perpetual stile of the Church yea the very Councel of England convince in Spelman 'T is true those Churches which were out of the Roman Empire were subject to no Patriarch as much as can be gathered out of the Canon of the Councel of Ephesus except they put themselves under any one or I think rather that by law they ought to be subject to that Patriarch from whom by his Apostolical Missionaries they first received the feith of Christ ob similitudinem casus Bulgarorum Nam secundum Juristas similium similis est ratio As we argue of the Indies and others lately converted Japonians and those of China It is true de facto some Provinces against all Law have revolted from the Patriarch of Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinople after the division of the Empire and others from him to others as Russia to the Bishop of Moscovia but these are done against all lawes and government of the Church The shift which our Country-men fly to saying they were compelled unto it for the too much cruelty of the Pope with the same facility it is rejected for it ought to have been examined by a general Councel and parts on both sides be heard as in the Councel of Trent an excellent occasion was given but ours appeared not because if it be lawfull for subjects to withdraw themselves from the obedience of their superiours as often as they pretend tyranny or what oppression soever so that themselves be actors and judges in their own causes it is to be feared that subjects of Princes or whatsoever soeveraignties by this occasion will lay hold on easie pretences of Rebellion for if the reason be good it is every-where in force and so any province out of apprehension of tyranny c. may justly and lawfully withdraw it self from their Prince or the Soveraign Magistracy Therefore it remains firm that seeing England by the most antient and strong right was subordinate to the Bishop of Rome neither hath that subordination been hitherto abrogated by any lawful and sufficient Councel yea neither the cause heard therefore they ought to remain under obedience of the same sea until a full discussion of the matter otherwise she can be no wayes free from the crime of Schism and rebellion according to that of St Nazianzen ep 1. We desire to know what this great lust of bringing novations about the Church is that every one that will c. For if they who now make the stir had any thing that they might disprove or condemn in us about faith not so truly we not being admonished was it meet to commit such a wickedness For you ought to be willing either to perswade or be perswaded if so be also we are in any place or number that who fear God and for the defence of the faith have undergone great labours and have well deserved of the Church and then if also then we machinate new things but notwithstanding by this reason these petulant and contumelious men might peradventure have some sufficient excuse Behold how this great Saint and Doctor of the Church maketh any recess from the Church impossible and unlawful The pestilent poyson of Schism covered over with an ill plaister may be judged sound by impudent men but truly except it be purged and wiped to the very bottome of the soar with the plaister of Christian peace it will be Schism still and consequently bring death to those that are infected with it Some labour to cloak their Schism and pretence of reformation under the fact of Ezechias Reg. 4.18 The business is this The Jewes had fallen into an inveterate custome of erecting altars and offering incense upon the mountains to the brazen Serpent c. contrary to Gods command The kings his predecessors were often reprehended for their neglect herein and Ezechiah much commended for his zeal and fortitude in breaking this ill custom Hence they argue it lawful for kings to reform abuses in the Church as in England All which is nothing to the purpose For first he did it with consent of the high priest as Josias also did in compleating the work begun by Ezekias as appears c. 23. Secondly there is no doubt but Princes are obliged by their office as being nurses of Gods Church to labour especially with the Prelates of the Church to suppress all emergent insolencies or innovations Thirdly Which is the main point Ezechias did not erect any new altar of division against the mother Church Jerusalem but took away the breach or division which be found made by others In the case of England it is just contrary King Henry the eighth began the rest have increased the Schism and erected new altars of division against Gods ordinances in the old and new law as Jeroboam did Reg. 11.29 which God so severely punished So that I cannot see at all with what modestie this fact of Ezechias or Josias could be alledged to warrant the dissection of our Country from the Church since it plainly inferreth the contrary namely that abuses though never so much authorized by wicked Princes or long customs are to be abolished by succeeding Princes to redintegrate the primary union and conformity with the mother Church which is the case of England A main Objection which they use for their Schism is because as they say we forbid a discussion of our tenents by the light of reason which they esteem to be against reason which should be our guide in all things and especially in matters of religion CHAP. 5. Of what use Reason is in disoussing of Faith PHilosophy and Faith go upon contrary principles and hence peradventure they lay hold of occasion of error the antiquity of opinion in Philosophy if it be any thing it must be fortified with new reasons otherwise in process of time it vanisheth but in Christian faith reason it self that it may be efficatious springeth from antiquity otherwise in that it is new it vanisheth away according to that of St. Augustine against two Epistles of the Pelagiuns c. 6. The antiquity of our doctrine declares the truth of it as the novelty of the other shews it to be Heresie In Philosophy reason raigneth here it serveth and consequently is captivated according to the Apostle It is not quite rejected neither is it admitted out of the bounds of a servant for as Roger Bacon excellently speaketh in his fourth part of his greater work We do not seek reason before faith but after it Here was Chillingworth's error in objecting that Catholicks as well as they recur to reason in faith we do indeed use reason as a servant not as a mistris We put it as Frier Bacon notes after faith not before it but these new pretenders to divinity prefer their reason before faith Turn the cat in the pan and make faith subservient to their reason as Teriullian against Hermogenes They descend from the Church to the School of Aristotle they appeal as to the supremest court to the seat of common
Schism is not properly a seperation for Heresie or Error in point of doctrin or Faith but in point of disobedience which is not a trivial matter as all common-wealths will easily conceive being that nerve upon which all order de pends and therefore the Quarta-decimans being rebellious to the mandatory decree of Nice all Catholicks had reason to decline their communion I know Theodoret in l. 1. c. 13. of his Ecclesiastical History and other learned men with St. Athanasius in his tract of Synods do esteem that the question of Easter was not defined as a point of faith but commanded to be observed as a custome derived from the Apostles and in confirmation of this they observe that the Councel varieth the form of speech in a migitatory way from the accustomary stile in declaring points of faith saying Visum est ut omnes obtemper arent in question of faith they did not write visum est But credit Ecclesia Catholica Thus the Catholick Church beleeved c. And therefore if his undervaluing the cause of this Schism grew from this gross misprison of the state of the controversie he should do well to resume his better diligence in examining it He might with greater appearance have brought that folemn word combat touching person hypostasis betwixt the eastern western Churches which great Athaenasius more clearly opened and closed up again Many contested ignorantly after the manner of those who fight with their eyes shut and beat the air Some held three hypostasis other but one in the diety from whence great contentions arose But as Athanasius relates When we asked out of what reason they speak these things or why all do use three kinde of words They made answer that they beleeved in the Trinity c. Approving therefore this interpretation and excuse we examined those who asserted that there was but one hypostasis c. Who affirmed that they understood Hypostasis that is person to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is essence c. To conclude all by the grace of God after this interpretation of the words did approve of the best and exactest rules of faith which the Fathers of Nice had instituted Some indeed for their material errors did deny communion but as yet there was no formal Schism betwixt the Churches but perticular persons perhaps it might have grown to a greater head had not great Athanasius interposed or rather had not Christ Jesus hindred it But among us the altar of division is erected against the altar of union with Christ out of which it is impious to celebrate Christs misteries the difference is not of words but substance not against the letter but the life and sense of the holy Soripture If these things be trifles why do you separate your selves Why do you punish Priests with death who are followers and ministers of our communion Against all meekness and clemency of the ancients To conclude Why have you built a new altar framed the stones of scandal and division At leastwise ye have broken down and demolished all the old ones insomuch that ye abhor the very name of tar as these later times in your dâ—inâ— stick yet fiery contention in pulpits and pamphlets about 12. years past sussiciently testifie to what end is all this if the difference betwixt you and us be nothing else but about a Cock and Bull And that the same Author affirmeth it to be lawful to communicate with the Arians and Eutychians Nestorians Photians Sabessians because it is not certain that these invented their heresies out of malice but it is otherwise concerning the Manichees Valentineans Macedonians and Mahometans because it is manifest to all that they taught these blasphemies against their own judgements I wonder at this assertion from a person of his eminency for abstracting from the intention of the former against whom notwithstanding there was sufficient presumption as among the ancients is clearer then the Sun no less then against the other but to grant I say what is not to be granted what is that to me whether they have vomitted out their heresie to the eternal destruction of souls with a formal or onely interpretive intention to deceive As long as I communicate with them and leave the truth taught from the beginning and delivered by the hands of the Fathers unto posterity We must look here upon the heresie not the minde or intention of the heretick that not this damneth the souls of those that communicate or pertinatiously adhere unto it as St. August often argueth in the the errors of St. Cyprian and the Donatists whom this Author also derideth But to come home to him Who knoweth not but that Luther against his own judgement began this Schism Who knoweth not that Henry the eighth framed it out of a fained and adulterate conscience Who of us doth not know that Queen Elizabeth out of no Religion but politick ends perverted the Schism into Heresie If therefore for this reason Communon with such are not lawfull as he affirmed of the last Apostates neither certainly is it lawful here Neither will it help them what the others are wont to object that England did enjoy a priviledg which they call Cyprium indeed Tomakas Câ—drenas and many were that the Bishop of Cyyprus was declared exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch The consequencâ— most not be drawn to England in respect of the Sea of Rome except an express priviledge can be sheweth which hither to was never dreamed of yea besides other common titles of obedience the case of the Bulgars may and ought to be drawn unto us to wit for the title of conversion as the decision of the cause is in the law Indeed there is extant a decree in Con. Consta c. 2. That Bishops must not confound and intermingle their Churches but stand to the appointed rules and their certain limits are affigned to the Patriarchs In the first Councel of Ephesus also it is decreed that no Bishop invade the province of another which was not first and from the beginning under his or his ancestors jurisdiction Hence it was that the cause of the Church of Cyprus was heard which the Bishop of Antioch would have subject unto him but it was judged that that yoak should be shaken off upon another title The Country was converted unto Christ by St. Barnabe whose relicks being found there with St. Mathew's Gospel upon his brest written by St. Barnabe this gave occasion to commence a sute of exemption that they might enjoy the priviledge of a Metropolitan which was granted so that afterwards they were onely subject to Constantinople The general Councel it self in the eighth Canon speaks home of it and checks the Bishop of Antioch for having transgressed Ecclesiastical and Apostolical rules in this pretence namely because he did ordain in Cyprus which was alwayes an act of jurisdiction to which he had no just title because these Churches were never put under him
as appears in the Councel What similitude hath this case with the known subjection of England to Rome known I say and acknowledged even by our lawes ever from the conversion of the Country under St. Gregory All lawful mutations of Provinces which were ever made as long as the Church was in her full power had to this effect the especial authority of some general Councel So in the Councel of Constantinople many dioceses and some whole Provinces were made subject to that Patriarch which before were subject to Ephesus and the Primate of Trace So in the Councel of Calcedon exchange of Provinces was decreed between the Patriarch of Antioch and Hierusalem and in the first general Councel the sea of Hierusalem was created a Patriarchate and the refore the Fathers took some Provinces from the Patriarchate of Antioch others from Alexandria And in the foresaid example the Cyprians could not shake off the authority of Antioch till the decree was produced of the Councel of Ephesus Much loss this Iland ought to separate from the Sea of Rome by reason of the titile of conversion and only under Gregory the first but long before the entrance of St. Austin under Pope Elutherius by Elvanus and Meduinus Priests being requested thereunto by King Lucius Anno Dom. 179. Whilest it was possest by the Brittans in which primitive faith it remained immaculate and uncorrupted except the question of Pascha in which it was corrupted by Picts and Scots indeed they resisted St. Austin because they thought he sided with the Saxons who had expelled them by force out of the kingdom and because they had an Arch-Bishop of their own of Legancestriae Those other things which the Author so often cited of the Treatise of Schism mentioned for he proves nothing concerning the nullity of power or of all superiority of Christians as they are such so that no obedience but simple reverence is due to our betters except that which may arise by certain convention amongst men not by right This Tenet indeed if made good would make all Schism impossible all superiority ridiculous and arbitrary but it is far from Christian verity being against Scripture it self and all common sense of Christians And truly whatsoever the same Author saith in and for the cause of the Donatists if it hath any favour he doth not onely accuse St. Augustine but the whole Church of foolishness and malice and all the Prophecies of the fignes of the Church upon which St. Augustine before him Optatus Hierom and all Bishops and Doctors rely out of the old and new law the Prophets and the Acts of the Apostles all which in them this man derideth what he speaketh of the use of Images he simply affirmeth as the rest but is so far from proving any thing that he doth not so much as attempt it neither is it a thing worthy my insisting upon since every Abodary Controvertist makes it obvious to children Yet Mr. Hobbs will force me afterward to joyn issue with him in it In fine The Treatise of Schism speaketh many things which seem distructive to Christian faith which he barely proposeth or rather supposeth out of which false supposition he doth falsly conclude that there is no Schism in the Church but as Aristotle Pol. l. 2. c. 4 rightly admonisheth Suppositions indeed may be made as every one pleaseth but not impossible ones Neither is it of more moment what Antonius de Dominis l. 4. and others contend that it was not lawful for the Africans to appeal to Rome according to the 22. Canon Concil Melevit And in like manner England was not bound to recur thither or elsewhere but justly provided for its own right whilest it withdrew it self from the Roman yoak as the African Church living in the district of the Patriarchate procured to it self the same ease First I say that Africa did in no wise withdraw it self from the obedience of the Sea of Rome I add moreover neither did it deny the right of appeals but in certain cases certain persons to wit simple Clearks which did appeal thither without observing any order of law which the Bishop of Rome did doth at this day condemn otherwise read St. Augustine ep 162. Omitting others who expresly affirms the right of appeals to the Sea of Rome So the pretended Canon made by the consent of the Bishop of Rome sheweth no other thing but in no wise as I said did it withdraw it self from the obedience of the Sea of Rome Neither is there the least shew of it but of the clean contrary in the reciprocal letters of that Councel to the Pope and of him to them as may be seen in the body of the Epistle of St. Augustine it would be tedious to learned Readers if I should write them out they will more easily recur to the place cited I add further worthy to be noted If the right of appeals had been there abrogated yet it concludes not that the jurisdiction of the Sea of Rome over them was anulled except any should be so senceless as to imagine that the prefects of the Pretorian Court were not subject to the Roman Emperors because their authority deserved to be advanced to such a height that it was not lawful to appeal from them l. 1. F. de offic Pref. Praet I am not ignorant that some Grecians as Nilus contend that the right of appeals which the Seat of Rome hath for he acknowledgeth that in respect of the other Patriarchs doth not convince that Seat to have jurisdiction over them Because by the same reason the constant Inopolitan having by the Councel of Calcedon Can. 9. the same power over their Metropolitans doth not exexcise jurisdiction over them I answer That be denieth only the Bishop of Rome to have the same power over the general Patriarchs which he hath over other Bishops who are ordained by authority derived from him and therefore concludes that the Pope cannot trouble their ordinary government which is true This therefore confirmeth what hitherto hath been said and maketh good that England by all law remains subject to the Sea of Rome under pain of Rebellion CHAP. 7. Protestants have made this Schism IT is clearer then noon day that not Catholicks but Protestants have made this Schism and divided the Church because when in any Common-wealth governed under the same Prince or Soveraignty and by the same lawes a few men withdraw themselves from the obedience of authority and increasing in number they begin to set up their conventicles make lawes and the rest of the body remaining in the ancient manner of government under their own Soveraign power proclaim a war It is manifest not the Body of the Common wealth which still persevereth in the same state but these few men receding from the Body with their adherents have made the division and blown up the rebellion In the same manner have Protestants behaved themselves towards Catholicks before the scandal of Henry the 8th or
offended with the Popes Tertullian though persecuted for Montanism by that sea yet acknowledges the power 1. de pudicitia Audio edictum esse propositum et quidem peremptorium Pontifer scilicet maximus c. I understand that the Pope hath made a peremptory decree c. where he is angry at it because against his heresie but doubteth not of his power St. Cyprian as Erasmus in his notes confesseth everywhere acknowledgeth it even St. Stephen and Cornelius his adversaries Usher who boggles at all things because St. Cyprian calls Cornclius brother would seem to doubt but Erasmus less squintsighted will teach him that it is in respect of his conjunction in faith not equality of person St. Ireneus is so vulgarly known that all confess it Nay even Usher who seems to have sworn to corrupt the clearest passages of antiquity yet confesseth in the business of Easter that St. Victor Pope did then pretend his supremacy over the rest of the Churches as appears in his Catologue as he calls it in the second Century So that it is no new title of the Popes even according to Usher The full sway of this great Bugbear in every age according to the enlargment of Christian bounds appears still more gloriously in the Oeconomy of the Church before in after the four Councels to St. Gregory Therefore I touch this no more every Abodary controvertist forceth them to confess it to be truth Mr. Hobbs indeed c. 17. in the end of n. 26. denieth that there is or can be a Rector of the universal Church by whose authority the whole Church may be convocated He ventures also to prove it thus because to be a rector in that sense over the Church is to be rector and lord of all Christians in the whole world which is not granted to any but God If he had been a stranger in Christian principles it had been no wonder to have misunderstood so solemn and publick a Tenet The Supreme Pastor of the Church hath an acknowledged power for preservation of the Church in integrity of faith to convocate Bishops to a general deliberation and determination of things necessary to salvation and to this end he hath coactive power in the exercise of his spititual sword and no otherwise What connexion this hath with a Dominion over the world I know not which by God himself is denied him in holy Scripture and in this his power is distinguished from temporal principality His power is spiritual his weapons are spiritual the objects to which he tends are spiritual in this confinement he commands without prejudice to temporal rights wherein Princes are simply supreme and onely have the coactive sword of justice independently in respect of him and this onely is dominion He thinks this too much and therefore will not acknowledge that there is any subordination in Christianity out of each city or county but every city is supreme to it self in Spiritual and Ecclesastical matters and therefore no Prince or city or particular Church can be excommunicated or interdicted Supposing the antecedent the consequence would without much difficulty be proved for if the Prince is supreme in all things he cannot be excommunicated which is an act of superiority neither the common-wealth by it self for it were to dissolve it self into no city if it should deprive it self of mutual commerce which he acknowledgeth to be an effect of excommunication But he leapes over the proof of the Antecedent which had been indeed worth his doing by Topicks fit for him taken out of Scripture antiquity or reason subordinate to these principles At least he should have shewed an inconsistency of the publick welfare of a common-wealth with the spiritual subordination of particular Churches to a supreame seated out of the temporal confines Surely if there were not a most ordinate subordination all religion would turn to a Hidraes confusion which were to destroy Christs acquired spiritual kingdom on earth and is evidenlty against the light of reason and one main article of the Creed which he accepteth of communion of Saints The excellency of Christs kingdom is that though universal yet it troubleth not but much conserveth each kingdom in their particular Oeconomy though much different betwixt themselves St. Augustine in his city of God Orostus in his History and many others against the Gentiles demonstratively shew the benefits all places receive by this spiritual subjection to Christian principles Amongst which this was alwayes judged one of the most capital as St. Denise St. Ignatius and the rest shew of this Hierarchy instituted by God He would tell us not perswade us c. 17. n. 22. that all power which anciently the Church of Rome exercised over particular Churches or Cities was derived from the Soveraignty of the Emperors and was shaken off when their Empire was abdicated and in pursuit of this he saith that the Roman Church was indeed very large anciently but always confined within the limits of the Empire How false this is no man can be ignorant that hath perused antiquity Prosper assures us that Rome is made greater by the faith of Christ then by the civil Empire and so the rest of the Fathers but especially he de vacatione Gentium l. 2. c. 16. Roma per Apostolici Sacerdotij Principatum amplior facta est arce religionis quam solen Potestatis St. Ireneus indeed tells us that the reason why Rome was chosen for the head was because it had been the head of the Empire but none will say that it was confined by it or measured her spiritual territories by it Who knows not that even in the Apostles time and ever since vast Empires were reduced to this spiritual Empire of Rome which never had to do with the Romane Empire Our own countries ever acknowledged subjection to the Church of Rome under this title Scotland also and Ireland were most oxthodoxly subject to the mitre though not to the Scepter This is onely by the by to Mr. Hobbs But besides this the Patriarchal right which he hath over this our nation cannot be deposited by them for by the same causes authority should be destroyed by which it was set up as the Jurists agree seeing therefore that the Bishop of Rome hath had his Patriarchal power granted unto him by general Councels to wit by those four first which St. Gregory received as four Gospels and especially here by the Parlimentary lawes are esteemed sacred it followeth manifestly that by less power then a general Councel it cannot be abolished for our Britany is one of the seven provinces of the western Church which are the ancient bounds of the Roman Patriarchate as all know In times past I grant that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was called Patriarch by Pope Urbane the second with Anselme and Malmes and the Glosse c. Clero d. 21. as also the Bishop of Algar in the districts of Venice but this was for honors sake not for exemption as the thing it self speaketh and the