Hales in this posthumous piece but with that inimicus homo whoever he be that hath sown tares among the good seed and wrapt up poyson in his Golden Remains And necessary it is that such noxious and unsavory weeds should be rooted out and not suffered to defile the grave of so Candid a person or made use of as a shelter for unclean creatures to hide themselves and croak under them as the Transproser doth who having raked a heap of them together from p. 175. to p. 183. fancieth himself as secure on that dunghil as if he were in some inchanted Castle The first thing that is obnoxious in the Treatise of Schism is p. 191. of the Posthumous works where it is said that Heresie and Schism as they are in common use are two Theological Mormo's or Scarcrows And what the Author means by common use you may be informed p. 213. where he says Arrianism Eutychianism Nestorianism Photinianism Sabellianism and many more you may add Socinianism too which is but a compound of those are but names of Schism howsoever in the common Language of the Fathers they were called heresies So that our Author explodes the Judgment of all the Fathers who condemned those things for Heresies which he thinks do scarce deserve the name of Schisms And a new notion of Heresies is brought in by him p. 214. Indeed Manicheism Valentinanism Marcionism Mahometanism are truly and properly heresies for we know that the Authors of them received them not but minted them themselves and so knew that which they taught to be a lye but can any man avouch saith our Author that Arrius and Nestorius and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity or the person of our Saviour did maliciously invent what they taught and not rather fall upon it by error and mistake Till that be done and that upon good evidence we will think no worse of all parties than needs we must and take these Rents in the Church to be but Schisms upon matter of Opinion If this be true in vain did the Bishops of the Primitive Church assemble in the Councils of Nice Ephesus and other places to condemn and suppress the Opinions of Arrius Nestorius and other Heresiarcha's And the fears and jealousies of the present Church concerning the growth of heresies are groundless for though the erring spirits of this age should revive all the dangerous tenets of Arrius Eutychius Nestorius Photinus and Sabellius and all the blasphemies of Manes Valentinian Marcion or Mahomet himself yet seeing they did not invent these errors themselves but fell on them by mistake though they adhere to them never so tenaciously and wilfully defend them they deserve but the name of Schismaticks And until some such persons as Simon Magus Montanus or Mahomet shall set up for a new God or a Holy Ghost or a Messias in direct opposition to the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour we need not trouble the world with the odious names of Heretick or Schismatick which are but Theological Scarcrows For p. 215. we are told that the Rents in the Church occasioned by those heresies were at the worst but Schisms upon matter of Opinion In which case saith our Author it is not a point of any great depth of Understanding to discover what we are to do so be it distemper and partiality do not intervene I do not yet see that opinionum varietas Opinantium unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that men of different Opinions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris and if occasion require I may go to an Arrian Church if there be no Arrianism exprest in their Liturgy This is expresly contrary to what I quoted from p. 229. It is not lawful for prayer hearing c. and as contrary to the Holy Scriptures Rom. 16. 17. Titus 3. 10. Ephes 5. 11. What error and confusion would these wilde notions bring into the Church if false Prophets and Deceivers should be permitted to teach and the People not restrained from hearing them although they should teach such damnable Doctrines as denyed the Lord that bought them I shall appeal therefore from the Author to Mr. Hales who tells us p. 192. However Heresie and Schism are but ridiculous terms in the common manage yet the things in themselves are of very considerable moment the one offending against truth the other against Charity and therefore both deadly So deadly that I cannot compare them better than to that Italian who designed to kill his enemy body and soul for Truth being the very Soul of the Church and Peace and Unity the great organ or instrument by which it becomes visible and prosperous the toleration of Heresie and Schism will be as destructive to the Church here as they will certainly be to the Authors of them without repentance hereafter There is a lesser mistake in our Author's definition of Schism p. 195. by which he excuseth all such from the guilt of Schism as do separate from that part of the visible Church whereof they were not once members On which account all such children as were born of Schismatical Parents though they defend the schism never so obstinately are not guilty whereas it is the duty of all Christians to live in communion with that part of the Catholick Church in which they reside and not to suffer themselves as our Author expresseth it like beasts of burthen to be imposed upon by their Predecessors The Schism of the Donatists is by our Author acknowledged to be a complete Schism upon the grounds mentioned p. 196. I demand therefore whether such children as were born to the Donatists and persisting in the opinions and practices of their Fore-fathers troubled the Churches of Africa 300. years together were guilty of Schism or no or whether such as among us were born of Anabaptistical or Quaking Parents and still persist in and propagate Church-divisions are complete Schismaticks or not And if we should try them by our Author 's own rules I am sure they will be found guilty The next error of our Author is his allowing of Separation upon Scruples and suspicions as p. 194. he says When either Acts unlawful or ministring just Scruple are required of us to be performed consent were conspiracy and open contestation is not faction or schism but due Christian animosity This just Scruple he calls p. 201. a strong suspicion and p. 218. Where suspected Opinions are made a piece of the Church-Liturgy he that separates is not the Schismatick It is like our Author forgat what he said a little before p. 217. that when Scruples of conscience began to be made or pretended then Schisms began to break in as also what is said p. 209. What if the Preacher deliver any Doctrine of the truth of which we are not well perswaded yet for all this we may not separate except we be constrained personally to bear a part in some suspected Act. Against this error of our Authors I affirm That
necessity of it Christ should profit them nothing Gal. 5. 2. Now from this History as our Author had contrived it he drew several wilde inferences As first p. 203. In this fantastical Hurry I cannot see saith he but all the World were Schismaticks To which I reply That all the World were not concerned in it there being some Nations that differed from both these in the observation of Easter as Socrates l. 5. c. 21. hath observed for even among the Jewish Converts some that agreed on the 14th day differed in the Moon and Venerable Bede observes that our Nation which the Pope pretends to have been his Converts did in those primitive times observe their Easter on the 14th day which by the way is an argument that we at first received the Christian Faith not from the Church of Rome who exploded this custome but more Anciently from Joseph of Arimathea or from St. Philip who as many good Authors affirm planted the Christian Religion in our neighbour Nation of France and as the Asian Churches affirm was one of them that taught them this custom nor do we read that they were condemned for Hereticks for so doing Neither did those Eastern Churches who differed in the Moneth anathematize each other and Socrates ubi supra gives this reason for it They that agree in the same Faith may differ from each other in respect of Rites as the Reformed Churches do at this day And though the Roman Church did excommunicate the Asian yet were they never the more Schismaticks for that being they were sui Juris not under the Roman power And according to our Authors definition of schism they being never members of that Church from which they were excommunicate could not be guilty of schism notwithstanding Victors rigor We say therefore they were still members of the Catholick Church And as for the Roman Church what should make them Schismaticks For though Victor did arrogate too much as to the manner of his proceedings yet as to the matter his prosecution against a Jewish ceremony when it grew into an Opinion of being necessary to be observed was his duty and approved by the practice of St. Paul himself And while there was a controversie between their Governors the People and Clergy too of both Parties continued in due subjection to their Superiors and in mutual charity to one another So that the Separatists of our Age can have no excuse for their Schism from this instance But our Author infers Secondly that this fell out through the ignorance or which he mentioneth also the malice of their Governors and that through the just judgment of God on the People because through sloth and blind obedience they examined not the things which they were taught but like beasts of burthen patiently couched down and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiors laid upon them To which I Answer It doth not appear there was any charge of ignorance to be imputed to Victor or his People for the reasons above mentioned much less of malice Our present Sectaries do call their opposition to Ceremonies more innocent than that by the name of zeal and love to the cause of God Nor was there any thing imposed on the Churches of either side that concerned their Faith nor any custome or rite de novo but only the Asian Churches were desired to translate the custome of observing Easter from a day which gave offence not only to the Church of Rome but several other Churches Petavius says the difference was not de Catholico dogmate sed de Ritu seu Ritûs potiùs tempore And if the Superiors in the Asian Churches had thought the Alteration fit as shortly after they did it had doubtless been the Peoples duty to submit for every Church hath power in those things which are indifferent and much more in such things as give offence to other Churches to appoint and alter rites and ceremonies for the publick Worship of God and the People shew themselves not beasts of burthen but Christ's Free-men in submitting to their Governors as far as Christian liberty doth permit If Victor had imposed new Articles of Faith as Pius Quintus did in the Council of Trent doubtless those Primitive Christians would have resisted even to bloud of which they gave too many instances when they constantly endured all manner of torments rather than they would renounce the Faith once delivered to them Our Author therefore needed to ask pardon for wounding the reputation of these Ancient Worthies in cool bloud as well as for massacring at once the authority of all the Fathers in the heat of a temptation p. 204. where he says thus You may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity for resolution in controversies of Faith and how small relief we are to expect from thence for if the discretion of the chiefest Guides of the Church did in a point so trivial so inconsiderable so mainly fail them as not to see the truth in a subject wherein it is the greatest marvel how they could avoid the sight of it Can we without the imputation of extreme grossness and folly think so poor spirited persons competent Judges of the questions now on foot in the Churches Pardon me I know not what temptation drew that note from me To this I reply 1. Whoever he be that so contemptuously rejects the Authority and trampleth on the reputation of the Fathers hath sufficiently excused those that shall slight his own This is the Author 's own sense Golden Remains p. 260. 2. I refer it to the judgment of the Reader whether Victor Bishop of Rome condemning some of the Asian Churches for adhering too tenaciously to a Jewish ceremony which was of ill consequence to those and other neighbouring Churches were not more excusable than a private person living many hundred years after the fact and never rightly knowing or else wrongfully representing it insolently and causlesly condemning the Ancient Fathers not of one or two Ages or parts of the Church but all in general as if the failing of one man in a point so trivial and inconsiderable as our Author calls it were sufficient reason to condemn them all for indiscreet and poor spirited persons And to impute extreme grossness and folly to all that should think them competent Judges of our differences This is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beyond that of Abailardus who was wont to say that the Fathers for the most part did think this or that to be right but I think otherwise as if his single authority could out-weigh all theirs 3. He must pretend to have some new light for his guide and be either an Enthusiast or Socinian that can see any danger in appealing to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith For seeing there is scarce any point of Faith but some unhappy Wits have controverted it and in defence of their Opinions have put the Scriptures on the rack to make them speak their own sense how can
own work amiss and therefore the thing in it self being lawful I would obey him and use that garment if I could not be dispensed with Yea though secondarily the whiteness be to signifie purity and so it be made a teaching sign yet would I obey And I see no reason to scruple the lawfulness of the Ring in marriage for though the Papists make a Sacrament of marriage yet we have no reason to take it for any Ordinance of Divine Worship more than the solemnizing a contract between a Prince and People All things are sanctified and pure to the pure And for Organs or other Instruments of musick in God's worship they being a help partly natural and partly artificial to the exhilarating the Spirits for the praise of God I know no argument to prove them simply unlawful but what would prove a Cup of Wine unlawful or the tune and metre and melody of singing unlawful Of Holy-days Nor do I scruple to keep a day in remembrance of any eminent Servant of Christ or Martyr to praise God for their Doctrine or Example and honor their memorial I am resolved if I live where such Holy-days Christ's Nativity Circumcision Fasting Transfiguration ascension and such like are observed to censure no man for observing them But if I lived under a government that peremptorily commanded it I would observe the outward rest of such a Holy-day and I would preach on it and join with the Assemblies in God's Worship yea I would thus observe the day rather than offend a weak Brother or hinder any man's salvation much more rather than I would make any division in the Church Of the Cross in Baptism I dare not peremptorily say that the Cross in Baptism is unlawful nor will I condemn Ancients or Moderns that use it nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more than my own forbearance will make I presume not to censure them that judge it lawful but only give the reasons that make me doubt and rather think it to be unlawful though still with a suspicion of my own understanding Of Ceremonies Certain things commonly called Ceremonies may lawfully be used in the Church upon Humane imposition and when it is not against the Law of God no Person should disobey the commands of their lawful Governors in such things It may be very sinful to command some Ceremonies which may lawfully yea must in duty be used by the Subject when they are commanded Mr. Baxter's judgment concerning Confirmation agreeable to the practice of the Church of England may be seen in a particular Treatise on that Subject Of Conventicles Q. 172. Are all religious and private Meetings forbidden by Rulers unlawful Coventicles Answ 1. It is more to the Honor of the Church and of Religion and of God and more to our safety and edification to have God's worship performed solemnly publickly and in great Assemblies than in a corner secretly and with few 2. It is a great mercy where Rulers allow the Church such publick Worship 3. Caeteris paribus all Christians should prefer such publick Worship before private and no private Meetings should be kept up which are opposite or prejudicial to such publick Meetings And therefore if such Meetings or any that are unnecessary to the ends of the Ministry the service of God and good of Souls be forbidden by lawful Rulers they must be forborn And it must be remembred that Rulers that are Infidels Papists Hereticks or Persecutors that restrain Church meetings to the injury of mens Souls must be distinguished from pious Princes that only restrain Hereticks and real Schismaticks for the Churches good 2. And that times of heresie and schism may make private meetings more dangerous than quiet times And so even the Scottish Church forbad private meetings in the Separatists days of late And when they do more hurt than good and are justly forbidden no doubt in that case it is a duty to obey and to forbear them It is a dangerous thing to be insnared in a Sect it will before you are aware possess you with a seaverish sinful zeal for the Opinions and interest of that Sect it will make you bold in bitter invectives and censures against those that differ from you it will corrupt your Church-communion and fill your very Prayers with partiality and humane passions it will secretly bring malice under the name of Zeal into your minds and words In a word it is a secret but deadly enemy to Christian love and peace Let them that are wiser and more Orthodox and godly than others shew as the Holy Ghost directeth them James 3. 13 14 c. out of a good conversation their works with meekness of wisdom But if ye have bitter envying or zeal and strife in your hearts Glory not and lye not against the truth This wisdom descendeth not from above but is earthly sensual Devilish Of Communion in the Lords Supper Qu. 2. May we communicate with unworthy persons Answ It is your duty to communicate with that Church which hath a true Pastor and where the denominating part of the members are capable of church-Church-communion though there may some Infidels or Heathen or uncapable Persons violently intrude or scandalous Persons are admitted through the neglect of Discipline in case you have not your choice to hold personal communion with a better Church and in case also you be not guilty of the corruption but by seasonable and modest professing your dissent do clear your self of the guilt of such intrusion and corruption Qu. 3. But what if I cannot communicate unless I conform to an imposed gesture as kneeling Answ I never yet heard any thing to prove kneeling unlawful there is no Word of God for or against any gesture Christ's example cannot be proved to oblige us in this and his gesture was not such a sitting as ours The nature of the Ordinance is mixt And if it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our Knees I know not what can make it unlawful to take a Sealed Pardon from Christ by his Ambassador upon our Knees As for this Ceremony of kneeling at the Sacrament especially since the Rubrick is inserted which disclaimeth both all Bread-worship and the bodily real-presence my judgment was ever for it God having made some gesture necessary and confined us to none but left it to humane determination I shall submit to Magistrates in their proper work I am not sure that Christ intended the example of himself in this as obligatory but I am sure he hath commanded me obedience and peace Mr. Perkins was for kneeling and Mr. Baines in his Letters writes for it and answers objections against it Qu. 4. But what if I cannot communicate but according to the administration of the Common-prayer book Answ 1. That it is not unlawful to receive according to the administration of the Common-prayer book because it is a form
the Iconoclastae or adversaries to the worshipping of Images we may with more truth account them who were Iconolatrae worshippers of Images Hereticks if not Idolaters By the way let me observe that if it be my duty to withhold communion from such as set up a false way of worshipping God as this Council did it is my duty also to withdraw from the Communion of such as profess false opinions of the true God as the Arrians c. did to whose assemblies the Author sees no reason but we may joyn our selves p. 215. Though this be contrary to his own rule p. 218. It is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falshoods as to put in practice unlawful or suspected Actions I hope the Reader will not think his patience injured if on this occasion I give him a brief account how Images were first brought into the Church of God and what reception they found in the Primitive times of both which I shall speak briefly They were first brought in by lewd hereticks and simple Christians newly converted from Paganism the customs whereof they had not fully unlearned Bishop Usher in his Answer to Maloon p. 508. gives this particular that the Gnostick hereticks had some Images painted in colours others framed of gold silver and other matter which they said were the representations of Christ made while he was in the power of Pontius Pilate The Collyridians who at certain times offered Cakes to the Virgin Mary did also cause Images of her to be made Carpocrates and Marcellina his companion brought the Images of Jesus and Paul to Rome in the time of Anicetus and worshipped them But the more plentiful seeds of this Idolatrous worship were sown by the heathen converts as Epiphanius observes We have seen the pictures of Peter and Paul and of Christ himself saith he for that of old they have been wont by a heathenish custom thus to honour them whom they counted their benefactors or Saviours And the Arrians and Donatists having for a long time rent the Church of God and pulled down the Fences both of Church and State they made way for vast numbers of Infidels to enter among whom the Christians being mixed and living in subjection to them in divers places they learned this custom also of making and honouring the Images of those whom they accounted their Patrons and benefactors Men of heretical perswasions were the first that were tainted worshipping the Graves and Pictures of their Leaders then these painted toyes insnared the vulgar and at Rome under Gregory the Second the worship of them is first practised and defended but at the same time opposed by Leo Isauricus and his successors And in a Council at Constantinople 338 Bishops condemned it Anno 754. the primitive Fathers having before that time constantly disputed against the very making and painting of Images as well as worshipping them whose testimonies against Images it will be in vain to heap up here I think it enough to observe that since Bishop Jewel challenged the Church of Rome to shew but one authority out of the Ancients for setting up of Images in the Churches and worshipping them during the first 600 years there hath not yet been any tolerable reply made But in the year 787. Hadrian being Bishop of Rome and Tharasius of Constantinople like Herod and Pilate were reconciled in this mischievous design and having the opportunity of a female Governess for Dux foemina facti they prevailed with Irene the Mother of Constantine to assemble a Council at Nice which the Papists call the seventh Oecumenical Council but by the Ancients was condemned as a Pseudo-synod This Irene was a Pagan the daughter of a Tartarian King and an Imperious tyrannical woman who in despite to the Council of Constantinople that had decreed against Images summoned this Synod which she so far defended that she caused the eyes of her own son Constantine to be pulled out because he would not consent to the Idolatrous having of Images as Bp. Jewel observes in the Article of Images where you may see more of the ignorance and impiety of this Synod This was the woman that called this meeting of the Bishops and you may guess under what fears they were of the cruelty of that woman who was so unnatural to her Son He that will be satisfied more fully concerning the Ignorance of this Synod may read it in their Acts mentioned by Binius or Surius or in Bishop Jewel concerning the Worshipping of Images ubi suprá Mittens Irene convocavit omnes Episcopos saith Baronius ad annum 787. so that the Pope had not then the power of calling Councils by the Cardinals own confession There was great intercourse of Letters between Hadrian and Tharasius before this Council was assembled which was done at last by Tharasius perswading of Irene and then there met 350 Bishops who agreed in this base decree for the adoration of Images as Bishop Usher calls it In this Synod the question for admission of lapsed Bishops and Presbyters was first proposed and although the Bishops that were readmitted were tainted with Arrianism as appears by the Synods demand that they should in the first place make an acknowledgment of the blessed Trinity yet Baronius slightly passeth over that and makes mention only of their submission to that point which as well the Cardinal as that Synod chiefly designed to advance i.e. the worshipping of images Basilius of Ancyra Theodorus of Myrene and Theodosius Bishop of Amorium are first called and these three post confessionem Sanctissimae Trinitatis of which the Cardinal says nothing more make a large profession of their sorrow for having adhered so long to the Iconoclastae or oppugners of Image-worship and present a confession of the Orthodox Faith as he calls it in opposition to those errors and hereticks to which they had adhered Now what that Orthodox faith was appears by the Confessions mentioned by Baronius wherein they did Anathematize them that broke down the images as Calumniators of Christians and such as did assume the sentences that are in the Scriptures against Idols and apply them to the venerable Images with much more to the like purpose But concerning their reception into the Church the question is greatly agitated and the books being produced by which it did appear that Athanasius Cyril and other ancient Pillars of the Church had received notorious hereticks into the Church a Bishop of the Province of Sicilia objects that the Canons of the Fathers which had been produced were enacted against the Novatians Encratists and Arrians hujus autem haeresis magistros quo loco habebimus but in what rank saith he shall we place the Masters of this heresie To which it was replyed by a Deacon of the same Province that it should be considered Minórne est quae nunc novata est haeresis an major illis quae hactenus fuere whether this new-sprung heresie were greater or less than those that were before it This is