Vtreplerentur humano sanguine orationum loca Ruffinus and the Greek Historians out of whom I might have described it it caused a great deal of Bloudshed in Churches so dangerous that the Souls of many on the one side or other must needs have miscarried in it and so scandalous that it gave occasion to a †M. Marcellinus in loco supra citat Pagan Historian to make such Reflections as I wish for the honour of the Roman See and the holy Episcopal Office had never been made It happened in the year 366 and after the death of Pope Zosimus there happened another scandalous and horrible Schism between Boniface and Eulalius in the year 419 which caused such great and dangerous Tumults in the City that Honorius the Emperor who was then at Milan was not without apprehensions what might be the consequence of it and therefore to prevent and all present danger commanded both of them to be put out of Rome To pass over many intermediate Schisms in after Ages there happened many more of a very scandalous nature between contradictory Popes assisted by contradictory Parties and Councils who could not agree about the rightful Pope Thus in the year 891 the Church of Rome was miserably divided between Formosus and Sergius who were both chosen in Rome by different Parties and tho' Formosus prevailed yet Stephen the 6th his next Successor but one abrogated and nulled all his Orders and degraded all whom he had ordained and gave them new Orders In the year 965. there happened a great Schism after the death of John the 12th betwixt Benedict the 5th and Leo the 8th Platina could not determine which was the right Pope but puts them both in his Lives but Onuphrius in his Annotations upon the Life of Benedict and in his Ecclesiastical Chronology faith expresly that Benedict was the Schismatick and Leo the lawful Pope * In anno 965. Tom. 10. Baronius is of the contrary opinion he makes Leo the Antipope and Benedict the Pope and †In Chron. p. 827. Genebrard confesses that their Historians are not agreed which of the two was the rightful Successor to St. Peter's Chair In the year 1080 the whole Peace of Christendom was disturbed by the Schism which happened betwixt Clement the 3d. and Gregory the 7th 8th and Gelasius the 2d and Gelasius dying it continued between Clement and Calixtus the 2d who was chosen in the room of Gelasius The Emperor was for Clement but the Kings of England and France were for Calixtus tho' the English Clergy and People were much divided in their opinions some maintaining the one and some the other and some again that neither Party was duly elected but Calixtus having taken his Rival prisoner by the help of a good Army put an end to that Schism After the death of Adrian the 4th in the year 1159 happended a grievous Schism betwixt * Maximum Ecclesiae Schisma oriri coepit quod xix annls miserabiliter duravis Orton Frising Chron. Lib. 7. Cap. ult Victor the 4th and Alexander the 3d. which for 19. years mightily disturbed the Christian World some of the †Cardinales in seditionem conversi geminâ electione scindunt Vnitatem Radevic Frisingensis L. 2. C. 43. Cardinals chose the one and some the other and after their respective elections both were ordained and sent out ‖ Id. I. 2. C. 50. 51. Circular Letters with contradictory protestations and remonstrances attesting God to the truth of what they said Alexander called God to witness in his Letters that he was chosen by all the Cardinals but three and yet the Cardinals of Victor's Party in a * Radevic Frising L. 2. Cap. 51. publick declaration protest that he was chosen by nine Cardinals The Emperour to put an end to this Schism calls a Council at Pavia and to that end wrote to Alexander and the Cardinals and also to the Tramontan Bishops to meet there The †Id. l. 2. c. 64 65 66 67. Council being met the Emperour made a speech to them to exhort them with Fasting and Prayers to commend the Cause of the Church to God and after seven days discussion of the Controversy between the two Popes they gave sentence in behalf of Victor and the Canons of St. Peter at Rome in a Letter to the Emperor and the Council did assure them that the uncorrupt and better part of the Cardinals were for him whereupon the Emperor ratified and confirmed his Election and by his Edict commanded he should be received as Pope He died after he had sate four years and was succeeded by Paschal the 3d. Callistus the 3d. and Innocent the 3d. all opposite Popes to Alexander the 3d. whom the Roman Writers affirm to have been the true Pope But the most grievous Schism of all the rest was that which began in the year 1378. between Vrban the 6th and Clement the 7th Vrban kept his Seat at Rome but Clement at Avignion and the Germans Hungarians English and part of Italy stood for the former and the French and Spaniards for the latter Vrban created 54 Cardinals and Clement 36. The Schism between these two Popes and their Successors lasted about 50 years or according to * History of Popish c. Mr. Foulis who accounts the Schism of Felix against Eugenius as a part of it because it sprung from it above 70 years during all which time excepting the interval between Clement and Felix the 4th there were two opposite Lines of Succession to St. Peter's Chair till Felix whom the Council of Basil set up against Clement upon the earnest entreaty of the Emperor resigned up all his Interest to the Popedom and left Nicolas the 5th Successor in the Line of Vrban sole soveraign Pontif in the Roman Throne Nay during the time of this Schism there were sometimes three Popes for the Cardinals thinking to end the Schism called a Council at Pisa where they deposed Gregory the 12th one of Vrban's Successors and Benedict the 11th one of Clement's Successors and chose Alexander the 5th who died before he had sate a year Alexander was succeeded by John the 23d who created 16 Cardinals and sate seven months till the Council of Constance perswaded him to recede and become a private man again A man would think that of all Christians in the World a Roman Catholick should be most backward to upbraid the Church of England with Schism considering what frequent and violent Schisms his own Church hath laboured under in former Ages Schisms that have rent the Union and split if not interrupted the Line of Succession in the one Catholick Church and brought it to such a sad condition that the secular Authority has been fain to determine of two or three Popes which was rightfully elected and which not Thus in the Reign of †2 3 Rich. 2. c. 6. A.D. 1378. Rich. the 2d the Parliament of England did declare in an Act for that purpose that Vrban the
and his and are under a political oeconomy of the same nature and he that understood it very well said That Satan was not divided against Satan because if he were his kingdom could not stand But it hath stood firm and undivided ever since it was first formed before the sensible Creation it was never yet shaken with intestine Divisions there was never two or three opposite Soveraigns at one time in that cursed Hierarchy nor two or three Pretenders to the Chair of Lucifer And therefore I hope bare Unity or want of Divisions will never hereafter pass among considering men for a mark of a truly Catholick Church And as it is among Spirits so 't is among men The worst Fraternities have sometimes the firmest Union as we of this Nation very well remember the Time when those of the great Rebellion boasted that God had united the Hearts of his People in his Cause as one Man nevertheless those pretended People of God whose Hearts and Hands were so united that we could not break their Bonds of Union asunder were no better then a Band of Rebels and their Cause downright Rebellion against God and the best of Princes tho' they acted in it as if they had been all informed with one common Soul. The like hath often happened in Ecclesiastical Societies The Samaritans who had neither Sadduces nor Pharisees nor Essenes nor Herodians nor Cabalists nor Carraites among them for that Reason had a firmer Union among themselves then the Church of the Jews had and yet they were not the true Church So among the ancient Christians the Novatians lived in perfect Peace and Unity among themselves when there were many Feuds and Contentions among the Catholicks Which shews that bare Unity is not a good Test whereby to try Churches or if it were I am confident the Church of England upon a fair tryal would carry the Garland from the Roman and appear to be the more Catholick Church Could there be found any fit and indifferent Judge between them I durst as far as I am concerned put the merit of the Controversie between us and the R. Cs. upon this single point of Union and would engage to render my self a Proselyte if their Church carried the Cause Perhaps they may think his a very bold Challenge because of the great number of Sectaries that have gone out from us but then they are to consider that as the Protestants which in several Parts of Europe under several Denominations have gone out from them are now nothing unto them so neither are the Congregational Sects which went off from us any thing or of any account to us But take our Church and theirs as they are precisely in themselves without any regard to their respective Separations and I am very confident for all their boastings of Union that the Church of England will be found to have both more potential and actual Union in it then the Church of Rome For first as to potential Union however the Church of Rome is actually united it hath the seeds of Division in its Bowels and as Rebeckah once had different Nations so has she different Churches struggling in her Womb. The Principle of the Pope's Supremacy is it self sufficient were there no more to cause continual Feuds and Factions in the Popedom and * In his excellent Tracts De causis dissentionum in Ecclesiis de primatu Papae ad calcem Salmasii de primatu Papae Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica did most judiciously assign it for the cause of all the Divisions that then tore the Catholick Church into pieces the Bishops of Christendom not being able to endure the Usurpation nor other Churches contrary to their fundamental Liberty to be Subjects to the Roman Church The exercise of this usurped Power of the Pope's being the supream ordinary of the Universal Church is that which makes the Roman Bishops themselves sigh and murmur in private and say with Spalatensis where they can say it safely Frater noster ille est Collega Coepiscopus nobiscum and however they conceal their Resentments as the Spanish Prelates did before the Council of Trent yet they are willing upon the first opportunity to assert their Apostolical Equality and like the English Prelates at the time of the Reformation will be glad when they can do it with a prospect of success to cast off the Yoke which makes Christendom groan and which neither they nor their Predecessor were able to bear Let but Christian Princes say the word and then we shall see what the Bishops will do or let there be but a free and general Council indeed and then let us see if the Pope shall not be told in both ears That the Church Universal is a great Colledge and the Government of it Aristocratical that the Episcopat is one but that it is divided among all Bishops whereof every one hath his share that the Apostles received equal Power and Authority from the same Masters that the Bishops were their Successors and that the other Bishops receive their Authority no more from the Successor of St. Peter then he doth from them but that all receive it alike from Jesus Christ When it shall be safe the Bishops of the Roman Church will talk and write as much to this purpose as ever the English Divines did who in asserting this Doctrine follow the Example of their Ancestors before the Reformation I mean the Saxon Bishops one of whom in his Advice to his Clergy speaks thus * Ge sceolon eac Æ¿itan þat eoÆ¿re hades syndan þa aesteran hadar aester urum hadum and us þa nystan gelice þa biscopas syndan ongeÆ¿rixle þara Apostola on þaere haligþa gesomnunge sÆ¿a syndan þa maesse preostas on þam geprixle â—pister þegna þa Bâ—scâ—opas Aapones and þa maesse preostas Æ¿one had his suna Spelm. Concil uol 1. p. 586. Ye ought to know that your Order is next after and next to ours for as the Bishops are in the place and stead of the Apostles over the holy Church so are the Priests in the place of the Disciples The Bishops are of the Order of Aaron and the Priests have the Order of his Sons This Doctrine in all likelihood will one day revive against the Soveraign Pontif for the Spirit of the Archbishop of Granata will for ever be upon the learned Prelates who like Elastick Bodies under pressure are under a constant inclination to recover their liberty and will recover it as soon as they can The next dividing Principle in the Church of Rome is The Doctrine of Transubstantiation which is a Doctrine more full of Contradictions then perhaps any other which Men or Angles can invent It is contrary to all the Senses and Reason of Man to the plain and obvious sense of those very words upon which it is grounded to the Belief of the ancient Catholick Church to the Principles of almost all Sciences It multiplies the hypostatical Union it makes Christ to
Catholick Church drew tears from the eyes of Constantine and moved him to call the Council of Nice to compose this Difference and another not much less about a matter of far less moment which had risen between the Eastern and Western Churches about no greater matter then the observation of Easter day The unanimous Decree of the Council against Arius and his Doctrine backed with the Autority of the Emperor did for the present silence the Arian Controversies but his Son Constantius turning Arian it broke out with more fury then formerly and caused so much Sedition and Bloudshed in Christian Cities especially about the * Socrat. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 6 7 11 12 13 16 28. choice of Bishops and so many Subdivisions in opinions among the Arians themselves that one may well wonder how ever Christendom came to be at peace and unity again Then not only Bishops were divided against Bishops but Councils contradicted Councils Then were made at several Times and Places no less than nine Forms of Confession most of them differing from one another and all from the Nicene Creed Nay then not only the Arians were divided among themselves but the Orthodox about the manner of receiving the convert Arians into Communion †Faustin Marcell lib. precum ad imper Val. Theodos Arcad. Socrat l. 3. c. 9. Lucifer and his Party standing upon stricter terms then the rest I have given this short Account of the Arian Schism to shew how not onlyh this and that Church but the whole Catholick Church may at one time labour under Schism And upon making particular enquiry into particular Churches we shall find how in many of them there was Bishop against Bishop Altar against Altar and Communion against Communion which made Julian the Emperor scoptically say That the Son of Mary had now verified his own Saying that he came not to send Peace upon the Earth but a Sword. At Alexandria there were two opposite Churches owning two opposite Bishops the Orthodox who still adhered to Athanasius present or absent and the Arians who received Gregory and George and the rest that were put in his Place At Antioch there were at one time three opposite Churches one of the Arians of which Euzoius was Bishop one of converted Arians of which Meletius was Bishop and one of those who never sell into Arianism of which Paulinus was Bishop and yet the divided state of Christendom at this time was no offence or wonder to a wise Pagan I mean the Philosopher Themistius who in a * Socrat. H E. l. 4. c. 32. Speech which he spoke to the Emperor Valens to perswade him to moderate his cruel Persecution of the Orthodox told his Majesty That he ought not to admire at the disagreement of Opinions among the Christians which was but small if compared with the multitude and confusion of Opinions among the Greeks among whom there were above 300 different Sects Nay he pray'd him to consider that the most excellent and useful Arts had never arrived to such perfection but by difference of judgement and strife among the Artists themselves nay that Philosophy the Mother of all good Arts had risen from small beginnings to such a height of perfection by differences among learned men At Constantinople and in many other Cities there were formed Churches of Arians and Novatians under their respective Bishops opposite to one another and both in opposition to the true Catholick Church From this toleration of separate and opposite Churches arose many †Socrat. H. E. l. 6. c. 22. Differences ‖ Id. l. 5. c. 13. Tumults Quarrels and Bloundshed as when the Arians assembled in the Piazz's of Constantinople by night and from thence went through the Streets of the City singing alternative Hymns against those who believed three to be one Power Chrysostom the Catholick Bishop fearing lest the People might be drawn from the Church by such Hymns appoints some of the Catholicks in opposition to the Arians to go about singing nocturnal Hymns against their Opinions upon which the * Socrat. l. 6. c. 8. two Parties meeting one another and being more willing to fight then to sing they fell to violence and in the Conflict many on both sides were wounded and some slain Nay in Rome it self which now boasts so much of its Unity under one Head in Rome the pretended Center of Christendom there have been as shameful wide and violent Schisms as any were ever in the Christian World Schisms * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. E. H. l. 4. c. 29. not upon the account of any pretended Heresie or dislike of Ceremonies nor consisting in a separation of the Clergy and People from the Bishop but Schisms of a more dangerous and scandalous nature betwixt Rival Popes and their Parties when there were several Pretenders to the Chair of St. Peter and some adhered to this Pope and some to that Thus in the Reign of Valentinian upon the death of Pope Liberius the Clergy and People of Rome were divided in the choice of a Bishop to succeed him The holy part of the People which adhered to Liberius in his Banishment against the perjured and usurping Pope Felix being convened by Vrsinus Amantius and Lupus chose †Alias Ursicinas Vrsinus but the perjured part of the Clergy which broke the solemn Oath they had made not to choose a Bishop during the Banishment of Liberius and that part of the People which adhered to them chose Damasus Bishop who was one of those who broke his faith with Liberius Ursinus was ordain'd Bishop by Paul of Tibur and Damasus was ordained by others in the Lateran Church and part of the Clergy and People adhered to one and part or the other with very great Animosities on both sides Where was the Unity of the Roman Communion when the Roman Church had two opposite Popes and the People were divided into two separate Chruches under them Damasus indeed prevailed not by the merits of his Cause or that he had the better claim but by bribing the Courtiers and great men of Rome and intrigueing with the ‖ He was called Matronarum Auriscalpius Matrons of the City and so procuring the Banishment of Vrsinus who was chosen by the faithful and holy part of the People which suffer'd their bloud to be shed for him and the justice of his Cause and after his Banishment owned themselves to be his Flock and refused communion with Damasus believing him to be the rightful Pope Damasus from the first was so enraged against them that he hired the Rabble to outrage them they made a great slaughter of them for three days together at the Temple of Julius then in the Church of Sicininus called also the Church of Liberius * Vid Marcellini hist l. 27. c. 3. where they killed an hundred and sixty and wounded very many more whereof a great part died of their Wounds But all this did not deter them from meeting
together but three days after they assembled again reciting against Damasus those words of our Lord Fear not those who can kill the body but are not able to kill the soul Then they sang out of the Psalms The dead bodies of they servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the air and the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the field their blond have they shed like water on every side of Jerusalem and there was no man to bury them And often meeting together in the Church of Liberius they cryed out O Christian Emperor let all the Bishops meet at Rome let them try the Cause between Vrsinus and Damasus and drive the Murderer from St. Peter's Chair These Complaints of the People coming to the ears of the Emperor he called back Ursinus from Banishment the People met him with great joy but Damasus by bribing the Court gets him banished again After this he invited the Bishops of Italy to a Feast upon his Birth-day Some of them came whom he would have perswaded both by good words and money to depose Vrsinus but they desired to be excused telling him that they came to celebrate his Birth-day and not to condemn a man unheard This Account which I have given of the Schism between Damasus and Vrsinus is taken our of the Preface of Marcellinus a Roman Presbyter and Faustinus a Roman Deacon before the Libellus precum or humble Supplication which they presented to the Emperors Valentinian Theodosius and Arcadius I refer the Reader to it in the †A. D. 1628 Oxford-Edition of Faustinus and if he please to consult it there he will find all that I have written and some more remarkable passages which for brevity sake I thought fit to omit I know very well that Baronius hath said all he can to render this Account suspected because it invalidates the Title of Damasus and interrupts the lawful Succession to St. Peter's Chair First He pleads that Marcellinus and Faustinus were Hereticks and that their testimony is no more to be believed then the testimony of Thieves against those they have robbed But was the Luciferian Heresie so called an Heresie indeed * August de Heres ad Quodv Luciferianos a Larcifero Caralitano Episcopo exortos celeriter nominatos nec Epiphanius nec Philaster inter hereticos posuiticredo tantummodo schisma non haeresin eos condidisse credentes St. Augustine observes that neither Epiphanius nor Philastrius put the Luciferians in the number of Hereticks and is very willing to excuse them from Heresie Or if it were a Heresie was it of such a nature as to deprave and infatuate the Souls of men and to deprive them at once both of truth and common sense in making of them write a heap of Lyes to the Emperor while Damasus was alive with many more eye-witnesses of the Schism whom they might conclude would have publickly exposed their Account if it had been false Was not Lucifer himself a very holy and excellent Person notwithstanding the severity of his opinion and a great Champion of the Church against the Arians and might not those who stood up with him for the strictness of Church-discipline and purity of Communion out of hatred to Arianism notwithstanding their excusable error be as holy men as he I am confident no unprejudiced man that will observe what an excellent strain of Piety and Zeal runs through their Works can suspect them capable of writing such gross Forgeries as the Preface indeed contains if it be not true But Baronius objects that they assert Vrsinus to have been ordained Bishop before Damasus contrary to St. Hierom in his Chronicon who saith that Damasus was ordained first But by his favour their words in the Preface do not necessarily import so much as the learned Annotator in the Oxford Edition hath observed but if they did why is not their Testimony as good against St. Hierom as St. Hierom's is against theirs and why may not he be supposed to have strain'd a little in favour of his Master Damasus who had so obliged him as well as they to have prevaricated out of hatred to him secondly He opposes the Autority of Ruffinus against them who relates the Story in favour of Damasus But was not Ruffinus as learned men observe a very careless and oscitant Historian How many Mistakes doth the learned Valesius observe in his History in his Annotations upon Socrates and which is it most reasonable to believe an unaccurate man that writes by hear say and at a distance and in a general History or men that with great accuracy write of any Fact which they had all the means of knowing exactly and could not unless they would wilfully mistake Thirdly He most frigidly objects that Vrsinus must needs have been the schismatical Bishop because he was ordained by the Bishop of Tibur and not of Ostia to whom he saith it did belong to ordain the Bishops of Rome It is true it was the custom of the Metropolitans and Patriarchs to be ordained by some of their neighbouring com-provincial Bishops as St. Aug. observes in defence of Cecilian's Ordination against the Donatists and this he proves by the example of the Bishop of Ostia who usually ordained the Bishop of Rome But what tho' that Bishop did usually ordain the Roman Bishops Non expectaverit Cecilianus ut princeps à principe ordinaretur cum aliud habeat Ecclesiae Catholicae consuetudo ut non Numidiae sed propinquiores Episcopi Episcoporum Ecclesiae Carthaginis ordinent sicut nec Romanae Eccliesiae ordinat aliquis Episcopus Metropolitanus sed de proximo Ostiensis Episcopus Aug. in brev collat diâ—â— 32. â— 3 doth it follow from thence that he was Judg of their election and that if the See was vacant or the Bishop of it sick or absent or superannuated and could not or had no mind and would not do that office that another for example the bishop of Tibur might not do it as well Some of these perhaps might be the Case when Vrsinus was elected for we do not read that the Bishop of Ostia ordained Damasus or if he had for certain ordained him might not Damasus have corrupted him as well as the Courtiers and Magistrates of Rome or Preface saith he would have engaged the Bishops of Italy to condemn Vrsinus and methinks if his had been the juster Cause he should for his reputation have committed the hearing of the whole Matter to a Council of Bishops and got him and his Party condemned as Cornelius got Novatus and his but this he never did which is no small presumption that his Election was not so justifiable and his Right so clear as Baronius would have it to be But whether it were or no doth not directly concern my present Design which is chiefly to shew what a violent dangerous and scandalous Schism this was which happened in the Roman Church It was so violent that according to *
the account of Divisions that he in effect apologized for them and for the goodness and wisdom of God that suffered them for saith he there must be * Ac si diceret ob hoc haereseôn non statim divinitùs eradicantur authores ut probati manifesti siant id est unusquisque quam tenax fidelis fixus Catholicae fidei sit amator appareat Vincent Lirin heresies among you that those who are approved may be made manifest So St. Clement begins his Epistle to the same Church which was written upon the occasion of a great Schism in this manner The Church of God at Rome to the Church of God at Corinth It seems the Church at Corinth rent and torn as it was with intestine Divisions was the Church of God as well as that of Rome in which there were then no Divisions at all St. Peter's next and immediate Successor bewailed the sad Misfortune of the Corinthians but he did not unchurch them for it he told them how it occasioned their venerable and illustrious Name to be evil spoken of but nevertheless he called them the * §. 1. elect of God. And so Constantine the Great in an Epistle which he wrote to the Alexandrians when they were very infamous upon the account of the deadly Feuds and Separations which divided their Communion salutes them in these words †Socrat. H. E. 〈…〉 9. Constantine the Emperor to the Catholick Church of Alexandria Not long after when the Arian Bishops ‖ L. 1. c. 27. conspired against Athanasius to get the Emperor to depose him and his Majesty upon hearing his Cause found their Accusations to be false he wrote a Letter in his behalf to the Alexandrians of which this is the Title * Athan opera vol. 1. p. 779. Constantine the great Emperor to the People of the Catholick Church which is at Alexandria When he wrote this Letter to the People of Alexandria it abounded with Melitians and Arians who had formed themselves into opposite Communions and yet those schismatical opposite Communions were in the judgement of that learned Emperor no Argument against the Alexandrian Church So Constantine junior shortly after his Father's death before he assumed the Title of Augustus directed Letters to the Church of Alexandria in favour of Athanasius with this Superscription †Socrat. H. E. l. 2. c. 3. Constantine Caesar to the People of the Catholick Church of the Alexandrians Notwithstanding all the Sects and Sectaries of Alexandria the Church still remained Catholick in the Communion of the Faithful who retained the ancient Apostolical Doctrine and Discipline These wise Emperors considered that the Tares could not alter the property of the Wheat and therefore tho' there were a World of Hereticks and Schismaticks in Alexandria and all the Regions round about it yet they called the Church a Catholick Church It was every jot as Catholick then as it was before the Melitian and Arian Schisms when the People were of one mind and one Communion for it is not the great number of Church members is any Diocess Province or Patriarchat but the cause and nature of the Communion that makes a true Church Otherwise if Churches must be no longer reputed truly Catholick and good then all the Members which are or ought to be of it are unanimous and communicate together then it must follow that both the Church universal and every particular Member of it long since lost their Catholick nature and were no true Churches in the eyes of God. What for instance became of the Church Catholick after the Council of Ariminum when almost the whole Christian World became Arian except a very * Libellus precum p. 8 9 10 11. Vincent Lirin c. 6. small number of Bishops who stuck to the profession of the Catholick Faith More particularly what became of the Church of Rome when Pope Liberius embraced the Arian Communion and subscribed to the Sentence of the Arian Bishops against Athanasius as †Eccles Ann. T. 3. p. 761 762 763. Baronius acknowledges tho' he endeavours to prove that he never subscribed to the Arian Confession or Heresie Nay what became of it especially upon their Principle when Pope ‖ Vid. Nili Archiepiscop Thessalon de primatu Papae lib. qui est ad calcem Salmas de primatu Papae p. 33 34 35 p. 61. Honorius the 1st fell into the Heresie of the Monothelites for which he was condemned by the 6th General Council and anathematized for it after his death by the 2d Council of Nice which they receive for the 7th General Council Nay if Heresies and Schisms are good Arguments or just matter of Exception against any Church what shall we say to the Church of Rome upon the account of the Novatian and all the other Antipapal Schisms mentioned in the former Chapter Or to go farther back into Antiquity what Apology shall we make for her when * Euseb H. E. l. 5. c. 15. Blastus and Florinus a degraded Roman Presbyter raised a great Schism in Rome endeavouring to introduce new Doctrines which †C. 20. Irenaeus confuted in Books written for that purpose Their Doctrines were very absurd as well as inconsistent with the Faith and Tradition of all Churches and yet they drew away many from the Church of Rome and enticed them to embrace their Opinions Nay what shall we do to defend her in the Time of Pope Victor and Zephyrinus when she was infested with the Heresie Euseb H.E. l 5. c 28. which asserted our Lord to be a meer man This damnable Heresie was first taught at Rome by Theodotus no better a man then a Tanner for which he was excommunicated by Pope Victor and afterwards in the Time of his Successor Zephyrinus it came to a perfect Schism when the Hereticks made Natalis the Confessor a Bishop of the Heresie and settled a Maintenance upon him One of the Scholars of Theodotus the Tanner was another Theodotus a Banker a great promoter of the Schism and therefore I cannot but wonder that any Roman Catholick who understands Antiquity should upbraid the Church of England with the Preaching of Mechanicks and Tradesmen when a Tanner and a Banker in the 2d Century were the Ring-leaders of such a pestilent Heresie in the Church of Rome and as an Author of that Time reports impudently took upon them to adulterate the Scriptures and reject the Canon of the primitive Faith. Why should men pretending to Sense and Learning use and Argument that is so easily retorted upon themselves and when it is pursued into all its Consequences makes it impossible for them to defend either the Church Universal or any particular Member thereof What will they say for the primitive Church by way of defence against the Gnostical Heresies if they argue against that as they are wont to argue against the Church of England Or to pass over the Schisms of which I have given some Account in the
former Chapter how can they by their way of arguing maintain the Church of Antioch to have been Catholick in the Time of Paulus Samosatensis who revived the Heresie of Theodotus and taught that Christ by nature was no more then a meer man For this Reason he held Communion with the Followers of Artemon the Author of this damnable Heresie teaching that Christ was from the Earth and damning the Hymns which used to be sung in Churches to his honour as novel Composures and letting his Followers chant forth Hymns to his own praise in the Church and tell the People that he was an Angel sent from God. Was there ever such an heretical and blasphemous Archbishop in the Church of England since the Reformation as this But if there had been more then one such the Church of England nevertheless would have been a truly Catholick Church as this of Antioch then was in the judgement of the Council that deposed Paul. For in that excellent * Euseb H.E. l. 7. c 30. Epistle which the Council wrote to the Bishops and Presbyters of the whole Catholick Church under Heaven they tell them after a long recital of Paul's Impieties that they were necessitated to depose him and ordain another in his stead over the Catholick Church I might also ask them upon their way of treating the Church of England upon the score of the English Heresies and Schisms what they can say for the Church of Constantinople in the Time of Macedonius and Nestorius who were both Patriarchs of that Church and both fell into Heresie and Schism When a Bishop and much more a Patriarch leads the Flock into by-paths the Schism is more deplorable but yet it is not the Apostasie and Secession of one or two or more Bishops if that should happen that can destroy the Catholick and Apostolick nature of any Provincial Patriarchal or National Church For as I observed before it is not the number of Communicants but the cause or soundness of Communion that makes a true Church and therefore were there both for kind and number ten times as many more opposite Sects and Communions as there are in this Nation and Bishops at the Heads of them all yet upon supposition that the Church of England is sound and Apostolical in Doctrine Worship and Discipline that * Vna est pars in quâ sunt multi Episcopi sed ubi sunt multi illic sacra fides Christi violata est ubi verò paucissimi sunt fides Christi vindicatur Libell precum p 9 12 13. small number adhering to her Communion must be the true Church Nay if all the Bishops of England but one should fall away from the Church of England that †Non dubitandum est paucos Episcopos esle pretiosos merito consessionis inviolabilis sidei multos vero nullifieri merito haereseos in causâ religiouis sacrae fidei non numerus numero comparandus est sed pura illa Apostolica fides probata exiliis probata cruciatibus licet unlus Multorum infidelitatibus praeponenda est ibid. one Bishop and the Flock adhering to him would be the true Church of England and as true and Catholick a Church as if there were not one Dissenter in the Land. The learned Papists know this very well and therefore I wonder that men pretending to Letters and Ingenuity should argue against the Church of England from the English Heresies and Schisms Furthermore if this be a good way of arguing against Churches then the Church of the Jews was twice involved in the consequences of it once by the Schism of Corah and then by that of Jeroboam who set up a Priesthood and Altar a Bethel in opposition to that of Jerusalem and by the separation out off ten Tribes in twelve from the true Church of God. Nay if this modish way of arguing be true then the separation of th Church of England and other National Churches from that of Rome are as strong Arguments against it as the Sects and Schisms among us are against the Church of England There is no difference in the Case because they say that all the Protestant Churches are schismatical for falling off from them as we say the Congregational Churches are for falling off from ours and if ours indeed is not a Catholick Church but apparently under God's displeasure because forsooth they can tell us of the Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists and Quakers then we may by just consequence say as much of theirs because we can tell them of the Waldenses Albigenses and Wiccliffians of old and of late of the Lutherans Calvinists and Church of England-men who are all Separatists from the Communion of Rome As those we repute Schismaticks sprang out of our Church and Communion so those whom they repute Schismaticks sprang out of theirs and therefore would not any man wonder that they should so far forget themselves as to use such Arguments against the Church of England and make such Reflections upon it as may be easily retorted upon themselves to overthrow their own Pretensions to Catholicism and weaken the Cause and Reputation of their Church The Church of Rome say they is the Catholick Church and the Church which Christ left upon Earth and the Church of England hath separated from it and therefore say we in their loose way of discoursing the separation of the Church of England is a good Argument against the Goodness and Reputation of that Church which Christ left upon Earth Nay say they Christ can have but one Church upon Earth and we believe none can be that Church but that which is called the Roman Catholick Church but then say we a world of Heresies and Schisms have been bred in that one Church the Catholick Church of Rome and therefore it is long since this one Church of Christ was one or a true and good Church Your Church say the two late Converts to us hath Vnity or not if not then she is not the Church of Christ if she hath why are there so many Sects and Schisms among you Now not to provoke such Gentlemen to * A Net for the Fishers of Men p. 111. paint and rip up the Sores of Protestancy your Church may a Turk say to them hath Unity or not if not then she is not the Church of Christ if she hath why are there so many Sects among you You say you are the one Catholick Church but what shall we do to find it in such and buddle of Dissenters as are in the Empire France Great Britain Sweden Denmark and other Northern Countreys and of * Ex to ordine scilicet Cardinalium sunt quatuor aut quinque quorum nomina possum proferre si vellem quibus reverâ probetur nostra doctrina saltem magna ex parte Romana exosa sit Sed vae illis cum filius Dei enunciaverit fore ut is qui nôrit voluntatem Domini non fecâ—…it vapulet pluribus quam qui non