101]the power. 1. de pudicitia: Audio edictum esse propositum et quidem pe­remptorium, Pontifer scilicet maximus, &c. I understand that the Pope hath made a peremptory decree, &c. where he is angry at it, be­cause against his heresie, but doubteth not of his power. St. Cyprian, as E­rasmus in his notes confes­seth, everywhere acknow­ledgeth it, even St. Stephen, and Cornelius his adversa­ries. Usher who boggles at all things, because St. Cy­prian calls Cornclius bro­ther, would seem to doubt, but Erasmus less squint­sighted will teach him, that it is in respect of his con­junction [Page 102]in faith, not e­quality of person. St. Ire­neus is so vulgarly known, that all confess it. Nay, even Usher, who seems to have sworn to corrupt the clearest passages of anti­quity; yet confesseth in the business of Easter, that St. Victor Pope, did then pretend his supremacy o­ver the rest of the Chur­ches, as appears in his Ca­tologue, as he calls it in the second Century. So that it is no new title of the Popes, even according to Usher; The full sway of this great Bugbear in eve­ry age, according to the enlargment of Christian bounds, appears still more [Page 103]gloriously in the Oecono­my of the Church before, in, & after the four Coun­cels to St. Gregory: There­fore I touch this no more. every Abodary contro­vertist forceth them to confess it to be truth.

Mr. Hobbs indeed c. 17. in the end of n. 26. denieth that there is, or can be a Rector of the universal Church, by whose autho­rity the whole Church may be convocated: He ventures also to prove it thus; because to be a rector in that sense, over the Church, is to be rector, and lord of all Christians in the whole world, which is not granted to any but God.

If he had been a stranger in Christian principles, it had been no wonder to have misunderstood so so­lemn and publick a Te­net. The Supreme Pastor of the Church hath an ac­knowledged power for preservation of the Church in integrity of faith, to convocate Bishops to a ge­neral deliberation, and de­termination of things ne­cessary to salvation; and to this end he hath co­active power in the exer­cise of his spititual sword, and no otherwise.

What connexion this hath with a Dominion over the world, I know not, which by God himself is [Page 105]denied him in holy Scrip­ture, and in this his power is distinguished from tem­poral principality. His power is spiritual, his wea­pons are spiritual, the ob­jects to which he tends are spiritual: in this confine­ment he commands with­out prejudice to temporal rights; wherein Princes are simply supreme, and onely have the coactive sword of justice, indepen­dently in respect of him, and this onely is domini­on.

He thinks this too much, and therefore will not ac­knowledge that there is a­ny subordination in Chri­stianity, out of each city [Page 106]or county; but every city is supreme to it self in Spi­ritual and Ecclesastical matters; and therefore no Prince, or city, or particu­lar Church, can be ex­communicated or interdi­cted.

Supposing the antece­dent, the consequence would without much diffi­culty be proved; for if the Prince is supreme in all things, he cannot be ex­communicated, which is an act of superiority: nei­ther the common-wealth by it self, for it were to dissolve it self into no ci­ty, if it should deprive it self of mutual commerce, which he acknowledgeth [Page 107]to be an effect of excom­munication.

But he leapes over the proof of the Antecedent, which had been indeed worth his doing by To­picks fit for him, taken out of Scripture, antiqui­ty or reason, subordinate to these principles. At least, he should have shew­ed an inconsistency of the publick welfare of a com­mon-wealth, with the spi­ritual subordination of particular Churches to a supreame, seated out of the temporal confines. Sure­ly if there were not a most ordinate subordination, all religion would turn to a Hidraes confusion, which [Page 108]were to destroy Christs acquired spiritual king­dom on earth, and is evi­denlty against the light of reason, and one main arti­cle of the Creed, which he accepteth of communion of Saints.

The excellency of Christs kingdom is, that though universal; yet it troubleth not, but much conserveth each kingdom in their particular Oeco­nomy, though much dif­ferent betwixt them­selves. St. Augustine in his city of God, Orostus in his History; and many others against the Gentiles, de­monstratively shew, the benefits all places receive, [Page 109]by this spiritual subjection to Christian principles: Amongst which this was alwayes judged one of the most capital, as St. Denise, St. Ignatius, and the rest shew of this Hierarchy in­stituted by God.

He would tell us, not perswade us, c. 17. n. 22. that all power, which an­ciently the Church of Rome exercised over particular Churches or Cities, was derived from the Sove­raignty of the Emperors, and was shaken off when their Empire was abdica­ted: and in pursuit of this, he saith, that the Roman Church was indeed very large anciently, but always [Page 110]confined within the limits of the Empire.

How false this is, no man can be ignorant, that hath perused antiquity.

Prosper, assures us, that Rome is made greater by the faith of Christ, then by the civil Empire, and so the rest of the Fathers; but especially he, de vaca­tione Gentium, l. 2. c. 16. Ro­ma per Apostolici Sacerdotij Principatum, amplior facta est arce religionis, quam solen Potestatis. St. Ireneus indeed tells us, that the reason why Rome was chosen for the head; was, because it had been the head of the Empire, but none will say that it was confined by it, [Page 111]or measured her spiritual territories by it. Who knows not that even in the Apostles time, and e­ver since vast Empires were reduced to this spiri­tual Empire of Rome, which never had to do with the Romane Empire. Our own countries ever ac­knowledged subjection to the Church of Rome under this title. Scotland also, and Ireland were most ox­thodoxly subject to the mitre, though not to the Scepter.

This is onely by the by to Mr. Hobbs. But besides this the Patriarchal right, which he hath over this our nation, cannot be de­posited [Page 112]by them: for by the same causes, authori­ty should be destroyed, by which it was set up; as the Jurists agree: seeing there­fore, that the Bishop of Rome, hath had his Patri­archal power granted un­to him by general Coun­cels; to wit, by those four first, which St. Gregory re­ceived as four Gospels, and especially here by the Par­limentary lawes, are e­steemed sacred, it follow­eth manifestly, that by less power then a general Councel it cannot be abo­lished; for our Britany is one of the seven provin­ces of the western Church, which are the ancient [Page 113]bounds of the Roman Pa­triarchate, as all know. In times past I grant, that the Arch-Bishop of Canter­bury was called Patriarch by Pope Urbane the se­cond, with Anselme, and Malmes, and the Glosse. c. Clero. d. 21. as also the Bi­shop of Algar in the di­stricts of Venice; but this was for honors sake, not for exemption, as the thing it self speaketh, and the perpetual stile of the Church; yea, the very Councel of England con­vince in Spelman.

'Tis true, those Chur­ches which were out of the Roman Empire, were subject to no Patriarch, as [Page 114]much as can be gathered out of the Canon of the Councel of Ephesus, except they put themselves un­der any one; or I think rather, that by law they ought to be subject to that Patriarch, from whom by his Apostolical Missiona­ries, they first received the feith of Christ, ob similitu­dinem casus Bulgarorum. Nam secundum Juristas; simili­um similis est ratio. As we argue of the Indies, and o­thers lately converted Ja­ponians, and those of China. It is true, de facto, some Provinces against all Law, have revolted from the Patriarch of Rome, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, [Page 115]after the division of the Empire, and others from him to others: as Russia to the Bishop of Moscovia: but these are done against all lawes and government of the Church.

The shift which our Country-men fly to, say­ing they were compelled unto it, for the too much cruelty of the Pope, with the same facility it is re­jected: for it ought to have been examined by a general Councel, and parts on both sides be heard, as in the Councel of Trent, an excellent occasion was gi­ven; (but ours appeared not) because if it be law­full for subjects to with­draw [Page 116]themselves from the obedience of their superi­ours, as often as they pre­tend tyranny, or what op­pression soever, so that themselves be actors, and judges in their own cau­ses, it is to be feared, that subjects of Princes, or whatsoever soeveraign­ties, by this occasion will lay hold on easie pretences of Rebellion: for if the reason be good, it is every­where in force, and so any province out of apprehen­sion of tyranny &c. may justly, and lawfully with­draw it self from their Prince, or the Soveraign Magistracy.

Therefore it remains [Page 117]firm: that seeing England by the most antient and strong right was subordi­nate to the Bishop of Rome, neither hath that subordi­nation been hitherto abro­gated by any lawful and sufficient Councel; yea, neither the cause heard: therefore they ought to remain under obedience of the same sea, until a full discussion of the matter; o­therwise she can be no wayes free from the crime of Schism and rebellion, according to that of St Na­zianzen, ep. 1. We desire to know what this great lust of bringing novations about the Church is, that every one that will: &c. For if they who [Page 118]now make the stir had any thing that they might disprove, or condemn in us, about faith: not so truly, we not being ad­monished, was it meet to com­mit such a wickedness: For you ought to be willing either to perswade, or be perswaded (if so be also we are in any place or number, that who fear God and for the defence of the faith have undergone great labours, and have well deserved of the Church) and then (if also then) we machinate new things, but notwithstanding by this reason, these petulant and contumelious men might peradventure have some suffici­ent excuse. Behold how this great Saint, and Doctor of the Church maketh any [Page 119]recess from the Church impossible and unlawful! The pestilent poyson of Schism, covered over with an ill plaister, may be judg­ed sound by impudent men: but truly except it be purged, and wiped to the very bottome of the soar with the plaister of Christian peace, it will be Schism still, and conse­quently bring death to those that are infected with it.

Some labour to cloak their Schism, and pretence of reformation under the fact of Ezechias. Reg. 4.18. The business is this: The Jewes had fallen into an inveterate custome of [Page 120]erecting altars, and offer­ing incense upon the mountains to the brazen Serpent, &c. contrary to Gods command. The kings his predecessors were of­ten reprehended for their neglect herein, and Eze­chiah much commended for his zeal and fortitude in breaking this ill cu­stom.

Hence they argue it lawful for kings to reform abuses in the Church, as in England. All which is nothing to the purpose: For first, he did it with consent of the high priest, as Josias also did, in com­pleating the work begun by Ezekias, as appears c. 23. [Page 121]Secondly, there is no doubt but Princes are obli­ged by their office, as be­ing nurses of Gods Church, to labour especi­ally with the Prelates of the Church, to suppress all emergent, insolencies or innovations.

Thirdly, Which is the main point Ezechias did not erect any new al­tar of division against the mother Church, Jerusa­lem, but took away the breach or division which be found made by o­thers.

In the case of, England, it is just contrary. King Henry the eighth began, the rest have increased the [Page 122]Schism, and erected new altars of division, against Gods ordinances in the old and new law, as Jero­boam did, Reg. 11.29. which God so severely punished. So that I cannot see at all, with what modestie this fact of Ezechias, or Josias could be alledged to war­rant the dissection of our Country from the Church, since it plainly inferreth the contrary; namely, that abuses, though never so much authorized by wicked Princes, or long customs are to be abolish­ed by succeeding Princes, to redintegrate the prima­ry union, and conformity with the mother Church, [Page 123]which is the case of Eng­land.

A main Objection which they use for their Schism is, because as they say, we forbid a discussion of our tenents by the light of reason, which they e­steem to be against reason, which should be our guide in all things, and especial­ly in matters of religion.

CHAP. 5. Of what use Reason is in disoussing of Faith.

PHilosophy and Faith go upon contrary princi­ples; and hence peradven­ture they lay hold of occa­sion of error: the antiquity of opinion in Philosophy, if it be any thing, it must be fortified with new reasons, otherwise in process of time it vanisheth: but in Christian faith, reason it self, that it may be effica­tious springeth from anti­quity; otherwise, in that [Page 125]it is new, it vanisheth a­way, according to that of St. Augustine against two E­pistles of the Pelagiuns c. 6. The antiquity of our do­ctrine declares the truth of it, as the novelty of the o­ther shews it to be Heresie. In Philosophy reason raigneth; here it serveth and consequently is capti­vated according to the A­postle: It is not quite re­jected, neither is it admit­ted out of the bounds of a servant: for as Roger Bacon excellently speaketh in his fourth part of his grea­ter work: We do not seek reason before faith, but after it. Here was Chilling­worth's error, in objecting [Page 126]that Catholicks, as well as they, recur to reason in faith: we do indeed use reason as a servant, not as a mistris. We put it, as Frier Bacon notes, after faith, not before it: but these new pretenders to divinity, prefer their rea­son before faith: Turn the cat in the pan, and make faith subservient to their reason: as Teriullian a­gainst Hermogenes. They descend from the Church to the School of Aristotle, they appeal as to the su­premest court, to the seat of common sense, and as St. Basil upon the 115. Psal. They constitute their sense the measure of all [Page 127]things; is not this to in­vert the whole frame of Gods spiritual world? Ac­cording to that of St. Basil in his 43. ep. As in things which are seen with the eyes, experience is of more consideration then reason, so in the most excellent tenents of our faith is of more force, then any jun­cture of reason. O how St. Augustine meets with these socinians towards the end of his 56 Epistle! To these straights they are driven, who finding them­selves most miserably laid on their backs, when their authority is put in bal­lance, to see how it will endure the test against [Page 128]the authority of the Church. They do there­fore endeavour, under the shew and promise of rea­son to quel the inmoveable authority of the holy Church; neither is it any news, for it is the accu­stomary practise of all He­re ticks: and in his, 22. Ep. he saith: That if a Catho­lick desires a reason of his saith, that he may under­stand what he beleeves, there must be an eye had to his capacity, that he may by reason obtain a proportionable measure of understanding; whence we learn, that's the regular discipline of hereticks un­der a false vizard of reason [Page 129]to lay aside the most firm authority of Gods Church. Hence we also learn, how Catholicks make due use of reason, in matters of Faith, explicating holy mysteries according to each capacity.

I wondered to finde Mr. Hobbs in his 12. Chap. n. 6. to be so positive, in attri­buting it to an error of the vulgar, to hold that Faith is not begotten by study, and natural reason. His principal ground is, be­cause it were impertinent to oblige us to give an ac­count of our Faith; that is, to render a reason of it as he would have it Eng­lished, if our reason doth [Page 130]not acquire it. Of how great force this his reason is, I leave any man to con­sider.

He deals fiercely against inspiration of Faith; and saith, all the world is mad in asserting it, he conceives that every Christian would be a prophet, if he had his Faith by supernatural in­fusion.

Therefore in order to him, Chillingworth, and the rest; and any who shall desire to know in what manner, or how far Catho­licks use the assistance of reason, perticularly in Faith: I will briefly deci­pher it, because here is the main scruple of our new [Page 131]modellers of Christia­nity.

To this end, we must un­derstand that Logick hath two questions. The one is, An sit? Whether the thing questioned hath any real existence: The other is, Quid sit? Or Propter quid sit? That is, what the essence of it is, or by what cause it is?

In the first question, as Neophites, we make enqui­ry after the truth of Ca­tholick Faith, by weigh­ing the motives: which being considered ab intrin­seco, or from the internal principles of them, we finde profoundness, even surpassing the greatest [Page 132]jugdments, with simplicity, proportioned to the weak, est understandings, con­tempered with sanctity, compared to the tenents of all sects, either of Infidels or Hereticks, wherein they do infinitety exceed them all.

If we do consider ab ex­trinseco; that is, by their inseparable annexed habi­liments: we finde perpe­tual, and inviolable suc­cession, delivered from hand to hand, from the very fountain to us, wit­nessed sufficiently by the very Church walls; we find also most exemplary holi­ness of those, who imbrace this faith, which St. Augu­stine [Page 133]celebrates, in his book intituled of the manners of the Catholick Church: also wonderful change of manners in those who are new converts by the ancient, much valued An­gelical purity, and stupen­dious austerity of both Sexes, who imbrace He­remitical, Cenobitical, or Anachoretical reclusions: also the gallowes adorned with the blood of so many illustrous martyrs, as in our Country, where so many learned men expose themselves to all cruelties, for the good of others, and voluntarily under go igno­minious death daily for the confirmation of others: [Page 134]Lastly, the working of miracles, that is, such wonders which either in substance transcend all na­ture, as to restore sight to them that are born blinde, or raise the dead, and the like, or in the manner as to cure diseases, without applying causes, &c. Out of these and the rest of the motives, by reason we at­tain to be able to make a firm judgment; first, of the manifest credibility of Ca­tholick misteries: inso­much that we clearly see, that it is more reason to be matriculated into the Church, then into any o­ther Sect. This step be­ing made and digested, by [Page 135]further penetrating, dis­cursively all the motives, we find the conjunction of them all to be impossible to the whole latitude of nature: which a wise man weighing, in comparison to the continual mutation, and vicissitude of all natu­ral causes, will be able to demonstrate the Catholick to be supernatural, and absolutely true, because reavealed and inspired by God, which is the last re­solution of our Faith; wherein as you see reason conducteth us in our en­quiry, to the full result; that is, to the formal ob­ject of our Faith; which is, God revealing, where [Page 136]we stick not for our rea­son: but for the revela­tion of God, wherein Christian Faith is com­pleated. It is true, that the first Christians, to whom these revelations were immediately made, were prophets: but to the especial assistance of God in our assenting to these su­pernatural truths already revealed, doth not make prophets, which is an acti­on of a different nature from formal revelation, as school-men at large de­monstrate in the tract of Faith, and it is evident in it self; wherein Mr. Hobbs seems to have erred.

Hitherto we use reason [Page 137]in the disquisition of the truth of Faith ac­cording to the question, An sit.

In the other question, called, Quid sit? Or by what means, or causes is it? Which amongst Logi­cians is the nobler questi­on. In this we proceed not by doubtfully enqui­ring of the truth of objects of Faith, or of their real existence, which is dispu­ted in the State of our Ne­ophitism; but all fluctu­ancy and doubt deposed, touching the truth of them; wherein our Soci­nians boggle, for they stick still at An sit. But our learned men proceed to [Page 136] [...] [Page 137] [...] [Page 138]the other question, la­bouring to understand the truths, speculating the essences and natures of each of them, and the Sub­alternal connexion of them each to other, which is the proper Sphear of a divine, or school-man, for his own and others satis­faction. There are the bounds of our reason, in­tervening to attain and to preserve already attained Faith; wherein as is clear, reason is the servant, not mistris.

But on the contrary, ye give no limits to reason: but as in the progress, or search, so in the possessi­on of Faith, ye still stick [Page 139]most to your reason, and therefore ye doubt or de­ny, what ye understand not, for ye perswade your selves, that the mysteries necessary to be beleeved, ought to be per se nota clear in their very terms; insomuch that every one of you brag your abso­lute comprehension of them. And hence it comes, that the Socinians call in question, if not ab­solutely deny the diety of the Son, and of the Ho­ly Ghost; hence with the Pelagians, they reduce Christs death to example of our imitation onely, not to be the price of our re­demption; hence gene­rally [Page 140]they profess with Chillingworth and others, whom I could name; that holy Scriptures are to be understood according to each mans small reach of reason, as if nothing were contained in them, what is not commensurated to our understanding, and therefore needs not any supernatural aide from God; which Mr. Hobbs ve­ry well confutes, Chap. 17. n. 28. Yet he saith, it be­longs to the City to inter­pret Scriptures, at least in all such things, which he will please to call juridical, or Philosophical, which have far too great latitude in his sense. For purely [Page 141]supernatural, he speaks more reason, then any o­thers of these new ones: from whom hath pro­ceeded contempt of Pre­lates, and Doctors; be­cause every one of the most inferiour Laytie of these Enthusiasts by their impetuous imaginary in­stinct, and private spirit: or what is the same, their particular ratiocination, though most groundless, are supreme and infallible Masters and Doctors to themselves. Neither do they beleeve any thing to be Divine, which flowes not from the sensless im­petuosity of their imagi­nations, without any [Page 142]respect to higher conside­rations.

Yes truly, those who are esteemed the wiser sort, following Socinas, stick in the same puddle; expound­ing holy Scriptures and all mysteries of our holy Faith; not according to the universal reason of the Church, delivered by the hands of the ancients to us as Catholicks do, but by their private spirits, or by the conduct of their private reason: A thing ridiculous to conceive, that the profoundness of Chri­stian misteries, should not exceed the shallow reach of our reason. Which er­ror is the Source of all dis­sonancies, [Page 143]and inconstan­cies amongst them: which even by intrinsecal & ne­cessary consequence, must needs cause a perpetual flux, or issuing out of changes of conclusions of Faith: for the effect can­not be more noble then the cause.

On the other side, Ca­tholick tenents must by a great necessity be always constant: because they depend not upon our dai­ly changable reasons, or ratiocination, but upon the unvariable word of God, revealed and deli­vered by the Church.

The sum of all is: that the verity of a Philosophi­call [Page 144]conclusion, is demon­strated by the verity of human reason: the ve­rity of Christian reason is proved by the verity of ancient faith; indeed one verity may be diverse, but never adverse to another. Neither doth Divine con­tradict human; but often surmounteth it: and therefore it is compre­hended by the sparks of our scanted reason, but it is setched from else where, Ask thy Father, &c. This is a safe way, in which there is no danger to be dash­ed upon the rocks of er­rors, according to that of Athanasius in his Epistle to Epicietus, teaching how [Page 145]Hereticks, & Schismaticks are to be treated with. There is no better way, and indeed it is alone suffi­cient to answer them: Those things not to be or­thodoxall, which our fore­fathers have not taught us. This is plea enough against all pretences, in the judgment of Athanasi­us: let therefore Christi­ans, and they that bear the name of Christ, be a­shamed; if leaving the fountain of antiquity, from whence all sound doctrin floweth, to follow certain small rivolets, full of va­nity and foolery, shadow­ed under a precious shew of reason: which from [Page 146]whence they had their Source and beginning none for certain know. We Catholicks therefore adhere to the holy Coun­cels and ancient Fathers in the first place after the ho­ly Scriptures: neither dare we accuse them of foolery, a Christian minde will hurdly permit them to be rashly and presumptuously defamed: But these men, and others of the some tribe, who make the glim­mering of their reasons the rules of Faith and Re­ligion: easily reject them. It is a wonder rather, that they do not with their su­percilious spectacles clime up the heavens; and there [Page 147]with the Albumazar, Aicaba­tius, Massaeius, and infinite other Astrologers, seek out the verity of all Reli­gions: and one while, for the conjunction of Saturne with the Sun adhere to Ju­daismes; another while, for the conjuction of Mars with Jupiter, promote the Chaldaick Sect; if with Venus, the Mahumetical; if with Mercarie, the Chri­stian. So by some little shew of reason drawn: from the heavens, they may change their religion (as for the most part, they are wont to do) several times of the year, accor­ding to the several domi­nations of the planets, or [Page 148]certainly every year accor­ding to the annual domi­nion: or if this seems to much aerial, they may ac­cording to the Successory government of those in­telligences, which they call Seconds, appoint the stations, retrogradations, and cadences of their di­vers sects and religions, as some not without applause of such lunitick persons have unhappily enough attempted: as especially some attribute the inno­vation of Luthers sect, to the new lunary inteligen­ces then 1517. underta­king the worlds govern­ment. And Ticho Brahe affirms that those sects, [Page 149]which indeed are derived from mens brain-sick fan­cies, may be found out in the heavens, both in their risings and fallings: Of which this present age administreth change e­nough.

The truth is; Judas the Apostle toucheth these home: whatsoever they do not know they blas­pheme; whatsoever like bruit beasts, they know they are corrupted in. They are indeed so swoln in their imaginations, that breaking they corrupt themselves and others

CHAP. 6. A digression against Mr. Hales, the supposed Author of the Trea­tise of Schism: And a farther proof of Schism in England.

Mr. HALES, who is said, and suppo­sed to be Author of the Treatise of Schism; ob­jects that Schirm may be spread over all the parts of the Church, and so the whole be infected; in which case Schism cannot be imputed to one place [Page 151]more then to another: and this may peradven­ture be affirmed of the se­puration of England from other Churches, as it was touching the ancient cele­brating of Easter; wherein also, a how Schism is rison, for aching not necessary; yea, (saith he) in a matter ridiculous. If I should bring the general Councel of Nice condemning and separating from these Quarta-decimans, he would deride it; he accuseth all the ancients of foolishness in this matter: Thus he sporteth and trifleth in mysteries of faith, to root out all faith out of the mindes of the faithful.

I deny first what he a­verreth; that the West and East were at variance: that is to say, that that Schism did invade, the whole Church, and cleave her into two parts for the matter of Easter, but that some considerable part did raise stirs in the East, yea, in the West also, is mani­fest amongst historians; this cause of division in a late work de consilijs made in latine by a Country man of ours, is laid open to the very root.

But to peruse a little more the grounds of his mistakes in this impor­tant point of Schism, we must alwayes remember [Page 153]what before we noted; that Schism is not proper­ly a seperation for Heresie or Error in point of do­ctrin, or Faith; but in point of disobedience, which is not a trivial mat­ter, as all common-wealths will easily conceive, being that nerve, upon which all order de pends; and there­fore the Quarta-decimans being rebellious to the mandatory decree of Nice, all Catholicks had reason to decline their commu­nion.

I know Theodoret, in l. 1. c. 13. of his Ecclesiastical History, and other learn­ed men with St. Athanasius in his tract of Synods, do [Page 154]esteem that the question of Easter was not defined, as a point of faith, but com­manded to be observed as a custome derived from the Apostles; and in con­firmation of this, they ob­serve that the Councel va­rieth the form of speech in a migitatory way, from the accustomary stile in declaring points of faith, saying: Visum est ut omnes obtemper arent; in question of faith, they did not write visum est. But credit Ecclesia Catholica: Thus the Ca­tholick Church beleeved &c. And therefore, if his undervaluing the cause of this Schism, grew from this gross misprison of the [Page 155]state of the controversie, he should do well to re­sume his better diligence in examining it.

He might with greater appearance, have brought that folemn word combat touching person & hypo­stasis, betwixt the eastern & western Churches: which great Athaenasius more clearly opened and closed up again. Many contested ignorantly after the man­ner of those who fight with their eyes shut, and beat the air. Some held three hypostasis, other but one in the diety: from whence great contentions arose: But as Athanasius relates: When we asked out [Page 156]of what reason they speak these things, or why all do use three kinde of words? They made answer, that they beleeved in the Trinity, &c. Appro­ving therefore this inter­pretation and excuse, we examined those who asser­ted that there was but one hypostasis, &c. Who af­firmed that they understood Hypostasis, that is person, to be all one with [...], that is essence, &c. To con­clude all by the grace of God, after this interpre­tation of the words did approve of the best and exactest rules of faith, which the Fathers of Nice had instituted.

Some indeed for their [Page 157]material errors, did deny communion; but as yet there was no formal Schism betwixt the Chur­ches, but perticular per­sons, perhaps it might have grown to a greater head, had not great Atha­nasius interposed or rather had not Christ Jesus hin­dred it.

But among us, the altar of division, is erected a­gainst the altar of union with Christ: out of which it is impious to celebrate Christs misteries: the dif­ference is not of words, but substance, not against the letter, but the life and sense of the holy Sorip­ture. If these things be [Page 158]trifles; why do you sepa­rate your selves? Why do you punish Priests with death, who are followers and ministers of our com­munion? Against all meek­ness and clemency of the ancients. To conclude; Why have you built a new altar, framed the stones of scandal and division? At leastwise, ye have broken down and demolished all the old ones? insomuch, that ye abhor the very name of tar, as these la­ter times in your d [...]in [...] stick, yet fiery contention in pulpits and pamphlets about 12. years past, sussici­ently testifie: to what end is all this, if the difference [Page 159]betwixt you and us be no­thing else, but about a Cock and Bull?

And that the same Au­thor, affirmeth it to be lawful to communicate with the Arians, and Eu­tychians, Nestorians, Pho­tians, Sabessians; because it is not certain, that these invented their heresies out of malice: but it is other­wise concerning the Mani­chees, Valentineans, Ma­cedonians, and Mahome­tans; because it is mani­fest to all, that they taught these blasphemies against their own judgements.

I wonder at this asserti­on, from a person of his eminency: for abstracting [Page 160]from the intention of the former, against whom not­withstanding there was sufficient presumption, as among the ancients is clearer then the Sun, no less then against the other; but to grant, I say, what is not to be granted, what is that to me, whether they have vomitted out their heresie to the eternal destruction of souls, with a formal or onely inter­pretive intention to de­ceive? As long as I com­municate with them, and leave the truth taught from the beginning, and delivered by the hands of the Fathers unto poste­rity. We must look here [Page 161]upon the heresie, not the minde or intention of the heretick: that not this, damneth the souls of those that communicate or per­tinatiously adhere unto it: as St. August. often argueth in the the errors of St. Cy­prian, and the Donatists, whom this Author also de­rideth. But to come home to him: Who knoweth not but that Luther against his own judgement began this Schism? Who know­eth not that Henry the eighth framed it out of a fained and adulterate con­science? Who of us doth not know, that Queen E­lizabeth out of no Religi­on but politick ends, per­verted [Page 162]the Schism into Heresie? If therefore for this reason, Communon with such are not lawfull, (as he affirmed of the last Apostates) neither cer­tainly is it lawful here.

Neither will it help them what the others are wont to object; that Eng­land did enjoy a priviledg, which they call Cyprium; indeed Tomakas, C [...]drenas, and many were that the Bishop of Cyyprus, was de­clared exempt from the jur­isdiction of the Bishop of Antioch: The consequenc [...] most not be drawn to Eng­land, in respect of the Sea of Rome, except an express priviledge can be sheweth, [Page 163]which hither to was never dreamed of; yea, besides other common titles of o­bedience; the case of the Bulgars, may, and ought to be drawn unto us, to wit, for the title of conversion, as the decision of the cause is in the law.

Indeed there is extant a decree in Con. Consta. c. 2. That Bishops must not confound and intermingle their Churches, but stand to the appointed rules and their certain limits are affigned to the Patri­archs. In the first Coun­cel of Ephesus also, it is de­creed, that no Bishop in­vade the province of ano­ther, which was not first [Page 164]and from the beginning under his, or his ancestors jurisdiction: Hence it was, that the cause of the Church of Cyprus was heard, which the Bishop of Antioch would have sub­ject unto him: but it was judged that that yoak should be shaken off upon another title.

The Country was con­verted unto Christ by St. Barnabe, whose relicks be­ing found there with St. Mathew's Gospel upon his brest, written by St. Barna­be; this gave occasion to commence a sute of ex­emption, that they might enjoy the priviledge of a Metropolitan: which was [Page 165]granted; so that after­wards they were onely subject to Constantinople. The general Councel it self in the eighth Canon speaks home of it, and checks the Bishop of Anti­och, for having transgres­sed Ecclesiastical and Apo­stolical rules in this pre­tence: namely, because he did ordain in Cyprus, which was alwayes an act of jurisdiction, to which he had no just title, because these Churches were never put under him, as appears in the Councel. What si­militude hath this case with the known subjection of England to Rome; known I say, and acknowledged; [Page 166]even by our lawes ever from the conversion of the Country under St. Gregory. All lawful mutations of Provinces, which were ever made, as long as the Church was in her full power, had to this effect the especial authority of some general Councel. So in the Councel of Constan­tinople many dioceses, and some whole Provinces were made subject to that Patriarch, which before were subject to Ephesus, and the Primate of Trace. So in the Councel: of Cal­cedon, exchange of Provin­ces was decreed between the Patriarch of Antioch, and Hierusalem: and in the [Page 167]first general Councel, the sea of Hierusalem was crea­ted a Patriarchate; and the refore the Fathers took some Provinces from the Patriarchate of Antioch, o­thers from Alexandria: And in the foresaid exam­ple; the Cyprians could not shake off the authority of Antioch, till the decree was produced of the Councel of Ephesus. Much loss this Iland ought to se­parate from the Sea of Rome, by reason of the ti­tile of conversion, and on­ly under Gregory the first, but long before the en­trance of St. Austin, under Pope Elutherius, by Elva­nus, and Meduinus, Priests, [Page 168]being requested thereunto by King Lucius, Anno Dom. 179. Whilest it was pos­sest by the Brittans, in which primitive faith, it remained immaculate and uncorrupted (except the question of Pascha, in which it was corrupted by Picts, and Scots) indeed they resisted St. Austin, be­cause they thought he si­ded with the Saxons, who had expelled them by force out of the kingdom, and because they had an Arch-Bishop of their own of Legancestriae.

Those other things, which the Author so often cited of the Treatise of Schism, mentioned (for he proves [Page 169]nothing:) concerning the nullity of power, or of all superiority of Christi­ans as they are such; so that no obedience but sim­ple reverence, is due to our betters, except that which may arise, by cer­tain convention amongst men, not by right.

This Tenet indeed, if made good would make all Schism impossible; all superiority ridiculous, and arbitrary but it is far from Christian verity, being a­gainst Scripture it self, and all common sense of Chri­stians. And truly, what­soever the same Author saith, in, and for the cause of the Donatists; if it hath [Page 170]any favour, he doth not onely accuse St. Augustine, but the whole Church of foolishness, and malice; and all the Prophecies of the fignes of the Church, upon which St. Augustine, & before him Optatus, Hie­rom, and all Bishops and Doctors rely, out of the old and new law, the Pro­phets and the Acts of the Apostles; all which in them this man derideth: what he speaketh of the use of Images, he simply af­firmeth, as the rest; but is so far from proving any thing, that he doth not so much as attempt it, nei­ther is it a thing worthy my insisting upon, since [Page 171]every Abodary Contro­vertist, makes it obvious to children. Yet Mr. Hobbs will force me afterward to joyn issue with him in it.

In fine: The Treatise of Schism speaketh many things which seem distru­ctive to Christian faith, which he barely propo­seth, or rather supposeth, out of which false supposi­tion he doth falsly con­clude, that there is no Schism in the Church; but as Aristotle Pol. l. 2. c. 4 right­ly admonisheth: Suppo­sitions indeed may be made, as every one plea­seth, but not impossible ones.

Neither is it of more mo­ment, what Antonius de Do­minis l. 4. and others con­tend; that it was not law­ful for the Africans to ap­peal to Rome, according to the 22. Canon. Concil. Mele­vit. And in like manner England was not bound to recur thither, or else­where; but justly provi­ded for its own right, whilest it withdrew it self from the Roman yoak; as the African Church living in the district of the Patri­archate, procured to it self the same ease.

First I say; that Africa did in no wise withdraw it self from the obedience of the Sea of Rome. I add [Page 173]moreover, neither did it deny the right of appeals, but in certain cases & cer­tain persons; to wit, simple Clearks, which did appeal thither without observing any order of law, which the Bishop of Rome did & doth at this day condemn; o­therwise read St. Augustine, ep: 162. Omitting others, who expresly affirms the right of appeals to the Sea of Rome. So the pretended Canon, made by the consent of the Bi­shop of Rome, sheweth no other thing; but in no wise, as I said, did it with­draw it self from the o­bedience of the Sea of Rome. Neither is there [Page 174]the least shew of it, but of the clean contrary in the reciprocal letters of that Councel to the Pope, and of him to them; as may be seen in the body of the Epistle of St. Augustine, it would be tedious to learn­ed Readers if I should write them out, they will more easily recur to the place cited.

I add further, worthy to be noted: If the right of appeals had been there abrogated, yet it concludes not, that the jurisdiction of the Sea of Rome over them, was anulled: except any should be so senceless, as to imagine that the pre­fects of the Pretorian [Page 175]Court, were not subject to the Roman Emperors, because their authority deserved to be advanced to such a height, that it was not lawful to appeal from them, l. 1. F. de offic. Pref. Praet

I am not ignorant, that some Grecians as Nilus contend, that the right of appeals which the Seat of Rome hath (for he ac­knowledgeth that) in re­spect of the other Patri­archs, doth not convince that Seat to have jurisdi­ction over them.

Because by the same reason the constant Inopo­litan having by the Coun­cel of Calcedon, Can. 9. [Page 176]the same power over their Metropolitans, doth not exexcise jurisdiction over them.

I answer; That be deni­eth only the Bishop of Rome to have the same power over the general Patri­archs, which he hath over other Bishops who are ordained by authority de­rived from him, and there­fore concludes, that the Pope cannot trouble their ordinary government, which is true.

This therefore confirm­eth what hitherto hath been said; and maketh good, that England by all law remains subject to the Sea of Rome, under pain of Rebellion.

CHAP. 7. Protestants have made this Schism.

IT is clearer then noon day, that not Catho­licks, but Protestants have made this Schism, and di­vided the Church: be­cause, when in any Com­mon-wealth governed un­der the same Prince, or Soveraignty, and by the same lawes a few men withdraw themselves from the obedience of authori­ty, and increasing in num­ber, they begin to set up their conventicles, make [Page 178]lawes; and the rest of the body remaining in the ancient manner of govern­ment, under their own Soveraign power, pro­claim a war: It is mani­fest, not the Body of the Common wealth which still persevereth in the same state; but these few men receding from the Body with their adhe­rents, have made the divi­sion, and blown up the re­bellion: In the same man­ner have Protestants be­haved themselves towards Catholicks, before the scandal of Henry the 8^th. or rather of Luther, the whole Catholick Church consisting of divers King­doms, [Page 179]in which England is comprised, did obey di­vers Princes; were gover­ned by divers civil Lawes and Statutes, yet they worshiped God but in one faith, and in one sacrifice, were sanctified with the same Sacraments, did ac­knowledge the same spiri­tual Rector, the Bishop of Rome. Then arose Luther, Henry the eighth, Queen Elizabeth, &c. Who brake Communion with the whole world, to take a­way the sacrifice of the whole Church, and the greater part of the Sacra­ments, and the holy rites, to revolt from the Bishop of Rome, all the Church [Page 180]besides persevering in the same unity, worship and obedience, which before it did profess.

Who therefore doth not see, that they have re­volted from the Church, and erected altar against altar (if they have any) and have been the sole Authors of the divi­ded unity of the Church: I add, that Schism is al­wayes a dividing of an uni­ted body, or a separation of a part from the whole preexistent, or fore being: now the Catholick Church was an united body, ex­istent before Luther, from which the Protestants might go out, and divide [Page 181]themselves; but the Pro­tesants seeing they were no where, could make no body from whence the Catholicks could recede; therefore the Protestants could onely first make the division, and blow up the Rebellion.

The other often heard phantastick refuge, where­with when these are bran­ded with novelty, like men in a desperate nau­frage, they catch at any broken reed; namely, that they always were of us, and amongst us, and so continued till they were cast out of us.

To the first part I an­swer; That till Henry the [Page 182]eighth they were indeed amongst us; that is, all their progenitors were Catholicks; this every man in the testaments and records of each family can witness, for the world till then knew no other: all publick profession of Re­ligion was that.

To fly to interiours, that is to say, that they were in their hearts, Pro­testants, were to recur to divination: which were more then childish in things of this nature, when all exteriour acts contra­dict any such dreams; and yet to this clear non-sense they are put, being com­pelled to assert their [Page 183]Church for above a Thou­sand yeers, to have been invisible, as it is understood under the notion of a body separated from the Ro­man; you will see it in Whit­taker in his 2. and 3. Con­troversie p. 479. Field see­ing how destructive this Tenent would be, in his 10. C. Accounts it foolish, to say that a Church should not have always known professors; and White in his defence of the way c. 4. p. 790. Saith positively, that Religion is false, if it cannot shew a continual descent; yet, p. 520. he is not ashamed to say, that their Church hath had in­deed always succession, but [Page 184]not visible; so that being pressed to shew the real svccession, he is constrai­ned to recur to this ridicu­lous divination of mens interiour Protestancie, though they professed o­therwise.

Which contradictory shist of their's, were e­nough to destroy their pretended Church. Pri­deaux in his ninth Lesson of the invisibility of the Church, after many braggs comes to this poor refuge, and beats about like a man desperate, to save his case upon a broken reed, or distracted sentence in any obsolute or forlorn Author.

But sa I noted: They will say that they divided not the Church, neither did they recede from it, but were cast out of it by ex­communication of the Pope; and therefore not they, but the Pope was the Author of this division: but this helpeth them no­thing. For to omit; that excommunication is a pu­nishment which is inflicted upon such, as go out of the Church, not so much cast­ing them out of the Church, as depriving them of the participation of common benefits thereof: to omit this it is notorious­ly known to all that Henry the eighth, Luther, and [Page 186]Queen Elizabeth went out of the Church before they were excommunicated, as being condemned by their own proper judgments: and so they separated themselves, and before a­ny excommunication, made the Schism, in pu­nishment whereof they were excommunicated: touching Henry the eighth, it is manifest, that he was excommunicated for his disobedience and contu­macy in grievous crimes: and Queen Elizabeth, by and by when she had got­ten the Crown upon her, she seeing the Pope diffi­cult in declaring her law­ful title unto it, not for [Page 187]her religion (for then she had not changed it) but for illegitemacy, even ac­cording to Acts of our Par­liaments under her Fa­ther, broke off all Com­munion with the Church of God: So Camden in Elizabeth. The English also compiled a book of Canons wherein they also confess, they went out of the Church of Rome; there­fore it is a frivolous thing, that they pretend they went not out, but were driven out of the Church.

They may perchance reply, that they were as amongst us, so of us be­fore this division, and so are yet; because it is suf­ficient [Page 188]to incorporate any body into the true Church of Christ, if he beleeveth the Creed of the Apostles as here Protestants do.

To this I answer: First, that in some cases this may be enough, yes even to beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God is suffi­cient, as in the case of the Eunuch and such like, that is an implicite faith, may suffice till other necessary truths are sufficiently pro­pounded: For the Gos­pel had and hath a time of growth in every new Chri­stian. In these and such like cases it is sufficient, not to mis beleeve former­ly other truths, to consti­tute [Page 189]a man a member of Chirst's Church.

I answer: Secondly, That the same God who trusted his Church with this, hath as well entrust­ed her with all other ne­cessary truths, The Holy Ghost hath taught her om­nem veritatem all and every necessary truth, as our blessed Saviour promised: which she pro re nata, as heresies pullulate, declares to her children, that they may be able to avoid the danger of swallowing stones insteed of bread.

These truths, thus by supreme power propoun­ded to the faithful, they are obliged to receive by [Page 190]obeying their Prelats, who have a charge over their souls, according to that of the Apostle obedite praepe­sitis vestris, &c. Hence the Nicene Fathers decla­red as a most fundamental truth, Christ Jesus to be Deum de Deo et consubstantia­lem Patri, &c. to be God of God consubstantial to the Father, &c. which is not in the Apostles Creed: neither is it there that the Holy Ghost is God, nor the Fathers of Nice did de­clare that great truth, be­cause yet heresies touched not that point: as St. Ba­sile, and St. Gregory Nariane teach; yet I beleeve, that every true Christian will [Page 191]esteem it necessary to be­leeve these truths; it is easie to descend to many more particulars, which all Christians admit to be necessary, though not ex­pressed in the Apostles Creed, as concerning the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Eucharist, &c. The Church hath there­fore always from the be­ginning to this day belee­ved, and practised this su­preme obliging power in matters of faith and man­ners: and upon the same ground hath always e­steemed such hereticks, in a damnable conditi­on, who have not as well beleeved or adhered to [Page 192]her proposals in faith in one subject as in another, and as well to the end of the world as in the primi­tive times

But they say that the burden of Christian religi­on will be greater, then of the Jewes, and intollera­ble, if all are obliged to every declared truth in the Church, which is con­trary to Christ, who saith, Mat. 11. that his yoak is sweet, and his burden is light.

This is easily answered, in order to the Communi­ty of Christians, whose implicite faith in the su­perstructures is sufficient, according to the generally [Page 193]taught and received do­ctrin of Doctors. Pastors indeed and Doctors have higher obligations to be a­ble to give an account of their faith, which obliga­tion is much alleviated by the Synopses of Faith, which the Church clearly and yet very contractedly propounds to keep them principally from misun­derstanding the holy my­steries of our faith. This is the weightiest objection which I finde in Mr. Hobb's, besides those which I shall presently touch.

St. Chrysostome in his 10. homily upon St. Mathew in the person of Christ, com­plaines of Mr. Hobbs, Nolite [Page 194]de difficultate conqueri, quesi qui doctrinam meam molestam esse dicatis: we must not say Christ's doctrin is troublesome, least with the Capharnaits, we be committed abire retro, to be put in the back side of Christ's book.

Surely St. August. found Christian religion in ano­ther posture, then Mr. Hobbs would have it in his 5. Chapter to Volusian. Where he saith that Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarum, ut in eis quotidie proficerem, si eas solas ab in­eunte pueritia usque ad de ere­pitam senectutem, maximo o­tio, summa studio, meliori in­genio, conarer addiscere, &c. [Page 195]He experienced the my­steries of Christianity, far to transcend the syna­gogue: he esteemed his whole life though it were imployed in nothing else, not to suffice for a perfect understanding of Chri­stian profundities; surely they were not so vulgar as Mr. Hebbs would have them.

There was among the Jewes a difference in points of faith, some were ut adirces as the foundation of the rest, the denying whereof would have de­stroyed the whole law: others as rami branches where the danger was not so considerable. These R. [Page 196]Menassieth in the beginning of his Treatise of the cre­ation of the world decla­reth.

So in Christian Religi­on some things are simply necessary, without which heaven is not to be got­ten; as the faith of Christ, &c. which our school-men place sub necessitate me­dij, that is as absolutely necessary: of which sort there are not so many.

Other things are neces­sary onely ex suppositione, that is upon supposition that they are made known to us, or sufficiently decla­red: then there is necessi­tas praecepti, a command to imbrace them, and surely [Page 197]this is no great burden.

I will also touch that impertinent objection of the Socinians; that the Church of Christ is a con­gregation of all Christians, or of all who beleeve in Christ, and not of any se­lect body of them, and consequently there are no hereticks to be declared so by any sentence of the Church; but onely those are hereticks who by their own judgement are such as the Apostle speaketh. That is, such who against their own judgment do resist known truths, not such who by a councel or body of men are declared such. This to beleevers [Page 198]is easily made evident to be impious.

First, That Christ hath a Church, he hath said it, that he also hath instructed her with a regitive power he hath also said it, and said both together in these words, Dic Ecclesiae; and therefore addeth to such as obey not her decrees, si eam non audierit sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus et publicanus, we must complain to the Church for emergencies, and she hath power to ex­communicate if we obey not.

If this be true as it is in other crimes and causes, it will easily conclude in the chiefest crime of here­sie, [Page 199]else we must blasphe­mously say that Christ hath made provision for the lesser difficulties, and not for greater, which is to condemn his omniscience or providence.

Again, this regitive power is confirmed in the acts and attributes to the Holy Ghost, Spiritus San­ctus vos constituit Episcopes regere Ecclesiam Dei. Of this the new Testament in doctrin and practise is a­boundant.

Further, that the Church hath power to declare he­reticks, is evident, besides the immediate conse­quence of it out of Christs words related, out of the [Page 200]doctrin and practise of the Apostles.

They did teach how, or did institute the manner, post secundam monitionem to declare and excommuni­cate for heresie, they also did declare de facto here­ticks, as is evident in almost all their Epistles and the Apocalipss, and did for­bid all commerce with them, which is to excom­municate, which they did for their false and sediti­ous tenents or innovations in faith, as is clear in the texts; whence it follow­eth first, that the Church hath this power, as first Simon Magus, for teaching it lawful to buy the Holy [Page 201]Ghost. Secondly, the Jewish Christians, who taught it lawful to use Sa­cramental circumcision under Christ, were ex­communicated by St. John, &c.

Whence it followes se­condly; that the Church is not a body of all Christi­ans, but of all who do joyn in the unity and integrity of faith; else if declared by the Church to be here­ticks, they are no longer of her, because by autho­rity derived by Christ, they are cast out of her. Their own interior guilt will serve to accuse them in the Court of God in Heaven; but it is the ju­dicatory [Page 202]act of the Church upon their pertinacy which condemneth them in Earth; and this sentence is confirmed in Heaven, Quaecunque alligaveritis &c.

Mr. Hobbs in his 18. Chapter n. 2. requires two vertues necessary to Sal­vation; Faith, and Obe­dience. Faith hath no o­ther latitude in her acts then to beleeve Jesus to be Christ, n. 5, 6. and so forward.

Besides internal faith, he saith that there is ne­cessarily required a profes­sion of many other articles, which summarily are con­tracted & compacted into that we call the Creed. [Page 203]As he had touched before, Chap. 17. n. 21. and after­ward more fully in his An­notations to the number 6. Yet he esteemed not Chri­stians bound to beleeve, but to profess these if re­quired. This seems a bull in Christianity to be bound to profess in matter of belief, what I am not bound to beleeve: yet this he asserts Chap. 18. n. 6. necessary to salvation out of title of obedience. That is, I am bound to profess, that I do be­leeve, what I am not bound to beleeve; I propound this to Mr. Hobb's second thoughts, he bog­gles much upon it in his [Page 204]Annotations, utters evi­dent contradictions, and yet he comes not off. Nay he saith ch. 18. n. 14. that it is enough if one endea­vour to beleeve them, though he doth not, but he must profess them when he is required.

Is not this to put a lie upon himself, for a man to profess to beleeve what he doth not beleeve? Nay, is not this to put a lie upon Christianity? He adds, that he cannot exclude such from heaven, who internally do not assent to articles declared by the Church, if they do not contradict, but being com­manded, will grant them, [Page 205](this last particle of exter­nal acknowledgement is more modest, then I have yet found in any of our Country-men) though it cannot be digested by a re­sonable man, that I may profess what I do not be­leeve.

The texts of Scripture whereby he proves the in­ternal belief of Jesus to be Christ, sufficient to salva­tion, are very weak in principles of Christianity. For besides, whom I have named already, who were condemned by the Apo­stles for beleeving false doctrin: There were also the Nicolaitans in the A­pocalips, Chap. 2. Who [Page 206]following Nicolas one of the first seven Deacons, who beleeving in Christ, yet taught it lawful to commit fornication, and to eat meat offered to I­dols, were heavily threat­ned from God by St. John; so also those hereticks, whom St. John signifieth by Jesabel, who taught it lawful to do the same. Neither will it help Mr. Hobbs his Tenet. That Jesabel is said to teach, that is, not onely beleeve eter­nally those errors; for those of the Church of Thyatira were threatned because they did beleeve those false doctrins, and the Apostle St. Paul in his [Page 207]first Epistle to Timothy v. 3. useth this word [...], where he giveth to Timothy power to de­nounce to hereticks not to teach otherwise then they had been taught, neither is his discourse of faith in Christ, but of superstru­ctures, as the course of the text sheweth, and in it he forbids any to beleeve them. In fine, it is clear in all Ecclesiastical monu­ments, as well Historical as Doctrinal; that from the Apostles to this day, not onely such who deni­ed Jesus to be Christ, who were properly Infidels or Apostates, but who belee­ved not any other article [Page 208]propounded by the Church universal as ne­cessary, were esteemed hereticks, and in state of damnation.

All the texts for the suf­ficiency to beleeve in Christ in order to salvati­on, except in cases afore mentioned, are under­stood of all things which belong to faith in him, in which is comprehended his Church instructing in all necessaries, or else the faith in Christ nakedly un­derstood by Mr. Hobbs, would exclude all those benefits, which we be­leeve to be obtained by him. It is true, that in particular cases (as I no­ted) [Page 209]an implicite faith of many of them might suf­fice, as in the Thief, where he had not time for other instruction or profession; yet, it is evident he belee­ved in the whole, when he cryed Memento Mei, &c. But these extraordinary cases are nothing to the ordinary course of Gods providence, which we one­ly touch: And thus the Church of God from, and with the Apostles always understood this matter, and accordingly in her Councels squared her pra­ctise. But as I said before of the Thief, so of the Eunuch, and the two thou­sand converted by St. Peter; [Page 210]it is evident, that they be­leeved in the substance of the whole Creed, for the very children of Hierusalem knew the main doctrins which Christ taught, as appeared in the publick process against him cryed up and down the streets; and therefore these belee­ving in him, beleeved in all which he had taught; which will come home to the Creed at least.

Mr. Hobbs will tell you in the upshot, that the points now in controversy, for the most part concern onely contention for a worldly Kingdom, gain, or victory in point of wit, where he expounds them [Page 211]after his own gust and names, onely such, which may more plausibly be thought to have such ap­pearance, omitting the chiefest in agitation about the Sacraments, &c. O­thers which concern the principal end and effect of our redemption; as free­will, and justification, he rejects as Philosophical. Thus the high misteries of Christian Faith, by a Chri­stian are made subjects of division, or rather of delu­sion, or collusion. Herod was afraid of Christ, because he was jealous that his aim would be to get his King­dom, this jealousie was the cause of much innocent [Page 212]blood-shed. I hope Mr. Hobbs hath no such design, in stirring up this old false plea against Christianity: for Christ hath assured all men that his Kingdom is not of this world.

That there hath been always subordination in Church judicatures is evi­dent by St. Paul to Timothy, and every where in holy Writ, which hath hither­to been continued, even in external government, as all Histories shew, and yet not prejudicial but auxilliary to temporal power. But for any con­troversies is point of tem­poral power, challenged by the Church I know [Page 213]none forasmuch as touch­eth faith. Yet Mr. Hobbs seems to desire, though with much violence, to draw even hearing confes­sions and interpreting scriptures to his new Euto­pia as belonging to civil Magistracy.

There is yet another shift, wherein as the Holy Ghost saith, mentitur ini­quitas sibi, they frame an imaginary pillar of secu­rity; saying, that though the first openers of this breach were Schismaticks, yet they having been born in this Church, are not guilty of it. As when a Kingdom is unjustly ob­tained, yet it may be justly [Page 214]possessed by future heirs. This I have weighed and answered before: yet to the similitude I particular­ly answer; that there is no parity at all to plead prescription against God, because in some cases there may be among men; else all Hereticks, and Turks, may more forcibly plead this right then they, if naked countenance of possession can give title. I might here question the supposition it self, for even in temporals, the civil and Canon law require more time for prescription in order to some persons, then to others: as for or­dinary persons, ten yeers; [Page 215]in some forty, in some an hundred.

Again, there is a diffe­rence, not onely in per­sons, but the things posses­sed as Ecclesiastical, re­quire more time then ci­vil: and there is always required a quiet possessi­on to begin the count of yeers, that there may be titulus probabilis. The rea­son is, because then the true lords are thought vir­tually, or implicitely to yeeld their right: And thence begins the title in the unjust possessors; namely, when the ancient lord, being able, ceaseth to chalenge any right. But as I say, to let all this pass; [Page 216]the disparity from man to God is manifestly clear, and therefore admits of no consequence.

CHAP. 8. Protestants have made the Schism with­out any cause or ground.

THE often cited Pro­testant Doctor, in the Treatise of Schism wri­teth; that Schism doth not always make the lesser part culpable which recedeth, or is driven out from the [Page 217]rest of the common-weale, or body of the Church, but the compulsive caus is here chiefly to be looked upon, and not always the small number of the receding persons: therefore the Protestants say; it is true, that they made the divisi­on from the Catholick Church, but did it rightly and worthily, for the intol­lerable errors and damna­ble doctrins which then in­fected the whole Church: and therefore they follow­ed the command of the voice of God, Apoc. 18. Go out of her my people, that ye be not made partakers of her sins.

The damnable doctrins [Page 218]are by themselves reduced cheifly to Idolatry, the other differences they conceive may be more ea­sily swallowed: and in­deed this were a capital one, if true, and it were no less strange; that the Church of Rome which reduced this Island and most part of the two worlds from Idolatry, should it self knowingly teach or practise it, and no less strange, that these few men after so many yeers should see these gross abominations, which such an infinity of learned men in so long time, nor yet can finde or judge to be so. Idolatry according [Page 219]to Divines is taken for a religions worship due to God, and given to any creature. In this all Chri­stians agree.

The Church of Rome in the holy Sacrament of Eu­charist, giveth indeed Di­vine worship out of infal­lible supposition, that un­der those Elements, is the body and blood of Christ, accompanied with his Di­vinity: they do not give it to the accidents, no not to the body and blood of Christ properly, and pre­cisely, but to the Divinity; so precise they are in the Divine worship; whence it is clear, that they do not direct their worship to a [Page 220]creature, but to God; and though they cannot but involve in their adoration his presence under the Ac­cidents of bread and wine, yet do not formally termi­nate their act to this presen­tiallity of Christ in the Sa­crament, which is but a relative, a very extrinse­cal accident, and conse­quently not capable to terminate a divine wor­ship; whence we see the proper object is Christ, who certainly is existent; and therefore in this they are not mistaken, even in all sectaries opinions; and therefore there can be no Idolatry, even though Christ had not that new [Page 221]ubication under the Ele­ments of bread and wine, that being the accessory, not the principal which they aim at, for they adae­quately direct their action to Christ present, not to the presence it self abstra­cting from Christ, so that their mistake would be in a circumstance, not in a substance; and therefore e­ven admitting that impos­sible supposition, yet there would be no Idolatry.

The other particle is their worship of Images; which in no wayes can be called Idolatry. First, because they do not at all teach Divine worship to be due to them, as is clear [Page 222]in the Councel of Trent, and as all knowing Prote­stants will confess: Se­condly, many great School­men do not hold any wor­ship at all to be precisely directed to them, it is suf­fient, reverently to retain them, and by them to be raised up in devotion to the thing represented by them; as by a picture of Christ to be called upon to remember Christ, &c. As they think it is deduci­ble out of the Councel of Trent: Out of which it is evident that the Church of Rome is injuriously de­famed of Idoltary.

And here I wonder much at Mr. Hobbs in his [Page 223]book De Cive, who other­wise singularly deserving in moral and socratical Philosophy, would so ea­sily preoipitate his judge­ment in points of this na­ture.

He saith in his Chapter 15. n. 18. That if the Com­mon-wealth should com­mand to worship God un­der a picture, that the peo­ple were-bound to do it: In his Annotations upon the same place, he calls himself in question for an­tilogies in this particular, for in n. 14. He had taught that to worship God by a picture, or any Image, were to limit God to a cer­tain terme, which were a­gainst [Page 224]the law of nature touching Gods worship, which surely destroys the first position.

To the answer of this, he saith, the offence would be in the commanders, not in the obeyers, by reason they worship him thus up­on compulsion. He adds, that if God should speci­ally forbid to be worship­ed by the use of an image, that then such a command could not be obeyed, as it is in the decalogue, were expresly Idolatry is pro­hibited. Afterwards in the 16. Chapter n. 10. trea­ting of the ten Command­ments; he saith, that to worship God by an Image [Page 225]is against the law of na­ture, as he said in the 15. c. n. 14.

These seem to be strangely inconsistent pro­positions. First, the power which he saith, n. 17. in the 5. Chap. To be transfer­red to Magistracy from the people in determining Gods worship, he confes­seth that it ought to be ac­cording to reason.

He confesseth also in his Annotation cited; that to worship God under an I­mage were against reason, because Idolatry; not onely because now God hath forbidden it (as he saith) but in it self, name­ly, because as he said be­fore, [Page 226]it were to prescribe a term to his infinity, and consequently to make God to be finite.

Whence it followes; first, that though Idolatry is against the light of rea­son, and therefore intrin­secally wicked, yet know­ingly I might do it, if com­manded by a Magistrate, so that an inferior power, namely, a power derived from my self, can com­mand me that which is ab­solutely prohibited by the highest power, as is that of nature, and I am bound to obey it with neglect of the other though supreme, yet the Magistrate cannot command it, but against [Page 227]reason; and therefore such a command cannot be ob­ligatory, because in his 5. Chapter and n. 17. reason is the limit of that power. Are not these inconsi­stences?

Again he saith, that moral compulsion (for a command is no more) would render an act of I­dolatry lawful, because it would exempt it from I­dolatry. This is destru­ctive of all religion, and truly of reason, in all Schools of Philosophy. where Aristotle in his E­thicks, and all others teach; that we must lose our lives for vertue it self.

Again he saith, that if [Page 228]God make a positive law to the contrary, as he sup­poseth he hath, that then I may not obey the for­mer command of a Magi­strate, how this is recon­cilable to his former te­net, that worshiping God by Images is against the law of nature, and yet one­ly unlawful if commanded by Magistracy, because in the Decalogue or positive law it is again forbidden; I know not, for surely this law is inferior to that of nature, according to all men, and reason it self being the law of nature, is drawn from the very nature of the thing it self.

That God hath forbid­den Idolatry I doubt not in his first Command­ment: but whether to worship God by the use of Images is there forbid­den? Or whether it be Idolatry, would deserve Mr. Hobbs his greater dili­gence to prove it

For surely to say that it were a confinement of his Infinity, would be as far from a proof as it is from truth, clear in the light of reason and evidently a­gainst Scripture: where we are taught to glorifie God in and by his crea­tures, according to the 18. Psalm. Caeli enarrant glori­am Dei, &c. The heavens [Page 230]speak Gods glory. How they do speak it? they can declare no more then they are, according to Mr. Hobbs; and therefore onely things finite, which is to confine God against the drift of the Psalms: Philosophy, and Scriptures teach us to finde God by his creatures, as St. Paul 1 Rom. 20. remits us to the creatures. Invi­sibilia à constitutione mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur, our under­standing of God is from these visible things: nay, it is the onely natural way we have, from the effect to finde the first cause; and not from the first cause the effect, and all things [Page 231]without his confinement. So by pictures we ascend to what is represented, not tying our selves to the manner in our worship of God under that represen­tation: In the pursuit we relinquish the manner, and going forward with our discourse we find, and with our devotions follow the Infinity of Gods goodness. All representatives are es­sentially inferior to the Prototypes by many de­grees, yet safely conduct us to the knowledge of them without abasing their natures to the I­mages. So here and all acts of acknowledgment of God, in, and by his crea­tures; [Page 232]for we know the effect cannot equalize the first cause especially, nei­ther in nature, nor in man­ner of existence; and therefore we conclude, Gods supreme essence and goodness to transcend all we see; & in the like man­ner we easily ascend by the use of pictures, neither can we do otherwise if we use our reason; so that there is no danger of Gods confinement, and there­fore no Idolatry.

I remember that Cassian in his Collations tells us of a poor ignorant Monk; who out of error, had fra­med to himself in his nar­row imagination a con­ceipt [Page 233]of Gods being cor­poral, and could very hardly be brought to en­tertain higher thoughts of Gods spiritual essence, be­ing unwillng to relinquish his Phantastically ill fra­med Image of God.

We are much beholding to Mr. Hobbs, who is so ten­der of Christians dulness, that least by their Images, they should conceive God to be finite or corporal; with this poor Monk, he would remove all pi­cturs, though God himself; not so careful as Mr. Hobbs, hath been pleased to talk and walk with Adam, which are acts of a corporal and finite creature, and other­times [Page 234]to make resem­blance, as if he had appear­ed in corporal shape, as to Moses, perchance to Jacob and others; nay, even the Son of God appearing in our poor nature, all which would draw us into errors, if God had not by his Prophets, Apostles, and daily by his Church, and even by reason taught us the right use of such passages, and to know, that those sensible repre­sentatives were onely con­ductives to God himself, as we teach Students by em­blems to conceive things more remote from their present capacity. All which will warrant our use of [Page 235]Images, yet without Gods confinement and conse­quently without Idola­try.

Neither would this, if true, any way excuse them from sacrilegious Schism, except all were compelled to Idolatry. St. Augustine saith, there can be no just necessity to cut off unity l. 2. Cont Ep. Parm. c. 2. and as he elsewhere Ep. 166. Our Heavenly Master hath so much admonished us to take heed of this; That he would make the common people secure even of evil superiors, that not for them the chair of saving do­ctrin should be destroyed. Therefore the chair ought not to be forsaken, much [Page 236]less destroyed for the er­rors of the Presidents. O how St. Cyprian doth purge that poison of theirs to the quick! Epist. l. 3. Ep 2. If there be seen dar­nel to be in the Church, our faith and charity ought not to be hindred there­by, that because we see darnel to be in the Church, we therefore leave the Church, &c. The Apostle in the second Epist. to Timo­thy 2. saith: In a great house there are not onely vessels of gold and of sil­ver, but also of wood and of earth; and certain in­deed unto honour; but certain also unto contume­ly: but it is onely lawful [Page 237]for God, who hath a rod of iron, to break the earthen vessels, &c. Let not any one assume to himself what the Father alone hath gi­ven to his Son, &c. It is (saith he) a proud obsti­nacy and sacrilegious pre­sumption, which wicked fury assumeth to it self. Let our Country men think sadly of this.

It is objected to me, that the Church of Rome doth force her Proselites to be­leeve falshoods, pernici­ously under Anathema in the Councel of Trent.

I answer; That if we should make an impossible supposition against all the promises of Christ, that [Page 238]the Church should in ne­cessary points teach er­rors: yet even in that case, every child of the Church must exteriorly carry himself quiet, and not make commotions; for that were to seek a cure, worse then the di­sease, as in the like im­possible supposition our Country-man Waldensis l. 2. c. 27. teaches. Non perpe­ram insilire debet. He must not leap against the Churches face in rebelli­on: Neither is he bound to beleeve an untruth; nor yet is one in danger to incur the censure: For the Church cannot reach the minde; onely God in [Page 239]a just sentence confirming her act reaches home, which cannot be in this case, for he should con­firm an injustice. Whence it followeth, that no man is or can be compelled to beleeve untruths; but onely not to make Schism: which by divine law is forbid­den. And therefore St. Augustines rule is still true: There cannot be no neces­sity of cutting off the Church unity, no not in supposition that she should command great errors.

But you will not object, that if the articles com­manded by the Church are in themselves true; yet if I cannot perceive [Page 240]their truth, after all dili­gence used to that end, it were hypocrisie in me; and therefore unlawful to adhere to that Church, I conceive though falsly, teacheth and commandeth false doctrins, and extra­ordinary practises upon those grounds.

This truly is most seri­ously objected by some, but without all Solidity.

For surely Christians are obliged by the law of God and reason to depose their own false judgments, in obedience to God & his Church, else this will open a gap to all itching ears (of whom we are premo­nished) to introduce each [Page 241]man his fancy, and prefer it before the wholesome doctrins of Christ deliver­ed by his Church.

Neither is it difficult for man, though learned to depose his own judgment, especially in order to ex­ternal actions, for it is dai­ly done by all sorts of ti­morate consciences, who do mangre their own rea­son, direct themselves by the authority of such, whom they know to be more learned then them­selves.

Mr. Hobbbs Chap. 15. and n. 13. saith, unusquisque ratio­nem privatam, rationi totius civitatis submittere potest. Here he labours to lay the [Page 242]grounds of the derivation of power in the Common­wealth to determine what belongs to matters of reli­gion, which he faith that the people have transfer­red to the Magistrate. He proves it as he faith evi­dently (I examine it not being pertinent to my de­signe) His proof is, be­cause every man in his pri­vate worship, before the City was made, was to be guided by his private rea­son, w^ch therfore he might submit to the publick rea­son of the Common­wealth. If this be true in point of reason, as Mr. Hobbs much contendeth in order to the civil Magi­strate; [Page 243]how much more will this be concluded in respect of spiritual Magi­stracy, to whom this power is conveyed, not from the people, but from God, as Christiani­ty teacheth. Mr. Hobbs goeth far beyond this, for he will have each one to be obedient to his Civil Church even in things clearly unlawful; as he tells us in his 15. Chap. num. 18. and elsewhere fre­quently. Thus they con­demn Christian obedience in things most congtuous to Christian reason, and yet authorise their own tribunals contrary to faith and reason.

Mr. Hobbs saith, n. 17. That except the power of determining Gods wor­ship, were in the law of nature translated to the City or Magistracy, that there would be infinite sects, divisions, and conse­quently confusions in it; and therefore he saith consequently enough, that every man must submit to it.

The antecedent I un­derstand not: for the law of nature is a law declared according even to him, n. 3. Pertacita rectae rationis di­ctamina, by the secret sug­gestions of right reason, in which he differs not from Cicero, Lex naturae est ipsa [Page 245]ratio summa, insita in natura quae jubét ea quae faeienda sunt prohibetque contraria, &c. It is not so much declared by reason, as it is reason it self in the highest accepti­on seated in nature, and it is therefore called Lex na­turae, because nature, sig­nifieth a certain common vertue, which impels all men to a general prosecu­tion of good, & avoydance of evil: whence they can­not will any thing under the pure notion of evil: In brief, the Law or light of nature radically is a power in the soul univer­sally commanding the pur­suit of good and declinati­on of evil answerable to [Page 246]the first principles of rea­son: And therefore speak­ing rigidly, the soul in her creation is not so purely tabula rasa, a bare table; according to Aristotle and his followers, Plato and his whole school, she is en­riched with universal prin­ciples, which are called primae Conceptiones unresist­able principles, which have no other proofs then the true apprehension of the terms or extremes u­nited: and therefore are primò verae, as Aristotle de­clares, these are the first truths in which men can­not differ in use of reason; for otherwise if they should fail in these, it were [Page 247]in vain to expect any sub­sequent discourses in su­perstructures, but as their discourses would enlarge, so would their errors: out of these, nature frames her commands universal­ly, which is the Law of nature taken formally.

Whence it follows, that in this matter of greatest concernment to humane nature: Namely, the wor­ship of God; there needs no translation of power from each particular per­son to the City, or whole body of men, because it is as intimately connatural to each, as to all, to know what the law of nature dictates by the constant [Page 248]and secret suggestions of rea­son, what is to be done, and what is to be avoided, as Cicero tells us; whence principally comes, that we call Synderesis, or check of Conscience, else it is not a law of nature, but some superstructure, improperly called natures law, which inseperably is infused into the soul to all, who have a soul not hindred in her opperati­ons. But herein many erre, who confound the hypotheses with the princi­ples whence they are de­ducted; that is, remoter conclusions with the first, which are immediate, and serve as principles to all o­thers.

The Law, or light of na­tures therefore immediate­ly dictates, that God is to be worshiped, and none can be ignorant of it, that know the signification of the terms: neither can they be ignorant, that Gods worship must be per­formed in the best manner. Thus far Cicero his Summa ratio, pure reason convin­ceth, men cannot disagree in this; for as Cicoro notes, non opinione sed natura consti­tutum est jus. This depends not on opinion which is always ambiguous, but is a law as constant and evi­dent as the law of na­ture.

But because our natural [Page 250]knowledge of God is de­ducted only from his crea­tures, (for the objects of our understanding in this present condition of con­junction of the soul with the body, are onely mate­rial or sensible natures de­duced from our senses) hence our reason cannot reach to know the manner of Gods worship, because that onely is best which is pleasing to him, note con­verse, that is pleasing to him, which we judge to be the best; though out of this mistake each nation proceeding, or ra­ther standing (as we say) in their own light, differed from each other, and [Page 251]every one from truth, in determining Gods wor­ship.

To say therefore as Mr. Hobbs often inculcateth, that every particular man must submit to the whole body for determination of this, seems to be as im­pertinent a doctrin, as to oblige every blind man to have an inquest of blind men to determine what colour any things were of, to whose blind judgment every man should submit; though as Aristotle tells us, Caeaus non judicat de coloribus. The thing were wholy out of their Sphere.

The determination therefore of the manner [Page 252]of divine worship, can onely be had from God, because none can know his will but himself. For as Mr. Hobbs rightly teach­eth, n. 14. c. 15. Gods will is not to be thought similis nostrae, like to ours, but it is to be supposed to have onely some Analogy with ours quod condipere non possu­mus, which our understand can not reach to. Which is also Aristotle's, Averroes, and the best Philosophers doctrin.

Whence it follows, that none can know what man nor of worship inmost a­greeable, & conse quently what is best. These who­ly transcend our sphere, [Page 253]and therefore Christian Divivines most reasonably hold it necessary to have supernaturally revealed truthes communicated to man-kinde to direct them in Gods worship; and surely, it were as high and pecoaminous presumption in any, to offer to deter­minate this, as the build­ing of Babels Tower, of which nothing could be expected but eternal con­fusion. Whence it fol­lows, that never any wor­ship pleased God, which was not inspired by him­self, no not in the state of nature.

Mr. Hobbs must therefore retract his injuriously [Page 254]traslated power to his Common-wealth, and teach his Disciples to seek this knowledge from God, even under the law of na­ture. As now Catholicks observe in all worship ex­hibited to the Divinity, especially directed in all these supernaturals by the Church, from which they receive Gods orders.

Aristotle indeed ac­knowledgeth the force of an argument drawn from authority to be very esti­mable, even in schools; and therefore we may adhere to so great authority, as the Church even in reason.

But those, who cannot [Page 255]overcome their own tenu­ous reasons by overpois­ing them with so great au­thority, as the Church, cer­tainly must either be mad, that is, hurt in their fan­cies, as I have observed some, though otherwise able to make unbroken discourses, in other mat­ters of less concernment, which is easily possible, ac­cording to Philosophy, or else God for other sins blindeth their understan­dings, as he did Pharoah's; which obstacle they must labour to remove, that they may learn to obey God in his Church, else their condition will be e­very way most miserable, [Page 256]if they obey not for want of Christian humility they are in evident danger of hell, if they do obey they are in danger, because they do against Consci­ence; but the remedy of this is at hand, if they re­linquish their own judg­ments, not by satisfying, which they pretend they cannot do, but by cap­tivating to a sure Autho­rity.

Certainly, wicked fury hath made and increased this Schism: for granting, which is my second an­swer to the former obje­ction; that when unity cannot be kept without detriment of eternal Sal­vation, [Page 257]it may, and ought to be broken without sin; but when by the conser­vation of unity no detri­ment of salvation is incur­red, and that if this also may be obtained by perse­vering in unity, then at least there shall be no law­ful cause to break unity, and those who break it, do incur certain damnati­on for sacrilegious Schism: But now Protestants re­maining in union with the Church of Rome, should have suffered no detri­ment of their eternal Sal­vation, but had been in a certain way to arrive unto it. As we have shewed before, by their own con­fession, [Page 258]that Catholicks persevering in the same unity may attain unto sal­vation: wherefore it ma­nifestly followeth that they without any cause went out of the Church (wherein they might have been saved) and cast them­selves and their followers into the state of damnati­on: according to that of St. Augustine, De unit. Eccl. c. 19. None come unto Salva­tion and life everlasting ex­cept he hath Christ for his head; and none can have Christ for his head, except he he in his body, which is the Church.

Again, which is chiefly to be pondered, and al­ways [Page 259]to be repeated, those damnable doctrins (as they call them) taught in the Church of Rome, ought to have been declared by a general Councel, and not by themselves, who are the least, if any part of the Church. Otherwise, if it should be lawful for every one to accuse the Church his mother of He­resie, and to leave her without any other discus­sing of the cause, a gate should be open to all He­resies; & the Church of God would be trodden under foot, yea all Christianity fall to ruine; this hath been the plea of all separa­tists, which they thought [Page 260]sufficiently proved, if one­ly accusing of error be proving: as in the cause of England, D. Bilson and Covell, teach the necessi­ties of Synods in these things, the first part p. 374. the other p. 110.

And that which ano­ther replied, first that England might sufficiently judge of heresies, newly brought in, seeing it is matter of fact, to wit, whether this, or the o­ther doctrin came down from our Fathers Grand­fathers, &c. or whether it were heard of but ye­sterday, or the day before? for this even children may perceive.

The second point also, which he not onely by mouth, but by pen (now frequent in other hands) so much urged, saying, that it is not needful to call a general Councel, since by your confessions, as Cressy, fol. 443. seemeth to insinuate, that there is no infallable power in them: A doctrin which I was glad to finde amongst you, yet I wondred at it, being already repugnant to what I had read in your former authors, as D. Sta­pleton, and D. Stratford of the Church, and of late in a book made by a Coun­try-man of ours in Latine, called Systema Fidei: Cres­sie's [Page 262]words are these: No man will endeavour to oblige them further then &c. to be­leeve an obliging authority in the Catholick Church, let is be limitted and confined as straitly, and with as many pro­vises as any Catholick, or in­deed any resonable man shall think good. I say according to this power of defining, and establishing faith, it is to no purpose to call a general Councel to de­clare heresies, when eve­ry ignorant fellow can do as much in order to the verity of declaring, though perhaps not in order to the coercive manner of de­claring; yea, in the very power it self, for asmuch [Page 263]as according to this positi­on of Cressy, the power of the Church in this particu­lar may be restrained by any silly fellow, &c. Thus far this Author.

To these I answer; For asmuch as concerneth mat­ter of fact every nation may witness, what they have recived, but they cannot make infallable dis­cernment of matters of Faith without the su­preme judgment of the whole Church, in whose onely mouth there can be no errors: which is our principal question. Many things are conveyed to posterity, which are not matters of Faith, some­times [Page 264]not of truth: this the Church onely suerly determines.

To the second objecti­on out of Gressy, I answer, that his words, though ve­ry harsh, yet in my judg­ment they may receive a more favourable gloss, up­on connexion with the o­ther parts of his discourse. He doth indeed to much even suspiciously savour of his old friendship, with that vertiginous and fla­shy Apostata Chillingworth, a man whom few exam­ples have paralel'd in of­ten turning religion. But Cressy wrote this book in Neophitism, not being yet fully instructed in the [Page 265]mysteries of our holy faith, as St. Hierome noteth of Arnobius. which there­fore is more excusable in him, though he should ex­press his not throughly di­gested conceits, hardly e­ndugh consistent with the verities of the Catholick faith. I do not beleeve that his intention was, so soon to play the master in teaching what he had not perfectly learned, which had been too preposte­rous, [...] this whole books [...] to give the History or gradation of his con­version, how he did reach from one degree to another and how he ga­thereth the sence of our [Page 266]doctrin, and Doctors, in his passage: wherein (as I said) it is no wonder, if being a Neophite, he should boggle in his man­ner of explication, as his expression seemeth to do in this; but where he now is, he will better and more fully inform himself; and I doubt not but wil re­ctifie those passages which savour of mistakes.

Neither doth it avail much, though many here stumble at these, and other of his passages; for St. Hier: saith, ep. 76. I think Origen to be read, So sometimes for application, as Tertullian, No­vatus, Apollinaris, Cressy, and many more Ecclesiastical wri­ters, [Page 267]both Greek and Latin, that we may choose what is good in them and avoid the contra­ry: There are some very good things in that book, though intermixt with o­ther passages more harsh as he seems to express them, which a prudent reader may pick out and discern to his profit.

It remaineth therefore firm and certain, that our Country men are bound under the pain of Schism and rebellion to reunite themselves unto the Church of Rome, their mo­ther (as King James of famous Memory calls her, in his first speech to the Parliament) at least wise [Page 268]until a general Councel he convocated, where their cause may be heard and decided, which indeed is virtually already done to their hands in the case of Germany: Wherein the proverb is true that one egg is not more like to an­other then these in the main point of Schism, though differing from themselves and others in points of Doctrin.

From what is said we may conclude thus. Who­soever divide the unity of the Church without cause are in a damnable state, seeing (out of the third Chapter) Schism is an enormous crime; but Pro­testants [Page 269]do divide the uni­ty of the Church (out of the 4 and 5 Chapters) and that without cause; (Chap. 6.) therefore Protestants are in a damnable state. Wherefore (as I said in the beginning) consider­ing the danger of their souls they are bound to discuss the causes of their revolt; to weigh & ponder the reasons of the Catho­licks, that they may free themselves from such a miserable and dreadful state, return to the Church their mother, and so have God for their Father, love and maintain her unity, and so be made partakers of her charity.