be warranted by the Church and to make his words good he produceth great Credentials from the Pope and many other great Men. This great and learned Prelate in his Exposition of the Catholick Faith c. hath these words We acknowledge a Head established by God Sect. 21. p. 50. to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which Head is the Pope as Successour to St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles and that the Papal Chair is the common Centre of all Catholick Unity Sect. 1. p. 2. And in another place he promiseth not to meddle with any thing but the Decrees of the Council of Trent because in them the Church hath given her decision upon these matters now in Agitation Which Council was called by the Pope's Authority only and the true sense of all its Decrees by the Bull of Pope Pius IV. reserved to be explained by him alone So that the great noise of the Catholick Church is at last dwindled into the Roman Catholick which we of the Church of England take to be a contradiction in Terminis the same with a particular Universal for they may as well say that the City of Rome is all the World as that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church Besides this notion of the Catholick Church virtual is altogether new having no foundation either in the Holy Scriptures or in any Primitive and Authentick Antiquity and therefore we can by no means admit of it This is that Church by which and towards which we are charged with the guilt of the horrible sin of Schism And God be thanked it is no worse for from any Criminal Schism in this case I hope we shall without any great difficulty be able to acquit our selves 2. If we consider a Christian Church as it is particular then are we to understand it of a number of Men professing Christianity formed into a Society under lawfull Governours and governed by such Laws and Rules as are not different from but agreeable to the Laws and Rules of the Catholick Church And if any Man or number of Men who are Members of that Society shall without just cause separate themselves from the Communion thereof he or they so doing are certainly guilty of Schism Nor is every occasion which a capricious humour or discontent may suggest to us to be taken as a sufficient ground of Separation Nay though there be something really amiss or at least we are persuaded that there is so in the Doctrine or Discipline of that Church whereof we are Members yet ought we rather to suspect our own Judgments and suppress our own Sentiments than break the unity and peace thereof In a word unless such a particular Church shall make the terms of her Communion such as cannot be complied with without sin I do not know any other just ground of Separation therefrom Thus have I considered the subject of Schism in its greatest latitude And now let us see how far any thing that may be gathered from hence can affect the Church of England 1. If the Church of England hath made no defection from the Catholick Church diffusive i. e. from the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which compriseth all Men and all Societies of Men professing Christianity Nor from the Catholick Church representative i. e. the Prelates and Pastours of the Universal Church lawfully assembled in a Council that is truly free and general If she profess no other Doctrine nor exercise any other Discipline than what she hath received from Christ and his Apostles and was constantly profest and exercised by their Successours in the primitive Church If she be willing to submit all matters in difference between Her and any other sister-Sister-Church to be tried by the Holy Scriptures the primitive Fathers and the Decisions of the four first General Councils Then can she not be justly charged with Schism upon that account And that she doth and is willing to doe all this that is here supposed we are ready to make good whenever our Adversaries shall give us the occasion so to doe 2. If their notion of a Church virtually Catholick be altogether new without any foundation either in the Holy Scriptures or in any primitive and authentick Antiquity then the power and privileges which the present Church of Rome challengeth upon that account are mere nullities and consequently the Schism which she chargeth of the Church England with upon that score a mere Chimera which vanisheth of it self If they think to avoid the force of this supposition they must produce some good and authentick Record which as yet hath not been discovered 3. If the Church of Rome be onely a particular Church and no otherwise Catholick than her Neighbours are who profess the same common Christianity If she can have no more power to censure us than we have to censure Her then can she not without great presumption and great injustice charge us with the sin of Schism 'T is true indeed we do not joyn in Communion with her and the reason why we do not I have given in the third Section But it is as true that we hold the Catholick Unity and for the sake of that they themselves will grant that we may lawfully depart from the Unity of any particular Church SECT V. III. Schism is a Separation from the Communion of a Christian Church AS the Act of Schism is Separation and the Subject thereof a Christian Church so the Object in and about which the Separation is made is the Communion of that Church Now there are three great Bonds of Communion viz. Faith Worship and Government and whosoever shall separate either from the Catholick or any particular Church whereof he is a Member in any of these I do not see how he or they so doing can be acquitted from the guilt of Schism unless the corruption in some one or more of these be so great as to render the Communion sinfull to him who knows it SECT VI. I. Of Faith as it is a Bond of Communion BY Faith here I understand the established Doctrine of the Church that common Christianity which we all profess to own and embrace For it is not every Doctrine that is received and taught in any particular Church that is properly the Bond of Communion but such Doctrine as is or ought to be received by all It is plain and our Adversaries themselves will acknowledge it that we may and ought to differ from particular Churches in some Doctrines Otherwise why do they differ from us from the Greek Church and indeed all other Churches besides their own in many things On this score is it that we cannot receive their new Articles of Faith those additions which are made unto and those alterations which are made in the old and common Christianity by their Council of Trent We believe all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures to be infallibly true all that was ever taught by Christ and his Apostles and their Successours
the Primitive Pastours and Governours of the Church we readily comply with We believe all the Articles contained in those three ancient Creeds viz. that commonly called the Apostles the Nicene and the Athanasian We are willing to submit to all the Decisions and the Determinations of the four first General Councils and to any Council that is lawfully called and truly free and general We are ready to receive all Traditions that are truly Apostolical and we are willing to embrace any other truth as yet unknown to us whensoever or by whomsoever it shall be duly made out to be so And whilst we this doe we cannot truly be charged to have broken Communion with the Catholick Church nor justly reputed Schismaticks therefrom And as for the Church of Rome she being only a particular Church hath no jurisdiction at all over the Church of England and consequently no more power to censure us than we have to censure her for in this case the rule holds Par in parem non habet imperium Equals have no Authority over one another And therefore for her to impose her new Articles of Faith upon the Church of England and because she refuseth to receive them and joyn Communion with her upon those terms presently cry out Schism Schism is so idle so vain so unaccountable a Clamour as I am perswaded the Learned among them cannot but disapprove it For whilst we hold the Catholick Faith entire and maintain Communion with the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church therein though we differ from the Church of Rome or any other particular Church in some Doctrines Yet is it impossible that we should be guilty of a Schismatical Separation either from her or them SECT VII II. Of Worship as it is a Bond of Communion BY Worship here I mean Publick Worship and that considered only in its Substantials and Essentials not as it is clothed with particular Modes Rites and Ceremonies Otherwise it can be no Bond of Communion The substantial and essential Parts of Publick Worship I take to be these viz. Prayer reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the administration of the blessed Sacraments Now these in divers Churches may be performed in different Manners and with different Rites and Ceremonies and yet those Churches notwithstanding this may still hold Communion with the Catholick Church and consequently be guilty of no Schismatical Separation therefrom nor from one another But if we by Worship understand the established Publick Worship of a particular Church then are we to consider it not as abstracted from but clothed with such Modes Rites and Ceremonies as are thought convenient by that Church And if any one who is a Member of such a Church shall upon any pretended offence taken against any such Modes Rites and Ceremonies separate himself from the Publick Worship I do not see how he can be acquitted from the guilt of Schism And this I take to be the case not only of the Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England as they call themselves but of English Roman Catholicks too For that they did hold actual Communion with us many years together in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and neither then nor ever since did pretend to take any offence at the Substantials of our Worship is very plain and evident And that it was not we that separated from them but they that separated from us is as manifest and therefore it will concern them more than us to clear themselves from the sin of Schism And for this I know no other Plea they can make use of than their obedience to the Universal Pastour of God's Church which Plea is to be considered under the next great Bond of Communion viz. Government SECT VIII III. Of Government as it is a Bond of Communion THat our great and Universal Pastour the Lord Jesus Christ did found and constitute a Church and that he did not leave it without Laws and Rules to be governed by nor without proper Governours invested with Power and Authority to exert and execute those Laws we stedfastly believe But that he ever did delegate all his Power to any One or substitute any One Person to be the Universal Pastour of the Church after him we cannot believe because we have no ground for it either in Scripture or in any primitive and authentick Antiquity And indeed how should we for till the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople began to envy one another's Greatness and to strive for Supremacy which was about 600 years after Christ the Church was never acquainted with any such name or thing as is now claimed And no sooner did it adventure to peep abroad but warning was given against it as Antichristian and that by one of their Popes And when afterwards it was publickly usurped it was condemned by a General Council and they are not yet agreed among themselves where to fix it And therefore they cannot in reason expect that we should build our Faith upon such an uncertain Foundation or make that a Bond of Communion in the Church which the Church from 600 years and upwards knew nothing of That Government is a Bond of Communion in the Christian Church we acknowledge and that it was never lodged in the hands of any one Person since our Saviour I think is very plain and evident But where then doth it reside This will best be known by considering how it is derived That it was united in the Person of our Blessed Saviour will be acknowledged on all hands and where he left it there we are to look for it Now that he left it with his Apostles and made them equal sharers therein I think is very plain notwithstanding that pretence which is made by our Adversaries that it was lodged in Peter alone a pretence which hath been so often and so miserably baffled and which if it were true would doe them no service that I wonder they are not ashamed to bring it upon the stage any more And that from the Apostles it was derived to their Successours the Bishops and Pastours of God's Church is the received opinion of all Antiquity Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cypr. de Vnitate Ecclesiae Edit Oxon. p. 108. And that it now lies dispersed among all the Pastours and Bishops of particular Churches unless they be lawfully called and assembled in Synods or Councils under the Power Protection and Assistance of Civil Authority we verily believe This is the notion we have of the visible and external Government of the Catholick Church and as it hath been so if there were occasion for it may it still be made appear to have been the very notion that all the World except those who have submitted to the Usurpation of Rome ever had and still have of it to this day Now the Laws and Rules by which this Government is administred are to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the Usages and Customs of
sense is not Schism but Apostasie and it will be impossible for any man to find a sufficient reason for that But if it be considered as a separation from the communion of some particular Church then it is implied that possibly there may be such cause given as may justifie the Separation and if so then the guilt of Schism will lie at the door of that Church which gives such cause and not at his or theirs who separate therefrom Now I have already told you that I know no cause which can justifie such a Separation save onely this when a Church makes the terms of her Communion such as cannot be complied withall without sin And in this case methinks it is very plain That it cannot be sin to separate when it is sin to communicate for no Laws of Men can abrogate or dissolve the obligation of the express Laws of God. But if there be no such cause then to break communion with any Christian Church upon any other account will amount to a Causeless Separation and consequently incur the guilt of Schism If therefore the Church of England ever did or now doth forsake the communion of the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church or if she ever did or now doth voluntarily and causelesly break communion with any particular Christian Church then may there be some colour to charge her with the sin of Schism but if none of all this can be made appear against her then ought she to be acquitted of that charge Now whether any such thing can be made out against her or whether the whole charge will not fall heavy upon the Church of Rome will appear in the sequel of this Discourse SECT XI V. Schism is a Separation from the Communion of that Church of which we are Members THis is the last part of our Definition and I add these words of which we are Members because Schism imports a Division of some united and well compacted Body or a making two of that which before was but one On this score is it that we cannot charge Turks Pagans and Jews with Schism because they never were of the Christian Church nor joyned with her in any Religious Society And here the Church will be at a great loss how to fix the guilt of Schism upon the Church of England for if we neither are nor ever of right ought to have been under the Government of that Church then hath she no Jurisdiction over us nor do we owe her any subjection and obedience and consequently cannot be guilty of Schism towards her nor hath she any power to censure us for it We own her to be a Sister-Church and a true though unsound Member of the Catholick Church and so far as she holds the Catholick Faith and Worship we are ready and willing to hold Communion with her But we cannot submit to her Usurpations nor communicate with her in those Errours Abuses Superstitions Additions Subtractions and Alterations by which she hath so grosly corrupted the pure and primitive Faith and Worship of God's Church SECT XII The Church of England acquitted from the Scandal of Schism IF this Definition of Schism be allowed as I see no cause why they should disown it and not applicable to the Church of England then is she unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism by the Church of Rome Now whether it be applicable to the Church of England will appear by taking a review of the several parts of it 1. Schism is a Separation i. e. a breach of Unity or a dividing of some well compacted Body And here we are charged for breaking the Unity and dividing the Body of the Roman Catholick Church as they call it To which I answer if that Church were truly Catholick either in respect of place or Doctrine this charge would lie heavy upon us but being neither we shall be able with less difficulty to answer this Objection It must be acknowledged that the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation and some long time before that had usurped a certain Power and Dominion over us and had exerted the same in such extravagant impositions as at last became too heavy for us to bear That Church had indeed by a long custome gained such an ascendent over our Fore fathers that she had enslaved their Judgments and obtruded what she pleased upon them she had unawares led them into many Errours in Doctrine many Superstitions in Worship and almost swallowed up their Liberty in Point of Government At length it pleased God to open the Eyes of our Fore-fathers to see the slavery and bondage they were in and how far they were gone from the Unity of the Catholick Church both in Faith in Worship and in Government To retrieve themselves many Efforts were made and great Endeavours used for a Reformation But none of those prevailing they at last bethought themselves of casting off the Roman yoke which by the assistance of the Civil Authority not in tumultuary but in a regular way was effected and when that was done then upon mature deliberation they reform those other abuses which were crept in among them Whether this broke Catholick Unity or no let the World judge If this be a Schism we must own our selves guilty of it but we see no reason to own it to be so yet for in all this we have done nothing but what we are able to justifie before all the World. For even our Adversaries themselves will not deny but that a National Church hath power in it self to reform abuses within it self But it may be they will tell us that we are not a Church but a faction or party made up of Schismaticks and Hereticks broke loose from the Church If this were true we should have little to say for our selves but a bare accusation is no proof They may do well therefore to recollect themselves and consider that before Austin the Monk set his Foot in England there was a Christian Church settled here under lawfull Governours which Church opposed the proceeding of that proud Monk and denyed obedience to the See of Rome for which they severely suffered If notwithstanding all this our Adversaries shall as they frequently do revive that old thred-bare question so often baffled Where was your Church before the Reformation Our answer is ready it was where it is the same for substance now that it was then It is indeed reformed and repaired but not made new There is not one stone of a new foundation laid by us the old Walls stand still only the overcasting of those ancient stones with the untempered Mortar of new inventions displeased us and that we washed off Durand Ration l. 1. What their own Durandus saith of material Churches is very applicable to the Spiritual If the wall be decayed not at once but successively it is judged still the same Church and upon reparation not to be reconsecrated but only reconciled If therefore our Church be the same for
Heretick for not to be and not to appear in foro Ecclesiae are the same Heresie then which is so great and heinous a crime an errour so mischievous to the Church of God and of so dangerous consequence to the Heretick himself ought certainly to be very well proved and made mighty clear and manifest before it be charged upon any man or any society of men who profess Christianity For though every Heresie be an Errour yet every Errour is not Heresie It must be an Errour in Religion and in the foundation of Religion too and that fundamental Errour must be divulg'd and openly taught i. e. there must be an endeavour to instill the poison of it into others thereby to seduce and withdraw them from fundamental Truth and Holiness and all this must be own'd stoutly and maintain'd obstinately before it can merit the name of Heresie Till therefore the Church of Rome by plain and undeniable Arguments hath proved all this particularly upon the Church of England she cannot without great rashness and presumption charge her with it A general imputation without particular proofs will amount to no more than a malicious scandal which will betray a great want of true Christian charity in them and the weight thereof will at last fall heavy upon their own heads Alphonsus de Castro de Haer. l. 1. c. 7. p. 79. For as one of their own Doctours saith Those that so rashly pronounce and call every thing Heresie not considering whereof they speak are often stricken with their own dart and fall into the same pit that they themselves had digged for others So far is the Church of England from openly teaching any fundamental errour in Religion that she neither is nor can be proved guilty of any such as is made appear in the preceding Section She teacheth nothing but the pure Word of God nor receiveth any thing as an Article of Faith or necessary to Salvation but what is contained in holy Scripture or may be proved thereby and therefore cannot be justly charged with the guilt of Heresie upon this account SECT V. IV. This fundamental Errour must be obstinately defended and maintained THIS is the last part of the Definition and that which gives spirit and life to all the rest for though we should be guilty of Errour and of Errour in Religion yea though that Errour should be a fundamental one and openly taught by us yet if we be not obstinate therein but upon fair and full conviction are willing to reform our Judgments and relinquish the same we cannot be justly burdened with the guilt of Heresie Such is the modesty of the Ch. of England that she doth not believe much less boast her self to be infallible as the Ch. of Rome unwarrantably doth As the Church of Jerusalem Alexandria and Antioch have erred so she or any other particular Church may err but such is her piety and humility that she is very desirous of and always ready to receive better information and thereupon to reform and amend her Errours She is and ever hath been willing to submit all her Doctrines to be tried by the touchstone of God's Word by the primitive Doctours and Pastours of Christ's Church and by the four first General Councils and therefore without great injustice cannot be thought to be obstinate or contumacious To make a Fundamental Errour become Heresie two things you see are required 1. That Fundamental Errour must be defended 2. It must be defended with obstinacy SECT VI. I. Of Defending a Fundamental Errour TO be guilty of a fundamental Errour in Religion is a great and dangerous crime but to persist in it and undertake the defence of it renders it yet greater and more dangerous for Religion is that upon the due observance of which depends all our happiness here and all our hopes of happiness hereafter and therefore to mistake therein is like an errour in War which is hard to be retrieved but to go on in so doing and set our wits upon the rack to invent arguments to maintain it is to form weapons against our selves with which to batter down all our hopes of future felicity Yet even this may admit of some alleviation for if those who embrace those errours be fully perswaded that they are that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints then are they obliged earnestly to contend for them or if in the defence thereof they do not contend so much for victory as for truth being ready upon better information to relinquish them or if by the misfortune of an ill education or otherwise they be prepossessed therewith and only hold them till they are better instructed not being averse to hearken thereto such an Errour or such a defence of it will not amount to Heresie But God be thanked the Church of England hath no need of any excuse in this case for she receiveth nothing as an Article of Faith but what is contained in holy Scripture nor defends any Doctrine but such as may be proved thereby and therefore it is a manifest injury and malicious scandal in those who charge her with the defence of any fundamental Errour in Religion 'T is true she contends earnestly but it is for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints She strenuously defends the Religion which she professeth but it is because she hath received it from Christ and his Apostles and because it is well warranted by the Word of God. And if this be Heresie then is she guilty of it if not then is she unjustly charged with it by the Ch. of Rome SECT VII II. Of defending a fundamental Errour with Obstinacy HOW dangerous it is to espouse a fundamental Errour in Religion and how much more dangerous it is to engage in the defence and maintenance of such an errour I have already told you But if that defence be managed with stubbornness and obstinacy it renders the matter not only more dangerous but very desperate Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit Prov. 26.12 there is more hope of a fool than of him saith the wise Solomon If a fool offend it is usually out of ignorance but the sin of the other commonly proceeds from malice a fool sometimes will be counselled but he that is wise in his own conceit shutteth both his eyes and his ears against all advice and instruction And of such St. Hilary saith well They i. e. Hilar. de Trin. l 6. fools forasmuch as they know not the Truth may have their salvation in safety if afterward they believe but all hope of salvation is shut from thee i. e. who art wise in thy own conceit because thou deniest that thing which thou canst not chuse but know This is the case of him who obstinately defends a fundamental errour in Religion and it is this stubbornness and obstinacy that doth complete and perfect his Heresie and by reason whereof he is justly styled an Heretick But to make a man so obstinate