think no sin to be little which in Men spiritually sick is Error saluberrimus and you can never err For natural Physick is only Physick but spiritual Physick is both Physick and Diet and may be indifferently administred both to the sick and the sound Repentance perchance only excepted of which upon occasion assure your self can hardly take too much What reason now can you give me why you should desire to dive into any Man's Breast scire Secreta Domûs Except it be that which follows in the next Verse indè teneri as I must confess I suspect it is The truth is some mistaken Customs of the ancient Church the craft and power of the Clergy the simplicity and ignorance of the Laity these begat the Tragelaphus of which we now speak It may be you take the practice of the ancient Church and the Point of Excomunication to make somewhat for you When those Cards shall come to be play'd though that of Church-custom is not greatly material which way soever it looks I believe you will not find the Game you look for Indeed I was once minded to have considered something of that But I think you look for a Letter not for a Book and I perceive my self already to have gone beyond the compass of a Letter Another Parley therefore if you please shall put an end to those and other Scruples if any do arise And for the present give I pray you a little respite unto Yours J. H. From my Study this 8 Day of March 1637. A TRACT Concerning SCHISM Heresie and Schism as they are in common use are two Theological 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or scare-crows which they who uphold a Party in Religion use to fright away such as making inquiry into it are ready to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either erroneous or suspicious For as Plutarch reports of a Painter who having unskilfully painted a Cock chased away all Cocks and Hens that so the imperfection of Art might not appear by comparison with Nature so Men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own endeavour to hinder an inquiry into it by way of comparison of somewhat with it peradventure truer that so the deformity of their own might not appear But howsoever in the common manage Heresie and Schism are but ridiculous Terms yet the things in themselves are of very considerable moment the one offending against Truth the other against Charity and therefore both deadly where they are not by imputation but in deed It is then a matter of no small importance truly to descry the nature of them that so they may fear who are guilty of them and they on the contrary strengthen themselves who through the iniquity of Men and times are injuriously charged with them Schism for of Heresie we shall not now treat except it be by accident and that by occasion of a general mistake spread throughout all the writings of the Ancients in which their names are familiarly confounded Schism I say upon the very sound of the word imports Division Division is not but where Communion is or ought to be Now Communion is the strength and ground of all Society whether Sacred or Civil Whosoever therefore they be that offend against this common Society and Friendliness of Men and cause separation and breach among them If it be in civil occasions are guilty of Sedition or Rebellion if it be by occasion of Ecclesiastical difference they are guilty of Schism So that Schism is an Ecclesiastical Sedition as Sedition is a Lay-Schism Yet the great benefit of Communion notwithstanding in regard of divers distempers Men are subject to Dissension and Disunion are often necessary For when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for Truth and Acts either unlawful or ministring just scruple are required of us to be perform'd in these cases Consent were conspiracy and open Contestation is not Faction or Schism but due Christian Animosity For the further opening therefore of the nature of Schism something must be added by way of difference to distinguish it from necessary Separation and that is that the causes upon which Division is attempted proceed not from Passion or Distemper or from Ambition or Avarice or such other Ends as humane folly is apt to pursue but from well weighed and necessary Reasons and that when all other means having been tryed nothing will serve to save us from guilt of Conscience but open Separation So that Schism if we would define it is nothing else but an unnecessary Separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church of which they were once Members Now as in Mutinies and Civil Dissensions there are two Attendants in ordinary belonging unto them one the choice of one Elector or Guide in place of the General or ordinary Governour to rule and guide the other the appointing of some publick place or Rendezvous where publick Meetings must be celebrated So in Church-Dissensions and Quarrels two Appurtenances there are which serve to make a Schism compleat First The choice of a Bishop in opposition to the former a thing very frequent amongst the Ancients and which many times was both the cause and effect of Schism Secondly The erecting of a new Church and Oratory for the Dividing-party to meet in publickly For till this be done the Schism is but yet in the Womb. In that late famous Controversy in Holland De Praedestinatione Auxiliis as long as the disagreeing Parties went no further than Disputes and Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatched but as soon as one Party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church by putting a new pulpit in it for the separating Party there to meet now what before was a Controversy became a formal Schism To know no more than this if you take it to be true had been enough to direct how you are to judge and what to think of Schism and Shismaticks yet because in the Ancients by whom many Men are more affrighted than hurt much is said and many fearful Dooms are pronounced in this case will we descend a little to consider of Schisms as it were by way of Story and that partly further to open that which we have said in general by instancing in particulars and partly to disabuse those who reverencing Antiquity more than needs have suffered themselves to be scared with imputation of Schism above due measure for what the Ancients spake by way of censure of Schism in general is most true for they saw and it is no great matter to see so much that unadvisedly and upon fancy to break the knot of Union betwixt Man and Man especially amongst Christians upon whom above all other kind of Men the tye of Love and Communion doth most especially rest was a Crime hardly pardonable and that nothing Absolves a Man from the guilt of it but true and unpretended Conscience yet when they came to pronounce of Schisms in
Men neither of Judgment nor Learning such are they of whom these Bodies do consist And are these Men in common equity likely to determine for Truth Qui ut in vita sic in causis spes quoque improbas alunt as Quintilian speaks Again when such Persons are thus met their way to procede to conclusion is not by weight of Reason but by multitude of Votes and Suffrages as if it were a maxim in nature That the greater part must needs be better whereas our common experience shews That Nunquam it a benè agitur cum rebus humanis ut plures sint meliores It was never heard in any profession That Conclusion of Truth went by plurality of Voices the Christian profession only excepted and I have often mused how it comes to pass That the way which in all other Sciences is not able to warrant the poorest Conclusion should be thought sufficient to give authority to Conclusions in Divinity the Supreme Empress of Sciences But I see what it is that is usually pleaded and with your leave I will a little consider of it If it be given out That Christian meetings have such an assistance of God and his blessed Spirit that let their Persons be what they will they may assure themselves against all possibility of mistaking and this is that they say which to this way of ending Controversies which in all other Sciences is so contemptible gives a determining to Theolgical Disputes of so great Authority And this Musick of the Spirit it is so pleasing that it has taken the Reformed Party too for with them likewise all things at lengh end in this Spirit but with this difference that those of Rome confine the Spirit to the Bishops and Counsels of Rome but the Protestant enlargeth this working of the Spirit and makes it the Director of private meditations I should doubtless do great injury to the goodness of God if I should deny the sufficient assistance of God to the whole World to preserve them both from sin in their Actions and damnable errors in their opinions much more should I do it if I denied it to the Church of God but this assistance of God may very well be and yet Men may fall into sin and errors St. Paul preaching to the Gentiles tells them That God was with them in so palpable a manner that even by the groping they might have found him yet both he and we know what the Gentiles did Christ hath promised his perpetual assistance to his Church but hath he left any Prophecy that the Church should perpetually adhere to him if any Man think he hath it is his part to inform us where this Prophecy is to be found That matters may go well with Men two things must concur the assistance of God to Men and the adherence of Men to God if either of these be deficient there will be a little good done Now the first of these is never deficient but the second is very often so that the Promise of Christ's perpetual presence made unto the Church infers not at all any presumption of Infabillity As for that term of Spirit which is so much taken up to open the danger that lurks under it we must a little distinguish upon the Word This term Spirit of God either it signifies the third Person in the blessed Trinity or else the wonderful power of Miracles of Tongues of Healing c. which was given to the Apostles and other of the Primitive Christians at the first preaching of the Gospel but both these meanings are strangers to our purpose The Spirit of God as it concerns the Question here in hand signifies either something within us or something without us Without us it signifies the written Word recorded in the Books of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists which are metonymically called the Spirit because the Holy Ghost spake those things by their mouths when they lived and now speaks us by their pens when they are dead If you please to receive it this alone is left as Christ's Vicar in his absence to give us directions both in our actions and opinions he that tells you of another Spirit in the Church to direct you in your way may as well tell you a tale of a Puck or a walking Spirit in the Church-Yard But that this Spirit speaking without us may be beneficial to us oportet aliquid intus esse there must be something within us which also we call the Spirit and this is twofold For either it signifies a secret Illapse or supernatural Influence of God upon the hearts of Men by which he is supposed inwardly to incline inform and direct Men in their ways and wills and to preserve them from sin and Mistake or else it signifies that in us which is opposed against the flesh and which denominates us spiritual Men and by which we are said to walk according to the Spirit that which St. Paul means when he tells us The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh Rom. 7. so that we may not do what we list Now of these two the former it is which the Church seems to appeal unto in determining Controversies by way of Counsel But to this I have little to say First Because I know not whether there be any such thing yea or no. Secondly Because experience shews That the pretence of the Spirit in this sense is very dangerous as being next at hand to give countenance to imposture and abuse which is a thing sufficiently seen and acknowledged both by the Papist and Protestant Party as it appears by this that though both pretend unto it yet both upbraid each other with the pretence of it But the Spirit in the second sense is that I contend for and this is nothing but the Reason illuminated by Revelation out of the written Word For when the Mind and Spirit humbly conform and submit to the written Will of God then you are properly said to have the Spirit of God and to walk according to the Spirit not according to the Flesh This alone is that Spirit which preserves us from straying from the Truth For he indeed that hath the Spirit errs not at all or if he do it is with as little hazard and danger as may be which is the highest point of Infallibility which either private Persons or Churches can arrive unto Yet would I not have you to conceive That I deny that at this day the Holy Ghost communicates himself to any in this secret and supernatural manner as in foregoing times He had been wont to do indeed my own many uncleannesses are sufficient reasons to hinder that good Spirit to participate himself unto me after that manner The Holy Ghost was pleased to come down like a Dove Veniunt ad candida tecta Columbae Accipict nullas sordida Turris Aves Now it is no reason to conclude the Holy Ghost imparts himself in this manner to none because he hath not done that favour
your heaping up of Interrogatories and your pressing of Ligaveritis vos and telling me what I never knew that Solvere and Ligare be Actives yet in this part of our Power all your Activity is lost and there remains nothing for you but to report upon good evidence what you find done by your betters to your hand Half your Jurisdiction then is fallen and if I had no other Medium but this I might with good probability conclude against you for the other part For if the one half made in the same Form in the like phrase and garb of speech yet enforceth no more but Declaration and Denouncing then why should you think the other half which in likelyhood is homogeneal to the former to be more Nay there is far more natural Equity that you should be here only Declarative than in the other Politicians tell us That it is Wisdom for Princes who desire to gain the love of their Subjects to administer themselves all Favours and Graces but to leave action of Justice and Harshness to be performed by others Sir No Prince can be so ambitious of the Love of his Subjects as God is of the Love of Mankind why then should I think him so ill a Politician as to make himself the administrator of the Rough Unpleasing Love-killing Offices of Binding Shutting Retaining and then pass over to the Priest the dispensation of the Fair Well-spoken Ingratiating Offices of Remitting Loosing and Opening But I will leave this kind of Topick and Dialectical arguing because you are a pretender to convincing Reasons I will directly enter even upon that part of your power of Opening and Remitting being the other part of your Territory and by main strength take all activity from you there too Give me leave to ask you one Question you may very well favour me so far for you have asked me very many The Conversion of a Sinner is it an act of the Keys yea or no By your Principles it is not for you make the power of the Keys to be judiciary and therefore the Conversion of an Infidel pertains not to them The Church of Rome will help you with a Medium to make this Argument good Do we not judge those that are within for those that are without God shall judge saith Paul Whence she infers That a converted Infidel not yet admitted to the Church is a Stranger to the Judiciary Power of the Keys but being once admitted into the Church he is now become the Church's Subject and so fit matter for the Priest to work on upon his next Relapse What think you of this Reason Do you take it to be good Take heed or else it will give you a deadly stripe For the Conversion of an Infidel out of question is a most proper act of the Keys For since the opening of the Kingdom of Heaven is confess'd to belong unto the Keys and Heaven which was shut against the Infidel in time of his Infidelity upon his Conversion is acknowledged to be opened unto him certainly whoever converted him used the Keys or else he must pretend to have either a Pick-lock or the Herb Lunaria which they say makes Locks fall off from Doors and the Fetters from Horses heels If then the Conversion of a Sinner be an act of the Keys and by the Argument of the Church of Rome it be not judiciary it follows then That all Acts of the Keys are not Judiciary and if not Judiciary then Declarative only For betwixt these two I know no mean But because to dispute against a Man out of his own Principles which perchance are false for this oft we know falls out that by the power of Syllogisms Men may and do draw True Conclusions from False Premises because I say thus to do in the judgment of Aristotle leaves a Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I am willing not only to perswade you but to better you I will draw the little which remains to be said in this Point from other Places First In all the Apostles practice in Converting Jews and Gentiles find you any thing like unto the act of any Judiciary Power They neither did nor could use any such thing That they did not appears by Philip who having Catechized the Eunuch and finding him desirous of Baptism immediately upon profession of his Faith admitted him into the Church That they neither did nor could appears by Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the Acts who could never in the space of an afternoon being none but themselves have converted three thousand Souls had they taken any such way as you seem to misfancy Again imagine with your self all circumstances you can which are of force to make a power judiciary apply them all to the practice of the Apostles in the Conversion of Infidels and if you find any one of them agree to that action let me be challenged upon it and be thought to have abused you with a Fallacy To conclude then since your Ligaveritis which is the one half of your pretended Jurisdiction pretends to nothing above Declarative And since your Solveritis in so great an act as is the Conversion of Infidels lays claim to no more what act of the power of the Keys is it wherein we may conceive hope of finding any thing active or judiciary I see what you will say There yet remains a part you think wherein you have hope to speed and that is the reconciling of relapsing Christians As you fancy that in every sinning Christian there is a duty binding him to repair and lay his sin open to the Minister of the Gospel and him a power to consider of the sins of such as repair unto him to weigh particulars to consider circumstances and occasions and according to true Judgment either upon penance imposed to absolve sin which you call remitting of the sin or to with-hold him for a time from participation of holy duties with Catholick Christians which you call retaining of sins supposing that God doth the like in Heaven as it is written What you bind in Earth is bound in Heaven and what you loose in Earth is loosed in Heaven Now the Rock on which you labour to found so extravagant a Conceit is no other than the Words which I have quoted out of Scripture you press earnestly the Ligaveritis vos all which can yield you small relief for if they help you not at all in those weighty parts of the Power of the Keys which but now were laid before you by what Analogy can you expect they should afford you any assistance here As is Ligare so is Solvere as is the Conversion of an Infidel so is the reconciling of a relapsing Christian for any thing you can make appear Either all is Declarative which is very possible and in many cases necessary or all Judicative which in some cases is impossible and in none necessary so that to fit the Scripture to your Fancy you are constrained to
all was commonly worst lookt unto in wise and most Christian Care they designed some whose duty it should be to wait upon the Gospel alone the better to preserve the Profession to the World's end It hath been the wisdom of those who have taken care of the propagation of Arts and Sciences not only to appoint means that multitudes should study and make profession privately but that some should be constituted publick Professors to teach è Cathedra that so all might know to whom to repair in the doubts incident to their faculties and this hath been thought a sovereign way to preserve Sciences Sir we are the publick Professors of Christianity we speak è Cathedra which none can do but such as are ordained Let the private profession and practice of Christianity improve it self never so much yet the honour of the Publick Professor so he deserves his place can never impair It grieves me to stand so long upon so plain so unwelcome a Lesson I will ease my self and you and reflect upon your third Query In the third place you require to know What necessity or what convenience there is of Confession You mean I think that confession which is as foolishly as commonly called Sacramental for it hath nothing of a Sacrament in it Did I know your mind a little more in particular what form of Confession you speak of whether as it is used in the Church of Rome or in some refined Guise as it seems some would who have of late called for it in the Church of England I should speak peradventure more appositely to what you desire But you have proposed Confession only in generality my answer shall be in like manner And First of all Confession of sins is a thing not only convenient but unavoidably necessary to Salvation without which none shall ever see God And thus far I suppose all Christians do agree The main Difference is in the manner of practising it the Question being What Parties are to be interessed in it Natural Equity informeth us That unto every Party justly offended Satisfaction some way or other is due The first Party wronged in every offence is God against whose Honour and express Command every sin is committed To him therefore in the first place Satisfaction is due by submission and acknowledgment since there remains no other way of composition with God But there are some sins committed against God some committed against God and Men. In the former it is sufficient if we pacifie God alone in the latter our Neighbour against whom we have trespass'd must receive Satisfaction for the wrong done him at least if it be in the power of the Trespasser Your Primer of Sarum will tell you That not to make restitution if you be able and not to pardon unavoidably excludes from the Kingdom of Heaven Now might the Doctrine of Confession and acknowledgement in case of Offence given have been permitted to run fair and clear as it descends from God and good reason the first Fountains of it There needed no more to be said in this argument than I already told you But I know not what intempestive foolish Ambition hath troubled the stream and it hath pass'd now for a long time till the Reformation altered it for a general Doctrine in the Church That in all kind of sins whether against God or our Neighbour there can be no reconciliation betwixt the Parties offending and offended but by interposition of a Priest a thing utterly besides all reason and common sense that you should open your private imperfections to one whom they concern not for it is granted that all Parties concerned in an Offence must have reason at the hands of the Offender and who can no ways help you For he that is conscious of his sin and without trouble of Conscience I think none would ever repair to his Confessor knows very well That there is no sin so great but upon submission God both can and will pardon it and none so small but pardon for it must be sought or else he hath been ill catechized And more than this what can any Priest tell him Your Pliny somewhere tells you That he that is stricken by a Scorpion if he go immediately and whisper it into the ear of an Ass shall find himself immediately eased That Sin is a Scorpion and bites deadly I have always believed but that to cure the bite of it was a Sovereign Remedy to whisper it into the Ear of an a Priest I do as well believe as I do that of Pliny The Patrons of this Fancy for defect of reason and common congruity are fain to betake themselves to Scripture and the mischief is there is there no direct Text for it and therefore they are constrained to help themselves with a meer conjectural consequence For since it is taken for certain that there is a Power to Remit and to retain sins how shall they who have this Power given them know how fit it is to Remit or to retain a sin except they know the sin and know it they cannot but by Confession For answer to this First We have found and proved That the Words of Scripture must receive such a sense as from whence no such Consequence can be inferred Secondly we have indeavoured to prove That the Dispensation or Application of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven being nothing else but the duty of saving of Souls is a Duty which pro Occasione oblatâ lies upon every Christian Which if it be true as in good faith I think it and the Clergy perceive it I think they would never go about to urge that Text although we should yield it them in their own meaning For they must needs see That it follows that you may as well make your Muletter if you have one your Confessor as your Parish-Priest Tell me in good earnest if you can out of what good intent can this desire to know another Man's sin which concerns you not proceed Is it to teach him that it is a sin He knew that or else he had never repaired to you to confess it Is it to tell him that he is to repent to restore to pray to give alms c. All this he knew or else he hath had his breeding under an evil Clergy Yea but how shall the Physician cure the Disease if he know it not Suppose all Diseases had one Remedy as all Spiritual have and what matters it if the Patient be sick to know whether it be an Ague or Meazles or Pleurifie since one Potion cures them all Yea but if he know not the particulars how shall he judge of the Quantity of the Doses For the same Disease upon sundry circumstances may require Majus or Minus in the Physick This is the poorest scruple of a thousand for in the Regiment of Patients spiritually sick there can be but one mistake that is if you give too little Be sure you give enough and teach your Patients to
particular whether it were because of their own interests or that they saw not the Truth or for what other cause God only doth know their Judgments many times to speak most gently are justly to be suspected Which that you may see we will range all Schism into two ranks For there is a Schism in which only one Party is the Schismatick for where cause of Schism is necessary there not he that separates but he that occasions the separation is the Schismatick Secondly There is a Schism wherein both Parties are the Schismaticks For where the occasion of separation is unnecessary neither side can be excused from the guilt of Schism But you will ask Who shall be the Judge what is necessary Indeed that is a Question which hath been often made but I think scarcely ever truly answered not because it is a Point of great depth or difficulty truly to assoil it but because the true solution carries fire in the tail of it For it bringeth with it a piece of Doctrine which is seldom pleasing to Superiours To you for the present this shall suffice If so be you be Animo defoecato if you have cleared your self from froath and grounds if neither sloth nor fears nor ambition nor any tempting Spirits of that nature abuse you for these and such as these are the true Impediments why both that and other Questions of the like danger are not truly answered if all this be and yet you see not how to frame your resolution and settle your self for that doubt I will say no more of you than was said of Papias St. John's own Scholar you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your abilities are not so good as I presumed But to go on with what I intended and from which that interloping Question diverted me that you may the better judge of the nature of Schisms by their occasions you shall find that all Schisms have crept into the Church by one of these three ways either upon matter of Fact or matter of Opinion or point of Ambition For the first I call that matter of Fact when something is required to be done by us which either we know or strongly suspect to be unlawful So the first notable Schism of which we read in the Church contained in it matter of fact for it being upon Error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept and upon worse than Error if I may so speak for it was no less than a point of Judaism forced upon the Church upon worse than Error I say thought further necessary that the ground for the time of our keeping that Feast must be the rule left by Moses to the Jews there arose a stout Question Whether we were to celebrate with the Jews on the 14th Moon or the Sunday following This matter though most unnecessary most vain yet caused as great a Combustion as ever was in the Church the West separating and refusing Communion with the East for many years together In this fantastical Hurry I cannot see but all the World were Schismaticks neither can any thing excuse them from that imputation excepting only this that we charitably suppose that all Parties out of Conscience did what they did A thing which befel them through the ignorance of their Guides for I will not say their malice and that through the just judgment of God because through sloth and blind obedience Men examined not the things which they were taught but like Beasts of Burden patiently couched down and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiours laid upon them By the way by this you may plainly see the danger of our appeal unto Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith and how small relief we are to expect from thence For if the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors 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 imputation of extreme grosness and folly think so poor-spirited Persons competent Judges of the Questions now on foot betwixt the Churches Pardon me I know not what Temptation drew that Note from me The next Schism which had in it matter of fact is that of the Donatist who was perswaded at least so he pretended that it was unlawful to converse or communicate in holy Duties with Men stained with any notorious Sin For howsoever Austin and others do specify only the Thurificati Traditores and Libellatici and the like as if he separated only from those whom he found to be such yet by necessary proportion he must refer to all notorious Sinners Upon this he taught that in all places where good and bad were mixt together there could be no Church by reason of Pollution evaporating as it were from Sinners which blasted righteous Persons who conversed with them and made all unclean On this ground separating himself from all whom he list to suspect he gave out that the Church was no where to be found but in him and his Associates as being the only Men among whom wicked Persons found no shelter and by consequence the only clean and unpolluted Company and therefore the only Church Against this Saint Augustine laid down this Conclusion Unitatem Ecclesiae per totum orbem dispersae propter nonnullorum peccata non esse deserendam which is indeed the whole sum of that Father's Disputation against the Donatist Now in one part of this Controversie betwixt St. Augustine and the Donatist there is one thing is very remarkable The Truth was there where it was by meer chance and might have been on either side any Reasons brought by either Party notwithstanding For though it were de facto false that pars Donati shut up in Africk was the only Orthodox Party yet it might have been true notwithstanding any thing St. Augustine brings to confute it and on the contrary though it were de facto true that the part of Christians dispersed over the Earth were Orthodox yet it might have been false notwithstanding any thing St. Augustine brings to confirm it For where or amongst whom or amongst how many the Church shall be or is is a thing indifferent it may be in any Number more or less it may be in any Place Country or Nation it may be in All and for ought I know it may be in none without any prejudice to the definition of the Church or the Truth of the Gospel North or South many or few dispersed in many places or confined to one none of these either prove or disprove a Church Now this Schism and likewise the former to a wise Man that well understands the matter in Controversie may afford perchance matter of pity to see Men so strangely distracted upon fancy but of doubt or trouble what to do it can yield none For though in this Schism the Donatist be the Schismatick and in the former both Parties
be equally engaged in the Schism yet you may safely upon your occasions communicate with either so be you flatter neither in their Schism For why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatist or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman if occasion so require since neither Nature nor Religion nor Reason doth suggest any thing to the contrary For in all publick Meetings pretending Holiness so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety brook why may not I be present in them and use communication with them Nay what if those to whose care the execution of the publick Service is committed do something either unseemly or suspicious or peradventure unlawful what if the garments they wear be censured as nay indeed be superstitious what if the Gesture of adoration be used at the Altar as now we have learned to speak What if the Homilist or Preacher deliver any Doctrine of the truth of which we are not well perswaded a thing which very often falls out yet for all this we may not separate except we be constrained personally to bear a part in them our selves The Priests under Eli had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily Sacrifice that the Scripture tells us they made it to stink yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest For in these Schisms which concern Fact nothing can be a just cause of refusal of Communion but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected act For not only in Reason but in Religion too that Maxim admits of no release Cautissimi cujusque Praeceptum quod dubitas ne feceris Long it was ere the Church fell upon Schism upon this occasion though of late it hath had very many for until the second Council of Nice in which concilable Superstition and Ignorance did conspire I say untill that Rout did set up Image-worship there was not any remarkable Schism upon just occasion of Fact All the rest of Schisms of that kind were but Wantonness this was truly serious In this the Schismatical Party was the Synod it self and such as conspired with it For concerning the use of Images in Sacris First It is ackowledged by all That it is not a thing necessary Secondly It is by most suspected Thirdly it is by many held utterly unlawful Can then the enjoyning of the practice of such a thing be ought else but abuse Or can the refusal of Communion here be thought any other thing than duty Here or upon the like occasion to separate may peradventure bring personal trouble and danger against which it concerns every honest Man to have Pectus benè praeparatum further harm it cannot do So that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think or what you have to do Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of Schism arising upon occasion of variety of opinion It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning not to content themselves with that measure of Faith which God and Scriptures have expresly afforded us but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed they have attempted to discuss things of which we can have no light neither from Reason nor Revelation neither have they rested here but upon pretence of Church-authority which is none or Tradition which for the most part is but figment they have peremptorily concluded and confidently imposed upon others a necessity of entertaining Conclusions of that nature and to strengthen themselves have broken out into Divisions and Factions opposing Man to Man Synod to Synod till the Peace of the Church vanished without all possibility of recall Hence arose those ancient and many separations amongst Christians occasioned by Arrianism Eutychianism Nestorianism Photinianism Sabellianism and many more both ancient and in our time all which indeed are but names of Schism howsoever in the common Language of the Fathers they were called Heresies For Heresie is an act of the Will not of Reason and is indeed a Lye not a mistake Else how could that known speech of Austine go for true Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo Indeed Manichaeism Valentianism 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 that Arrius and Nostorius 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 erorr 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 at the worst but Schisms upon matter of Opinion In which case what we are to do is not a point of any great depth of understanding to discover so be Distemper and Partiality do not intervene I do not yet see that Opinionum Varietas Opinontium Unitas are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that Men of different opininions in Christian Religion may not hold communion in Sacris and both go to one Church Why may I not go if occasion require to and Arrian Church so there be no Arrianism exprest in their Liturgy And were Liturgies and publick Forms of Service so framed as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies but contained only such things as in which all Christians do agree Schisms on Opinion were utterly vanished For consider of all the Liturgies that are or ever have been and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any Party and leave nothing but what all agree on and the event shall be that the Publick Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer Whereas to load our Publick Forms with the Private Fancies upon which we differ is the most sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession Thanksgiving Reading of Scriptures Exposition of Scripture Administration of Sacraments in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private Opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments of prescribed Gestures of Imagery of Musick of matter concerning the Dead of many superfluities which creep into the Churches under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self For to charge Churches Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all superstition and when scruples of Conscience began to be made or pretended then Schisms began to break in If the spiritual Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of incumbring Churches with superfluities and not over rigid either in reviving obsolete Customs or imposing new there were far less danger of Schism or Superstition and all the inconvenience were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yield a little to the imbecilities of Inferiors a thing
except we will grant the Church to have had two visible Heads at once Secondly The Keys of Heaven committed to Peter and Command to feed his Sheep import no more than that common Duty laid upon all the Disciples To teach all Nations for this Duty in several respects is exprest by several Metaphors Teaching as it signifies the opening of the way to Life so is it called by the name of Keys but as it signifies the Strengthning of the Soul of Man by the Word which is the Souls spiritual Food so is it called Feeding Thus much is seen by the Defenders of the Church of Rome and therefore they fly for refuge to a Circumstance It is observed that our Saviour delivered this Doctrine to Peter alone as indeed sometimes he did in this it is supposed that some great Mystery rests For why should our Saviour thus single out Peter and commend a common Duty to him if there were not something extraordinary in it which concerned him above the rest This they interpret a Pre-eminence that Peter had in his Business of Teaching which they say is a Primacy and Head-ship inforcing thus much that all the rest were to depend from Him and from Him receive what they were to preach For Answer Grant me there were some great Mystery in it yet whence is it proved that this is that Mystery For if our Saviour did not manifest it then might there be a thousand Causes which Mans Conjecture may easily miss It is great boldness out of Causes concealed to pick so great Consequences and to found Matters of so great weight upon meer Conjectures Thirdly The Prayer for Confirmation of Peters Faith whence it came the Course of the Story set down in the Text doth shew It was our Saviours Prevision of Peters danger to relapse which danger he had certainly run into had not our Saviour extraordinarily prayed for confirmation of his Faith And the Precept of confirming his Brethren is but that charitable Office which is exacted at every Christians hand that when himself had escaped so great a Wrack to be careful in warning and reclaiming others whom common frailty drives into the like Distress These Circumstances that Peter is first named amongst the Disciples that he made the first Sermon and the like are two weak Grounds to build the Soveraignty over the World upon and that he spake Ananias and Sapphira dead argues spiritual Power but not temporal But that Peter called the first Council in the Acts is a Circumstance beyond the Text for concerning the calling of the Council there is no word all that is said is but this that the Disciples and Elders met no Syllable of Peters calling them together That Peter was 25 Years Bishop of Rome is not to be proved out of Antiquity before St. Hierom who shuffled it into Eusebius's Chronicle there being no such thing extant in his Story Yea that he was Bishop at all as now the name of Bishop is taken may be very questionable For the Ancients that reckon up the Bishops of Rome until their times as Eusebius and before him Tertullian and before them both Iraeneus never account Peter as Bishop of that See And Epiphanius tells us that Peter and Paul were both Bishops of Rome at once by which it is plain he took the Title of Bishop in another sense than now it is used For now and so for a long time upward two Bishops can no more possess one See than two Hedge-Sparrows dwell in one Bush St. Peters time was a little too early for Bishops to rise Answer to the Bishop of Romes Practice of Supremacy To the first That so many of the Bishops of Rome were Martyrs What makes that to the purpose Is Martyrdom an Argument of the Supremacy To the second That Victor indeavoured to excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops is true but withal it is as true that he was withstood for his Labour For the Bishops of Asia themselves did sharply reprove him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Words of Eusebius and Iraeneus wrote against him for it To the third That the first four Councils were called by the Popes is an open Falshood for in the two first the Bishops of Rome are not so much as mentioned save only as persons cited In the two last they are mentioned only as Petitioners to the Emperour There are extant the Stories of Eusebius Socrates Ruffinus Theodoret Sozomenus the Acts of the Councils themselves at least some of them the Writings and Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome In all these there is not one word of the Pope farther than a Supplicant and the whole calling of the Bishops together is attributed to the Emperour Take for Example but the last of them Leo Bishop of Rome was desirous that some things done in a meeting of Divines at Ephesus should be disannulled for this he becomes a Suitor to Theodosius the junior to have a General Council but could never procure it of him After his death he continues his suit to Marcianus Successor to Theodosius who granted his request But whereas Leo had requested the Council might be held in Italy the Emperour would not hear him nay which is more the Pope upon good reason had besought the Emperour to put off the day design'd for the holding of the Council but the Emperour would not hear him So that Leo could do nothing neither for the calling the Council nor for the Place nor for the Time And all this appears by Leo's own Epistles If the Popes could do so little well near 500 years after Christ how little could they do before when their horns were not yet so long The Plea of the Protestants concerning the Corruption of the Church of Rome which by them is confessed sometimes to have been pure is no more prejudicial to Christs Promise to his Church that the Gaits of Hell shall not prevail against her than the known corruption of the Churches in Asia in St. John's time or of other Churches after The Close of all is a Demonstration A Word unfortunately used by your Author to bewray his Logick For indeed a Reason drawn from so poor and empty a sign falls many bows wide of demonstrative Proof First it is false that all the rest of Patriarchal Sees are extinct The See of Constantinopel yet stands and shews her Succession of Bishops from St. Andrew till this day as well as the Church of Rome can from St. Peter The See of Alexandria yet subsists and the Bishop of that place calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judge of the World as my self have seen in some of his Letters a Title to which he hath as good Right as the Bishop of Rome hath to be the Worlds Sovereign If any reply they are poor in misery in persecution and affliction this can make no difference since with Christ there is neither rich nor poor but a new Creature And again their case now is as good as was the Bishops of Rome under the Ethnick Emperors for their Lot then was no other than those Bishops is now But grant that it had lasted longest what then Some of them must needs have consisted longer than the other except we would suppose that they should have fallen all together Peradventure the reason of her so long lasting is no other but that which the Cyclops gives Ulysses in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulysses should be eaten last of all However it be this Vant seems but like that of the wicked Servant in the Gospel tardat Dominus venire and we doubt not but a day of the Lord shall overtake him who now eats and drinks and revels with the World and beats his fellow Servants FINIS * Plin. Nat. Hist l. 28. c. 10.