Chap. I. Shewing from Reason, and the History of the Christian Religion, that all Churches are subject to the Mis­fortune of Schisms and Divisions.

1. I Will shew from Reason, and the History of the Christian Religion, that all Churches are sub­ject to the sad misfortune of Schisms and Divisi­ons, and to the consummation of them in op­posite Communions. This, to argue first from Reason, is as demonstrable of Ecclesiastical, as Civil, or Military Societies, men being as subject by their own evil Passions, and the Temptations of the Devil, to mu­tiny, and make Insurrections in Churches, as in Camps, or Cities, or other Fraternities of men. Nay it being more for the Interest of Satan, and also more easie to di­vide a Church, then a Kingdom, or a Camp, men are so much the more in danger of being tempted to do the one, rather then the other: and accordingly we find [Page 2]that Churches are more infected with intestine Divisions, then States, and Kingdoms; and whereas formerly one Emperor was able to quell many Mutinies and Rebelli­ons, a succession of Christian Emperors sometimes were not able to quell one Schism. Wherefore to pursue my Argument, as Christian Armies are subject to Mutinies, because they consist of Souldiers, which may be tempted to Mutiny, and Christian Cities and Kingdoms to Rebel­lion, because they consist of Subjects, that may be tempt­ed to rebel; so all Christian Churches are subject to Schisms, and Heresies, because they consist of Members that may be drawn in to begin, and carry on Heresie, and Schism.

The Catholick Church, notwithstanding its holiness, and all the particular Churches in it, are Bodies politick, that like other Corporations consist of peaceable and un­peaceable, dutiful and undutiful Members; and it is re­ally no stranger that a Diotrephes, Montanus, or Nova­tus, should prove a Schismatick, then that Judas should prove a Thief, and a Traitor, or the lustful Corinthian commit Incest in the Church of God. What hinders that this or that Member of a Church may not become a Schismatick, as well as a Murderer, Drunkard, or Adul­terer? Is it not consistent with the wisdom of God, or the honour and oeconomy of the Catholick, or a Catho­lick Church, to leave the Members of it in a capacity to commit Schism? Fieri vero haec dominus per­mittit, & pati­tur manent: pro­priae libertatis arbitrio, ut pro­batorum sides integra manife­slâ luce clares­cat. Cypr. de Ʋnit. Eccles. Doth the nature of a true Church re­quire, or hath God any where promised to over-rule the free wills of orthodox Christians, so that they shall not fall into Schism, as well as other sins? Hath he either made them impassible, as to this single vice, or restrain'd the Devil from tempting them to it? If he hath, let those who upbraid us with our Divisions shew it, and if he hath not, then it must follow, that the Clergy and Lai­ty of all the Churches in the World, being left as free to commit Schism, as Rebellion, or any other wicked­ness, [Page 3]all Churches whatsoever must be subject to the sad misfortune of Heresie, and Schism. The natural Body is not more subject to Diseases, then the Body politick of the Church is subject to Divisions: though she have the honour to have Christ for her Head, yet is she not exempted from having her Peace broken, or her Unity divided. That is only the priviledge of the Church tri­umphant, where Charity is perfected; and therefore to pass from Reason to the History of the Christian Re­ligion, we find as many Cautions, and Exhortations in the Scriptures, against Heresies, and Schisms, as against any other mortal sin. What an excellent Admonition against Schism did St. Paul give the Bishops and Presby­ters of Ephesus, or rather all the Bishops of Asia Minor, assembled at Miletus. Take heed (saith he) unto your selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,—For I know, that after my de­parture, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not spa­ring the flock. Also of your selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them, there­fore watch, and remember that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

The Apostle knew very well, that God in his wisdom thought it not fit to prevent Heresies and Schisms in the most Apostolical Churches, by his Almighty power, but to suffer them as well as other sins, for the manifestation of the good from the bad, and that in such a mixture, as a Church must be, they were necessary to sift the Wheat from the Tares, to separate the Gold from the Dross, and distinguish those that are sincere, stedfast, and genuine Sons of any Catholick Church, from those that are not. Thus in his 1. Ep. to the Church of Co­rinth, which I suppose was a very Apostolical Church, he tells them, that God thought fit to let Heresies and Divisions arise among them, that the faith and constancy of some, and instability, vanity, and hypocrisie of others, [Page 4]might be made more evident. I hear (saith he) that when you come together into the Church there are divisions among you, and I partly believe it, for there must be also he­resies [or dividing into Sects] among you, that they which are Avolent quan­tum volent pa­leae levis fidei quocun (que) afflatu tentationum, co purior Massa frumenti in hor­reâ domini re­ponetur. Ter­tull. de praescript. Haer. 3. approved, may be made manifest among you. So saith St. John of the Antichrists, which in his time arose in the Catholick Church: They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us, but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

And our Blessed Lord, who was the Founder of the Church, and may be presumed to have best understood the nature of it, had no other notion thereof, then as of a Body Corporate, that was subject like other Societies, to the great inconvenience of intestine Divisions, and falling into opposite Sects and Schisms. It must needs be (saith he, considering the nature and future estate of the Church) that offences come, but wo unto the man by whom the offence cometh. And in his Sermon on the Mount saith he unto his Disciples, Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheeps-cloathing, but inwardly they are ra­vening wolves. And in the 24th. Chapter of St. Mat­thew's Gospel, Memores simus tam dominicarum prae­nuntiationum, quàm Apostolicarum litera­rum, quae nobis & faturas haereses praenunti­arunt, & sugiendas praefinierunt. Tertull. ibid. Instruit dominus multos esse venturos sub pellibus ovium rapaces Lupos. ibid. he foretold the sad condition of the primitive Church before the destruction of Jerusalem, that about that period there should arise false Christs, and false Prophets, and should shew great signs, and won­ders, and deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect. This prediction of the Blessed Jesus was fulfilled in the time of the Apostles, who were all infallable Guides of the Church: for St. Paul in his 2. Ep. to the Thessalonians saith, That the mystery of iniquity was then a working, and the wicked one to be revealed, whose coming was after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all de­ceitfulness, [Page 5]to bring them that perish to commit unrigh­teousness, because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. So St. Peter in his 2. Ep. ge­neral, to the Catholick Church, tells the Christians, That as there were false Prophets in the Church of the Jews, so there should be false Teachers among them, who should privily bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and that many should follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the truth should be evil spoken of. Every one that is versed in Ecclesiastical Story, knows that these Apostles mean Si­mon Magus, who was baptiz'd by Philip, and the rest of the Ring leaders of the Gnostical Heresies, who were all Magicians, as well as Hereticks, and wrought won­ders to prove that Jesus was not the Christ. For this Reason they are called Johannes in Ep. eos maximè Antichristos vocat qui Chri­stum negarent in carne venisse, & qui non putarent Jesum esse filium Dei. Tertull. de praescript. Heret. 33. Antichrists by St. John: Little children, (saith he) it is the last time, and as you have heard that Antichrist should come, even now there are many Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time, of which our Lord spoke. And least any should think, that these Monsters of Heresie and Sorcery, which afflict­ed the primitive Church, were not Christians, it follows, They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us, but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. And so in his 2. Ep. saith he, Many deceivers are entred into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, this is a deceiver, and an Antichrist; and then knowing in what danger the faithful were, of being seduced by them, saith he by way of Cau­tion to them, Look to your selves, that ye lose not those things which ye have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward by enduring to the end. So to see the sad estate of the primitive Church more fully out of St. Paul's Wri­tings, he saith in his 2. Ep. to Timothy, This know that in the last days perillous times shall come, for men shall be lo­vers [Page 6]of their own selves, covetous, &c. having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, from such turn away for of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women, &c. Now as Jannes and Jam­bres [the Aegyptian Sorcerers] withstood Moses, so these resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, and reprobate con­cerning the faith.

But besides the Simonians, or Gnostick Hereticks, who divided the primitive Church, and formed them­selves into separate Sects, there are evident footsteps in the New Testament of many other Divisions and Schisms. So in the Church of Rome it self there were many schisma­tical Members, as we find by the words of the Apostle: I beseech you Brethren (saith he unto the Romans) mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the do­ctrine which you have receiv'd, and avoid them, for they that are such serve not the Lord Jesus, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. So in his 1. Ep. to the Corinthians, how often doth he charge them with envying, strife, and divisions while one said he was of Paul, another that he was of Apollos, and a third that he was of Cephas, or St. Peter. So in the Text I cited before, I hear (saith he) that there be divisions among you; and truly these Divisions, notwithstanding all his Authority and Doctrine to the contrary, were come to such an height, that we find him in the 11th. Chapter using the very same Apologue for substance to perswade the to peace, and unity, and submission to their Superiors, that Menenius Agrippa used to appease the seditious Commons of Rome, and perswade them to return to their obedience to the Se­nate. As the Body (saith he) is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one Body being many, are by union made one Body, so also is the Church of Christ, with much more to that purpose. At the same time al­so [Page 7]there was many among them, that denied the Paulus in pri­md ad Corin­thios not at ne­gatores, & du­bitatores resur­rectionis. Haec opinio propria Sadducaeorum, partem ejus u­surpat Marcion & Apelles, & Valentinus, Tertull. deprae­script. Haeret. 33. Re­surrection, or doubted of it, which the Roman Catho­licks, which are so ready to note our Schisms and Here­sies, will not deny to be down-right Sadducism. Let them hear the Apostle arguing against it: If Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead, for if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ risen, and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith vain, yea and we are found false witnesses of God. In his ad. Ep. to them we find him telling them of false A­postles, and deceitful workers, that were then among them, who transform'd themselves into the Apostles of Christ. These counterfeit Apostles had got a mighty esteem, and interest among the people, for it was in re­ference to them that he said, Ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage [to the Jewish Ceremonies] if a man de­vour you, if a man take [money] of you, if a man exalt himself over you, and smite you [as it were] on the face. And that they should not think it strange that such fair pretenders to the Apostolical Office should be false A­postles, Marvel not at this (saith he) for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of light, and therefore it is no great thing, if his Ministers also be transformed as the Mi­nisters of righteousness. In his Ep. to the Galatians, we find they had those among them, whom the Apostle wished out off, because they had perverted the Gospel with Et ad Gala­tas scribens in­vehitur in obser­vatores & de­fensores circum­cifionis & legis: Hebionis haeresis est. Tertul. ibid. Judaism, and so bewitched the people with an opinion of the necessity of Circumcision, and other le­gal Rites, that they had brought them from the Gospel which the Apostle preached, into another Gospel, which gave him occasion to say, If we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached, let him be accursed. In his Ep. to the Colossians, he bids them beware least any man should spoyl them through vain philosophy, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [Page 8]of the world, and not after Christ; and prays them to take care, that no man beguiled them in a voluntary humi­lity, and worshipping of Simonianae autem magiae discipiina An­gelis serviens, uti (que) & ipsa inter Idololatri­as deputabatur. Tertull. de prae­scrip. Haeret. 33. Angles, intruding into those things which he had not seen, and vainly puft by his fleshly mind. In his 1st. Ep. to Timothy, he tells him, That the Spirit saith expresly, that in the latter time some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and do­ctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisie, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath crea­ted to be received with thanksgiving, of them which believe and know the truth. In that Ep. he also charged him to hold the faith, and a good conscience, which, saith he, some having put away concerning the faith have made shipwrack, of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, whom I have deliver­ed to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. And again, O Timothy, avoid profane and vain bablings, and opposition of science falsly so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith. In his 2d. Ep. to Timo­thy, we find him complaining in the 1st. Chapter, That all they in Asia had turned away from him, especially Phy­gellus and Hermogenes. In the 2d. Chapter he warns him against Hymenaeus and Philetus, who had overthrown the faith of some, teaching that the resurrection was past. And in the last we find him complaining of Demas, and A­lexander the Copper-smith, for resisting his Apostolical Authority, and doing of him much mischief; and so dangerous a Schismatick he was, that he did Timothy be­ware of him, and pray'd God to reward him according to his works. When he wrote to Titus, Hereticks were so common in the Church, that he said unto him, An Heretick after the first and second admonition reject. And in his Ep. to the Hebrews, we find that there were many among the Primitive Christians, who fell back into Ju­daism, and embraced Gnosticism, not only after they were illuminated, or baptized, but after they were [Page 9]made partakers by Baptism of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the Powers of the World to come. They apostatized maliciously, and out of spite to Christ forsook the Church; for, as the Apostle observed, they did despite unto Spirit of Grace, counting the bloud of the Covenant an unholy thing, whereby they put him that shed it to open shame, and as it were crucified him afresh. I have already observed out of the 2d. Ep. of St. Peter, what dangerous and damnable Heresies there were in his time. I refer the gentle R.C. Reader to the 2d. Chap. of his 2d. Ep. and to the Ep. of St. Jude, for a full de­scription of them, and then will entreat him to tell me, if this Church of England, in the midst of all the Dis­senters and their widest Doctrines, be in any worse con­dition then the most primitive Catholick Church. I desire him also to accompany me to the Johannes vero in Apocalypsi Idolothyta eden­tes, & slupra committentes jubetur castiga­re. Tertull. in praescript, Haeret. 33. Revelation of St. John, and there I will shew him a Synagogue of Sa­tan, in the apostolical Church of Smyrna, and in that of Sardis those who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, and the doctrine of Balaam, teaching that it was lawful to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. The like there were in the Church of Thyatira, whom the Spirit sets forth under the name of Jezabel. And in the church of Ephesus, the mother-Church of them all, there were numbers of counterfeit Apostles, which said they were Apostles, and were, not but upon tryal were found lyars. These were all Apostolical Churches, and therefore it is a wonder to me, that any man should think it fair and reasonable to reproach the Church of England with the English Heresies and Schisms, or to think it ju­sitisiable to forsake, or undervalue her Communion up­on that account.

The Church Catholick to this time, and all the Ca­tholick Churches in it, were governed by the apostles, who undoubtedly had the personal gift of Infallibility, or by their Disciples, and immediate Successors, upon [Page 10]whom the Spirit of God was visible in many Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 38. miracu­lous gifts, and who were chosen to be Bishops by the particular Clement. Ep­ad Corinth. ed. Oxon. 42. designation of the Holy Ghost. I say, the whole Church then, and every part of it, was God's House, and God's Building, and God's Temple, which was built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and A­postles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner Stone; and yet we find that God's Husbandry abounded then with Tares, and that his Building, in almost all the A­partments of it, was shaken into pieces by Divisions, even whilst those Husbandmen and Architects were a­live, who were Labourers with God, and had the Spirit of God, without which no man searcheth the deep things of God. The Church, with all the Powers which Christ lest unto it, was not able to secure it self from He­resies and Schisms, and an innumerable huddle of Dissen­ters; as is evident from St. John, who in his general Ep. to the Church Catholick, bids the Faithful try the Spi­rits, before they believed them, because many false Pro­phets were gone out into the World. And if it were so in the green Tree, what must it be in the dry? If Chur­ches, water'd and planted by the Apostles, and Aposto­lick men, who wrought Miracles, were so infested with Divisions, can we expect that Churches planted and go­verned by their Successors at this distance, should be ex­empted from them?

But let us go on to examine the Apostolick Age, and the Ages nearest unto it, and then we shall find that the former Times were not better then these. For in the Church of Jerusalem which was the Mother of all Chur­ches and the Church wherein St. Peter made his first Sermon, this primogenial Church, which for Euseb. E. H. l. 4. c. 5. 15 Suc­cessions was governed by the Euseb. E. H. l. [...]. [...]. c. 7. [...], or Kindred of our Lord, continued no longer Euseb. E. H. l. 4. c. 22. undeflowred with Heresie and Schism, then she was under the inspection of James, our Lord's, Brother, who was her first Bishop. [Page 11]For when he died, Simeon the Son of Cleophas, was cho­sen to succeed him, because he was our Lord's Cousin­german by the Mothers side. But Euseb. H. E. l. 4. c. 22. Thebuthis being of­fended because he was not chosen Bishop in this vacan­cy, began to corrupt the Church, which hitherto had remained a pure Virgin, with vain Doctrines, which he took from the seven Sects, of which that of Simon, sur­named Magus, was one, who divided the Unity of the Church, saith Hegesippus, by strange adulterous Do­ctrines against God and Christ. No Bishop ever suffer'd more by Sectaries, then this good old Simeon did in those Times, for without any regard to his pray hairs, who was sixscore years old, Euseb. E. H. l. 3. c. 33. they accused him before Atticus, Proconsul of Syria under Trajan, for being a Christian, and descended of the Royal Family of Da­vid, and so procured him, after many Torments, to be put to death.

St. Ignatius, who was St. John's Scholar, and Bishop of the Church of Antioch, wrote Epistles to several Chur­ches, and in that to the Church of Smyrna; we find that there were Hereticks among them, who would not believe that Jesus Christ had a true and real Body, and upon that account abstained from the holy Eucharist, and the Prayers of the Church. This Sect, as unreasonable as it was, was one of the first which the Devil sowed in the field of the Church. St. John alluded to it in the beginning of his first Ep. general, where he saith, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life, that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, and Magnesians, he complains of the judaizing Christians, who went back from Christ to Moses. And in his Ep. to the Trallesians and Philadelphians, he prays them to abstain from the [Page 12]evil Herbs, which Christ did not cultivate, because they were not of his heavenly Father's planting, alluding to the words of our Lord, who said, Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted out. Fur­thermore to shew what kind of Hereticks and Schisma­ticks there were in those days, he calls them Ep. Ignat. ed. Amst. p. 3. Beasts in humane shape, P. 21. Beasts and mad Dogs, which ought to be avoided, P. 26. corrupters of the faith, who should go into unquenchable fire, and Ad Phila­delph. [...], Wolves in sheeps cloathing, Ad Trall. [...] Wolves, that if it were possible, would deceive the very Elect.

About 10 years after the death of St. Paul, there hap­pened a most [...] Clem. ep. p. t. ungodly and detestable Sedition, in the Church of Corinth, which occasioned St. Clement, Bi­shop of Rome, to write that famous Epistle to them wherein he tells them, that the Schism among them was [...], a shameful, a very shameful thing, and unworthy of the name of Christians. And in the Pastor of Hermas, there are also manifest indications of Faction and Schism among Christians when he wrote. L. 1. Visio 3. First, In his Vision of the building of the great Tower upon the Waters, where by the Stones that had Clefts and Schisms in them, he understands contentious and Qui autem scissuras habebant, hi sunt qui alius adversus alium in cordibus dis­cordiam habent, & non habent pacem inter se, &c. quarrelsom Christians, who could not agree together, nor keep the peace of the Church among themselves, but had heart-burnings one against another. Secondly, By the Lapides quos vidisli longè projectos à turni, & currentes in viâ, & volvi de viâ in loca deserta, ii sunt qui crediderunt quidem, dubitatione autem suâ reliquerunt viam veram—errant autem & miseri sunt ingredientes in desertas vias. Stones that were seen to roul up and down at a great distance from the Tower, he understands the unstable sort of Chri­stians, who having left the Church, miserably wandred in by-paths, and desert ways. So in his 8th. similitude of the third Book, he sets forth four sorts of men in the Church. First, Those who bring in strange and vain [Page 13]Doctrines into the Church, tho' they do not leave the Communion of it. Secondly, Those who are of an un­peaceable and quarrelsom disposition, and make Feuds in the Church, tho' they do not proceed as far as Schism. Thirdly, Those who tho' they keep the right faith, yet through Envy and Emulation, quarrel with one another about Bishopricks, and Places of Dignity in the Church. And fourthly, Those who apostatize from the faith, and separate from the Church. Lib 3. Sim. 8. §. 6, 7. The first sort were set forth by withered Rods, which were not rotten; the second by half withered Rods, in which were clefts; the third by green Rods, in which were clefts; and the last by Roads both withered and rotten: And tho' our Adversaries could shew of all these sorts that do, or did belong to the Church of England, it is no new, nor extraordinary thing.

Justin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 69, 70, 71. complains grievously of the blasphe­mous Heresies, which to the great prejudice of the Church were taught in his Time. He recites the Names of some of the Founders of them, as Ibid. Simon, Menander, Marcion, Dial. cum Thyph. p. 253. edit. Paris. 1615. Basilides, Saturninus; and tells the Empe­rors that they were but nominal Christians, the name of Christian being as common to Sects in Christianity, as that of Philosopher was to every absurd Sect in Philoso­phy. And in his Dialogue with Trypho he saith, That the being of Sects and Heresies confirm'd their faith the more, because they were foretold by our Saviour in his Parable of the Tares and Wheat; and where he said, False Christs and false Prophets shall arise; and beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps-cloathing, but inward­ly are ravening Wolves.

Irenaeus, towards the latter end of the 2d. Century, wrote an Account of all the Gnostical Heresies, such as that of Simon, Menander, Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Satur­ninus, Marcius, Marcion, the Ebionites, Valentimans, and Colarbasians, and others, which in his time in­fested [Page 14]the Church, seducing great numbers with a shew of Perfection, and false Miracles, especially multitudes of Women, and particularly in his own Irenaeus, l.1. c.9. Diocess; and yet notwithstanding all those that went out after those impute Heresies, Irenaeus remained a Catholick and A­postolick Bishop, and the Gallican Church, a pure, Ca­tholick, and Apostolick Church.

Tertullian wrote against the Valentinians and Marcio­nites, and many other Heresies, in the beginning of the third Century; and because they pretended to Anti­quity, he wrote a Di praescripti­one [...]lico­rum. Book, on purpose to shew, that the oldest Heresies were later than Truth. The Church at that time was so infested with Heresies, that many Non opritue nos mirari super haereses islas—van [...]è, & in consideratè pleri (que) hoc ipso scandali [...]antur q [...]l tanti [...]n haereses va­lyant—quare ille sidelssimi, pru­denti [...]ni & usitatision in Ecclesiâ in il­tam partem transierunt? Tertull. ib. 1, 2, 3. wondred, and were scandalized at the number and prevalence of them, and that so many eminent men fell and relapsed into them. This gave occasion to the Father, in the be­ginning of that Book, to tell the Faithful, that they were not to take offence, nor won­der at the number, or quality of those that forsook the Church. He bid them remember that Saul was an emi­nent person, before be fell away from God, and that good David, and gracious and wise Solomon apostatized, the one into Adultery, and the other into Idolatry, and that it was the priviledge only of the Son of God him­self to be perfect, and impeccable, and by consequence it was no Argument for the truth of any Heresie, tho' a Bishop, or Deacon, or Doctor, or a holy Widow, or Virgin, or even a Confessor, fell into it, because we were not to judge of the Faith by the persons of men, but of the persons of men by the Faith. He bid them consider, That the Traitor Judas was an Apostle; that many of Christ own Disciples forsook him; that Phy­gellus, and Hermogenes, and Hymenaeus, and Philetus, forsook Paul; and that we should not wonder to see [Page 15]the Church so deserted, and suffer after the example of Christ. Saith he, They went out from us, because they were not of us; and we should remember the Pre­dictions of Christ and his Apostles, who forewarned us of Wolves in sheeps cloating, of false Apostles, false Prophets, and false Teachers, and that Heresies and Offences would come; and indeed (saith he) Heresies are as necessary as Persecutions, to prove the Faithful, and try who will endure to the end. This Apology which the Father made for the sad estate of the primi­tive Church, will, I hope, serve as well for ours. I commend it in all humility to the consideration of the R. C.s. especially to the Minister of Putney, who in his late Book seems to take so much pleasure, in twitting us, and our Mother the Church of England, with the English Schisms.

But to proceed in the History of Heresie and Schism. Clemens Alexandrinus makes the like Apology for the Heresies of the same Age. Sero [...]. [...] p. 753. He saith, They are to Truth, as Tares are to Wheat, that our Lord foretold they must come, and that therefore they must be; and to shew what variety there was then in the Christian World, he reckons up in one Strom. l. 7. p. 765 Page about a dozen sorts: The Valentinians, Marcionites, Basilidiams, P [...]ratics, Phrygians, Encratites, Dociles, Haematites, Caj [...]ists, Ophiants, and Entychites, which I think sould as ill, as Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers, with which, I remember, we were reproached not long since, in the Colledges of Navarre and Rochell, in the former with more Raillery, and in the latter with more Zeal.

Origen in his Book of §.13. Prayer, lately Printed at Ox­ford, mentions a sort of Hereticks that rejected Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, who, I suppose, may pass muster with our Quakers, and another sort that hold it §.14. super­fluous and unprofitable to pray: And in his Answer to [Page 16] Celsus, he makes occasional mention here and there of most of the Heresies his Time, and saith, That Lib 3. p. 119. [...] 5. p. Cel­sus, who professed to despise and undervalue Christiani­ty, because there were so many Sects of Christians, must for the same Reason despise and undervalue Philosophy and Medicine; for, saith he, whatsoever is excellent and profitable for men to know, they will apply them­selves to the study of it, from whence will naturally arise divers Questions, and divers Opinions, and by conse­quence divers Sects. For this Reason, saith he, there are Sects among the Greeks, and Sects among the Jews, some understanding the Writing of Mose and the Pro­phets in one sence, and some in another, and so Christi­anity appearing to be [...]. a great and venerable thing, not only to men of meaner Parts, but to the greatest Wits among the Greeks, they set themselves to the study of it; and from thence arose Sects, some understanding the Scriptures, which they all believe, in one sence, and some in another: But yet (saith he) no man of sense will reject Christianity for that Reason, no more then he will reject Medicine or Philosophy for it, or despise the holy Books of Moses and the Prophets for the Heresies among the Jews. This (saith he) I think, is a sufficient Apology for the Christian Religion, concerning which I cannot but think of the admirable Saying of St. Paul, There must be Here­sies among you, that those that are approved may be made manifest. And therefore (saith he again) if the School of Christ must be disgraced for the Sects that have come out of it, let the School of Socrates be condemned too, because so many opposite Schools of Philosophy arose out of it; and let the Philosophy of Plato also suffer the like censure, because his Scholar Aristotle differ'd so much, and in so many Opinions from him. This admi­rable Apology the Father made for the Church Re­ligion in his Time, and let those who urge Celsus his Ar­gument against us, consider if it is not as applicable to [Page 17]ours. Nay we find by the Respons. ad quaest. 5. Answers to certain Questi­ons falsly ascrib'd to Justin Martyr, that God was pleas'd to allow Hereticks in the primitive Times, to do Mira­cles, which, praised be his holy Name, he never suffer­ed any Heretick or Schismatick since the Reformation to do among us. But if he had, we could have made the same defence, which that Author and St. Cyprian did viz. that Miracles alone, as Prophetare, & daemonia excludere, & virtates magnas in terris facere, sublimis uti (que) resest, & admirabilis, non tamen— Cyprian de unit. Eccles. edit. Oxon T. p. 144. splendid gifts as they are, are no demonstrati­on of the Truth; for Christ hath de­clared, that many will say unto him in the day of Judgement, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works? and then he will reply unto them, I know ye not, depart from me ye that work iniquity. So saith St. Paul, Tho' I speak with the tongue of men and Angels, and tho' I have the gift of Prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and tho' I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have no charity, I am nothing. The like Apology St. Austin made against the pretended Miracles of the Dona­tists: I hear (saith he) that Pontius doth Miracles, and that when Donatus Magnus pray'd, God answered him by a voice from Heaven, but God hath cautioned me against those Contra istos Mirabiliarios cautum me fecit Deus— Aug. Expos. in E­vang. Joh. tract. 13. Miracle-mongers, who make Divisions, saying, False Christs and false Prophets shall arise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to deceive, if it were pos­sible, the very Elect, but take ye heed, behold I have foretold you all these things. And when his Disciples told him with joy, that the Devils were subject to them in his Name, saith he, Rejoyce not in this, that the Devils are subject unto you, but that your Names are written in Heaven. Wherefore my Brethren, let no man deceive you, he that works miracles, and doth not keep unity, is nothing. Towards the latter end of the 4th. Century, Epiphanius in three Books wrote an Ac­count [Page 18]of all the Heresies that had been in the Church till that time, and they amount in number to Sancti Epi­phanii respons. ad Epist. Acacii & Pauli. fourscore, such a world of Tares grew up with the Wheat from the first sowing of the Word. St. Augustine hath given a compendious Account of all these Heresies out of E­piphanius, and some more of his own Time, in a Dis­course ad Quod-vult-Deum. But setting aside all the rest, I shall only take notice of the Montanists, Novati­ans, Donatists, and Arians, which did so much mis­chief to the universal Church of God, and all the parti­cular Members thereof.

The Montanists pretended to Prophecy, and divine Inspiration, and tho' they were Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 15, 16, 18, 19. resisted by many brave Bishops, and many learned men wrote against them, yet they spread their Infection far and near, and Epiphan. vol. 1. p. 416. perverted all Phrygia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and afterwards their corrupt Doctrine went Westward, as far as Constantino­ple it self.

The Novatian Schism began in Rome it self, and was so called from Novatus, whom the Greek Writers con­found with Novatianus, a Presbyter of that Church. He Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. taught, that it was not lawful to admit those who had fallen in the Decian Persecution, upon their repen­tance, to communion with the Faithful, and getting himself ordained Bishop in a sinister manner, he drove many under that pretence from the Church, and then there was Bishop against Bishop, Church against Church, and Altar against Altar, even at Rome it self. Neither Cartwright, nor Travers, nor any other Presbyter of the Church of England, did ever do her so much mischief, as Novatus did the Church of Rome. The Schism which he raised, lasted 200 years, and had not Cornelius been well assisted by the Catholick Bishops, not only in Italy, but over all the Christian World, this pestilent Schism, under the pretence of greater Purity, would soon have driven him out of Rome.

The Schism of the Donatists first began in Carthage, and they were so called from Donatus Casensis, the Head of the Party, which first erected Altar against Altar in that metropolitical City, setting up Majorinus against Cecilian, who was rightfully ordained Bishop of that Church. Of all the Schisms upon record, this was one of the most unreasonable, dishonourable, stubborn, im­pudent, and bloudy, as will appear from this short Ac­count thereof.

First, It was very unreasonable, because it was made by a Party, which had nothing to object against the Do­ctrine, Discipline, or Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of Carthage, but only against the Canonical In­capacity of Cecilian to be Bishop of it, as one who was a traditor, and worshipper of Idols in the Dioclesian Perse­cution, which notwithstanding appear'd upon many Try­als to have been a malicious Accusation, nothing of this having been laid to his charge, when he was elected and ordained.

Secondly, It was a most dishonourable and shameful Schism, as having been begun and carried on by a rich proud and insolent Lucilla. Woman, who was obnoxious to the Rod of Cecilian, and corrupted Secundus the Pri­mate of Numidia, and many other African Bishops, in­to a Faction against him, together with those sacrilegious Presbyters, whom Cecilian had called to account for the Plate, and other Goods of the Church, which had been committed to their Trust in the time of the Persecu­tion.

Thirdly, It was a most stubborn and prevalent Schism, which would not yield nor submit to the Autority of the Emperor, the Sentence of two Romanun: & Arelatense. Councils, the De­termination of the Proconsul of Africa, nor the Judge­ment of the universal Church. On the contrary, the more it was condemned, it grew the more insolent, and powerful, and oppressed not only the Church of Car­thage, [Page 20]where it first began, but made almost the whole Church of Africa revolt.

Fourthly, It was a most impudent Schism, the Schis­maticks esteeming themselves as the only pure People of the World, and the Catholicks as Pagans and Idolaters, plundering their Churches, burning their Altars as pol­luted, and treading their holy Sacraments, which they found upon them, under their feet. They also denied them Christian Burial, and re-baptized and re-confirm­ed as many of them as revolted to them, and truly so general was the Revolt in all Parts of Africa, that the Catholick Communions looked more like Conventicles, then the Catholick Church.

Lastly, It was a most bloudy and cruel Schism, as ap­pears by the Feats of the So called, quod circum cel­las vagantur. August. T. 7. p. 76. G. T. 8. p. 334. M. T. 8.335. D. E. Circellians, or Circumcellians, whom the Donatists called Agonistici, because they fought for them, and destroyed the Catholicks in a most barbarous manner. For they were the Habebant Donatistae per omnes penè Ecclesias suas perditum hominum genus perversum, ac violentum, velut sub professione continentium ambulantes qui Circumcellio­nes dicebantur, & erant ingenti numero, à turbâ per omnes ferè Africanas regiones con­stituti, qui malis imbuti doctoribus, auda­cia, superbiâ, & termeritate illicitâ, nec suis, nec alienis aliquando parcebant, contra jus, fas (que) in causis interdicentes hominibus, & nisi obedissent damnis gravissimis, & caedi­bus afficiebant, armati diversis telis, bac­chantes per agros villas (que) ad sanguinis effu­sionem accedere non metuentes—into­berabiles persecutiones unitati Ecclesie com­pacti faciebant, ipsis (que) sacerdotibus Catholi­cis & ministris aggressiones nocturnas at­que diurnas, direptiones (que) rerum omnium vi inserebant. Nam & multos dei servos caedibus debilitaverunt— Possidonius in vit. August. Vid. August. Ep. 48. & 50. De Haeresibus ad Quod-vult-deum? Ep. 68. Con­tra Crescon. l. 3. Enarrat. in Ps. 10. Zealots of the Faction, who thought they did God good service in making havock of the Catholicks, nay they were such furious Enthusi­asts, that when they had none to kill, as St. Aug. saith, they would kill themselves. They laid wait for the Catholicks in the ways, and murder­ed both the Clergy and the People, they took them out of their Houses by force, to kill them, they beat them to death with Clubs, poured Lime and Vinegar into their Eyes, plundered and burnt their Houses, and murdered Bishops and Priests at the very Altar, and marched about day and night doing these horrible Exploits, under the conduct of Donatist Bishops and [Page 21]Priests. Nay the whole Sect was all Cruelty and Pride, for a Catholick no sooner turned Donatist, but he alter'd his temper, and became impatient, furious, haughty and contentious, and indeed the many Massacres and Deva­stations the whole Party committed, shews they delight­ed in Cruelty and Bloud. Such was the Schism of the Donatists, and it deserves to be well considered by those, who are apt to make uncharitable Reflections upon the Church of England, or have a mean opinion of her Communion upon the account of the English Schisms.

The Arian Schism first began in Alexandria, and had its Name from Arius, a Presbyter of that Church. At the first broaching of his Heresie, he was opposed by Alexander his Bishop, and part of the Clergy and People adhering to the Bishop, and part siding with Arius, from this small spark, saith Lib. 1. c. 6. Socrates, came such a fire, as made a Conflagration in the universal Church. First, It enflamed the Churches of Aegypt, Lybia, and the up­per Thebais, and from thence was blown into all the other Churches, when, as De vit. Con­stant. l. 2. c. 62. Eusebius writes, one might have seen not only Bishops contending with one ano­ther, but the People rent into Factions, some inclining to this Party, and some to that, and when the Pagans also took advantage from those Divisions of the Christi­ans, to expose Christianity in their Theatres, and turn it into ridicule.

This sad estate of the Catholick Church, drew tears from the eyes of Constantine, and moved him to call the Council of Nice to compose this Difference, and ano­ther not much less, about a matter of far less moment, which had risen between the Eastern and Western Chur­ches, about no greater matter then the observation of Easter. day.

The unanimous Decree of the Council against Arius, and his Doctrine backed with the Autority of the Empe­ror, did for the present silence the Arian Controversies; [Page 22]but his Son Constantius turning Arian, it broke out with more fury then formerly, and caused so much Sedition and Bloudshed in Christian Cities, especially about the Socrat. lib. 2. [...], 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 28. choice of Bishops, and so many Subdivisions in opini­ons among the Arians themselves, that one may well wonder, how ever Christendom came to be at peace and unity again. Then not only Bishops were divided a­gainst Bishops, but Councils contradicted Councils. Then were made at several Times and Places, no less than nine Forms of Confession, most of them differing from one another, and all from the Nicene Creed. Nay then not only the Arians were divided among them­selves, but the Orthodox, about the manner of receiv­ing the convert Arians into Communion, Faustin. & Marcell. lib. precum ad im­per. Val. Theodos. & Arcad. So­crat. l. 3. c. 9. Lucifer and his Party standing upon stricter terms then the rest. I have given this short Account of the Arian Schism, to shew how not onlyh this and that Church, but the whole Catholick Church, may at one time labour under Schism. And upon making particular enquiry into particular Churches, we shall find how in many of them there was Bishop against Bishop, Altar against Altar, and Com­munion against Communion, which made Julian the Emperor scoptically say, That the Son of Mary had now verified his own Saying, that he came not to send Peace upon the Earth, but a Sword.

At Alexandria there were two opposite Churches owning two opposite Bishops; the Orthodox, who still adhered to Athanasius, present, or absent, and the Ari­ans, who received Gregory, and George, and the rest that were put in his Place.

At Antioch there were at one time three opposite Churches; one of the Arians, of which Euzoius was Bishop, one of converted Arians, of which Meletius was Bishop, and one of those who never sell into Arianism, of which Paulinus was Bishop, and yet the divided state of Christendom at this time, was no offence, or wonder [Page 23]to a wise Pagan, I mean the Philosopher Themistius, who in a Socrat. H E. l. 4. c. 32. Speech which he spoke to the Emperor Va­lens, to perswade him to moderate his cruel Persecution of the Orthodox, told his Majesty, That he ought not to admire at the disagreement of Opinions among the Christians, which was but small, if compared with the multitude and confusion of Opinions among the Greeks, among whom there were above 300 different Sects. Nay he pray'd him to consider, that the most excellent and useful Arts had never arrived to such perfection, but by difference of judgement, and strife among the Artists themselves; nay that Philosophy, the Mother of all good Arts, had risen from small beginnings, to such a height of perfection, by differences among learned men.

At Constantinople, and in many other Cities, there were formed Churches of Arians and Novatians, under their respective Bishops, opposite to one another, and both in opposition to the true Catholick Church. From this toleration of separate and opposite Churches, arose many Socrat. H. E. l. 6. c. 22. Differences, Id. l. 5. c. 13. Tumults, Quarrels, and Blound­shed, as when the Arians assembled in the Piazz's of Constantinople by night, and from thence went through the Streets of the City, singing alternative Hymns a­gainst those who believed three to be one Power. Chryso­stom, the Catholick Bishop, fearing lest the People might be drawn from the Church by such Hymns, ap­points some of the Catholicks, in opposition to the Ari­ans, to go about singing nocturnal Hymns against their Opinions, upon which the Socrat. l. 6. c. 8. two Parties meeting one another, and being more willing to fight then to sing, they fell to violence, and in the Conflict many on both sides were wounded, and some slain.

Nay in Rome it self, which now boasts so much of its Unity under one Head, in Rome the pretended Cen­ter of Christendom, there have been as shameful, wide, and violent Schisms, as any were ever in the Christian [Page 24]World, Schisms [...] Socrat. E. H. l. 4. c. 29. not upon the account of any pretend­ed Heresie, or dislike of Ceremonies, nor consisting in a separation of the Clergy and People from the Bishop, but Schisms of a more dangerous and scandalous nature, betwixt Rival Popes and their Parties, when there were several Pretenders to the Chair of St. Peter, and some adhered to this Pope, and some to that. Thus in the Reign of Valentinian, upon the death of Pope Liberius, the Clergy and People of Rome were divided in the choice of a Bishop to succeed him. The holy part of the People which adhered to Liberius in his Banishment, against the perjured and usurping Pope Felix, being convened by Ʋrsinus, Amantius, and Lupus, chose Alias Ursici­nas. Ʋrsinus, but the perjured part of the Clergy, which broke the solemn Oath they had made, not to choose a Bishop during the Banishment of Liberius, and that part of the People which adhered to them, chose Damasus Bishop, who was one of those who broke his faith with Liberius. Ursinus was ordain'd Bishop by Paul of Ti­bur, and Damasus was ordained by others in the Late­ran Church, and part of the Clergy and People adhered to one, and part or the other, with very great Animo­sities on both sides. Where was the Unity of the Ro­man Communion, when the Roman Church had two op­posite Popes, and the People were divided into two se­parate Chruches under them? Damasus indeed prevail­ed, not by the merits of his Cause, or that he had the better claim, but by bribing the Courtiers, and great men of Rome, and intrigueing with the He was cal­led, Matrona­rum Auriscalpi­us. Matrons of the City, and so procuring the Banishment of Ʋrsinus, who was chosen by the faithful and holy part of the People, which suffer'd their bloud to be shed for him, and the justice of his Cause, and after his Banishment owned themselves to be his Flock, and refused communion with Damasus, believing him to be the rightful Pope. Da­masus from the first was so enraged against them, that [Page 25]he hired the Rabble to outrage them; they made a great slaughter of them for three days together at the Temple of Julius, then in the Church of Sicininus, called also the Church of Liberius Vid Marcel­lini hist. l. 27. c. 3., where they killed an hun­dred and sixty, and wounded very many more, where­of a great part died of their Wounds. But all this did not deter them from meeting together, but three days after they assembled again, reciting against Damasus those words of our Lord, Fear not those who can kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Then they sang out of the Psalms, The dead bodies of they servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the air, and the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the field, their blond have they shed like water on every side of Jerusalem, and there was no man to bury them. And often meeting to­gether in the Church of Liberius, they cryed out, O Christian Emperor! let all the Bishops meet at Rome, let them try the Cause between Ʋrsinus and Damasus, and drive the Murderer from St. Peter's Chair. These Complaints of the People coming to the ears of the Em­peror, he called back Ursinus from Banishment; the People met him with great joy, but Damasus by bribing the Court gets him banished again. After this, he in­vited the Bishops of Italy to a Feast upon his Birth-day. Some of them came, whom he would have perswaded both by good words and money to depose Ʋrsinus, but they desired to be excused, telling him, that they came to celebrate his Birth-day, and not to condemn a man unheard.

This Account which I have given of the Schism be­tween Damasus and Ʋrsinus, is taken our of the Preface of Marcellinus, a Roman Presbyter, and Faustinus a Roman Deacon, before the Libellus precum, or humble Supplication, which they presented to the Emperors, Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius. I refer the Rea­der to it in the A. D. 1628 Oxford-Edition of Faustinus, and if he [Page 28]please to consult it there, he will find all that I have written, and some more remarkable passages, which, for brevity sake, I thought fit to omit. I know very well that Baronius hath said all he can to render this Account suspected, because it invalidates the Title of Damasus, and interrupts the lawful Succession to St. Pe­ter's Chair.

First, He pleads that Marcellinus and Faustinus were Hereticks, and that their testimony is no more to be believed, then the testimony of Thieves against those they have robbed. But was the Luciferian Heresie, so called, an Heresie indeed? August. de Heres, ad Quodv. Luciferianos a Larcifero Carali­tano Episcopo exortos, & cele­riter nominatos, nec Epiphanius, nec Philaster inter hereticos posuiticredo tan­tummodo schis­ma, non haeresin eos condidisse, credentes. St. Augustine observes, that neither Epiphanius, nor Philastrius, put the Luciferians in the number of Hereticks, and is very willing to ex­cuse them from Heresie. Or if it were a Heresie, was it of such a nature as to deprave and infatuate the Souls of men, and to deprive them at once both of truth and com­mon sense, in making of them write a heap of Lyes to the Emperor, while Damasus was alive, with many more eye-witnesses of the Schism, whom they might conclude would have publickly exposed their Account, if it had been false? Was not Lucifer himself a very holy and ex­cellent Person, notwithstanding the severity of his opi­nion, and a great Champion of the Church against the Arians, and might not those who stood up with him for the strictness of Church-discipline, and purity of Com­munion, out of hatred to Arianism, notwithstanding their excusable error, be as holy men as he? I am confi­dent no unprejudiced man, that will observe what an excellent strain of Piety and Zeal runs through their Works, can suspect them capable of writing such gross Forgeries, as the Preface indeed contains, if it be not true.

But Baronius objects, that they assert Ʋrsinus to have been ordained Bishop before Damasus, contrary to St. Hierom in his Chronicon, who saith, that Damasus was [Page 25]ordained first. But by his favour, their words in the Preface do not necessarily import so much, as the learn­ed Annotator in the Oxford Edition hath observed; but if they did, why is not their Testimony as good a­gainst St. Hierom, as St. Hierom's is against theirs? and why may not he be supposed to have strain'd a little in favour of his Master Damasus, who had so obliged him, as well as they, to have prevaricated out of hatred to him?

secondly, He opposes the Autority of Ruffinus against them, who relates the Story in favour of Damasus. But was not Ruffinus, as learned men observe, a very care­less and oscitant Historian? How many Mistakes doth the learned Valesius observe in his History, in his Anno­tations upon Socrates? and which is it most reasonable to believe; an unaccurate man, that writes by hear say, and at a distance, and in a general History: or men that with great accuracy write of any Fact, which they had all the means of knowing exactly, and could not, unless they would wilfully, mistake.

Thirdly, He most frigidly objects, that Ʋrsinus must needs have been the schismatical Bishop, because he was ordained by the Bishop of Tibur, and not of Ostia, to whom, he saith, it did belong to ordain the Bishops of Rome. It is true, it was the custom of the Metropoli­tans and Patriarchs, to be ordained by some of their neighbouring com-provincial Bishops, as St. Aug. ob­serves, in defence of Cecilian's Ordination against the Donatists,; and this he proves by the example of the Bi­shop of Ostia, who usually ordained the Bishop of Rome. But what tho' that Bishop did usually ordain the Roman Bishops, Non expectaverit Cecilianus ut princeps à principe ordinaretur, cum aliud habeat Ec­clesiae Catholicae consuetudo, ut non Numidiae, sed propinquiores Episcopi Episcoporum Ec­clesiae Carthaginis ordinent: sicut nec Roma­nae Eccliesiae ordinat aliquis Episcopus Me­tropolitanus, sed de proximo Ostiensis Epis­copus, Aug. in brev. collat. di [...] 32. [...].3. doth it follow from thence, that he was Judg of their election, and that if the See was vacant, or the Bishop of it sick, or absent, or superannuated, and could [Page 28]not, or had no mind, and would not do that office, that another, for example, the bishop of Tibur, might not do it as well? Some of these perhaps might be the Case when Ʋrsinus was elected: for we do not read that the Bishop of Ostia ordained Damasus; or if he had for cer­tain ordained him, might not Damasus have corrupted him, as well as the Courtiers and Magistrates of Rome, or Preface saith he would have engaged the Bishops of Italy to condemn Ʋrsinus? and methinks if his had been the juster Cause, he should for his reputation have commit­ted the hearing of the whole Matter to a Council of Bi­shops, and got him and his Party condemned, as Corne­lius got Novatus and his: but this he never did, which is no small presumption, that his Election was not so ju­stifiable, and his Right so clear, as Baronius would have it to be. But whether it were or no, doth not directly concern my present Design, which is chiefly to shew, what a violent, dangerous, and scandalous Schism this was, which happened in the Roman Church. It was so violent, that according to Ʋtreplerentur humano sangui­ne orationum lo­ca. Ruffinus, and the Greek Hi­storians, out of whom I might have described it, it caus­ed a great deal of Bloudshed in Churches; so dangerous, that the Souls of many on the one side or other must needs have miscarried in it; and so scandalous, that it gave oc­casion to a M. Marcelli­nus in loco supra citat. Pagan Historian to make such Reflections, as I wish, for the honour of the Roman See, and the ho­ly Episcopal Office, had never been made. It happened in the year 366, and after the death of Pope Zosimus, there happened another scandalous and horrible Schism, between Boniface and Eulalius, in the year 419, which caused such great and dangerous Tumults in the City, that Honorius the Emperor, who was then at Milan, was not without apprehensions what might be the conse­quence of it, and therefore to prevent and all present dan­ger, commanded both of them to be put out of Rome. [Page 29]To pass over many intermediate Schisms in after Ages, there happened many more of a very scandalous nature, between contradictory Popes assisted by contradictory Parties and Councils, who could not agree about the rightful Pope. Thus in the year 891, the Church of Rome was miserably divided between Formosus and Ser­gius, who were both chosen in Rome by different Par­ties; and tho' Formosus prevailed, yet Stephen the 6th. his next Successor but one, abrogated and nulled all his Orders, and degraded all whom he had ordained, and gave them new Orders. In the year 965. there happen­ed a great Schism after the death of John the 12th. be­twixt Benedict the 5th. and Leo the 8th. Platina could not determine which was the right Pope, but puts them both in his Lives; but Onuphrius, in his Annotations up­on the Life of Benedict, and in his Ecclesiastical Chro­nology, faith expresly, that Benedict was the Schismatick, and Leo the lawful Pope. In anno 965. Tom. 10. Baronius is of the contrary opinion; he makes Leo the Antipope, and Benedict the Pope; and In Chron. p. 827. Genebrard confesses, that their Historians are not agreed which of the two was the rightful Suc­cessor to St. Peter's Chair. In the year 1080, the whole Peace of Christendom was disturbed by the Schism, which happened betwixt Clement the 3d. and Gregory the 7th. 8th. and Gelasius the 2d. and Gelasius dying, it continu­ed between Clement, and Calixtus the 2d. who was cho­sen in the room of Gelasius. The Emperor was for Cle­ment, but the Kings of England and France were for Calixtus, tho' the English Clergy and People were much divided in their opinions, some maintaining the one, and some the other, and some again that neither Party was duly elected: but Calixtus having taken his Rival prisoner by the help of a good Army put an end to that Schism. After the death of Adrian the 4th. in the year 1159, happended a grievous Schism, betwixt [Page 32] Maximum Ecclesiae Schisma oriri coepit quod xix annls miserabiliter duravis, Or­ton, Frising. Chron. Lib. 7. Cap. ult. Victor the 4th, and Alexander the 3d. which for 19. years mightily di­sturbed the Christian World, some of the Cardinales in seditionem conversi gemi­nâ electione scindunt Ʋnitatem. Radevic. Frisingensis. L. 2. C. 43. Cardinals chose the one, and some the other, and after their re­spective elections both were ordain­ed, and sent out Id. I. 2. C. 50. 51. Circular Letters with contradictory protestations and remonstrances, attesting God to the truth of what they said. Alexander called God to witness in his Letters, that he was chosen by all the Cardinals but three, and yet the Cardinals of Victor's Party in a Radevic. Frising. L. 2. Cap. 51. publick de­claration protest that he was chosen by nine Cardi­nals.

The Emperour, to put an end to this Schism, calls a Council at Pavia, and to that end wrote to Alexan­der, and the Cardinals, and also to the Tramontan Bi­shops to meet there. The Id. l. 2. c. 64, 65, 66, 67. Council being met, the Emperour made a speech to them, to exhort them with Fasting and Prayers to commend the Cause of the Church to God, and after seven days discussion of the Controversy between the two Popes, they gave sen­tence in behalf of Victor, and the Canons of St. Peter at Rome, in a Letter to the Emperor and the Council, did assure them, that the uncorrupt and better part of the Cardinals were for him; whereupon the Emperor ratifi­ed and confirmed his Election, and by his Edict com­manded he should be received as Pope. He died after he had sate four years, and was succeeded by Paschal the 3d. Callistus the 3d. and Innocent the 3d. all opposite Popes to Alexander the 3d. whom the Roman Writers affirm to have been the true Pope. But the most grie­vous Schism of all the rest, was that which began in the year 1378. between Ʋrban the 6th. and Clement the 7th. Ʋrban kept his Seat at Rome, but Clement at Avignion, and the Germans, Hungarians, English, and part of Italy, [Page 29]stood for the former, and the French and Spaniards for the latter: Ʋrban created 54 Cardinals, and Cle­ment 36.

The Schism between these two Popes and their Suc­cessors, lasted about 50 years, or according to History of Popish, &c. Mr. Foulis (who accounts the Schism of Felix against Eu­genius as a part of it, because it sprung from it) above 70 years, during all which time, excepting the interval between Clement and Felix the 4th. there were two op­posite Lines of Succession to St. Peter's Chair, till Fe­lix, whom the Council of Basil set up against Clement, upon the earnest entreaty of the Emperor, resigned up all his Interest to the Popedom, and left Nicolas the 5th. Successor in the Line of Ʋrban, sole soveraign Pontif in the Roman Throne. Nay during the time of this Schism, there were sometimes three Popes; for the Cardinals thinking to end the Schism, called a Council at Pisa, where they deposed Gregory the 12th. one of Ʋrban's Successors, and Benedict the 11th. one of Clement's Suc­cessors, and chose Alexander the 5th. who died before he had sate a year. Alexander was succeeded by John the 23d. who created 16 Cardinals, and sate seven months, till the Council of Constance perswaded him to recede, and become a private man again. A man would think, that of all Christians in the World, a Roman Catholick should be most backward to upbraid the Church of England with Schism, considering what fre­quent and violent Schisms his own Church hath laboured under in former Ages; Schisms that have rent the Uni­on, and split, if not interrupted the Line of Succession in the one Catholick Church, and brought it to such a sad condition, that the secular Authority has been fain to determine of two or three Popes, which was rightfully elected, and which not. Thus in the Reign of 2, & 3 Rich. 2. c. 6. A.D. 1378. Rich. the 2d. the Parliament of England did declare in an Act for that purpose, that Ʋrban the 6th. and not his Anta­gonist [Page 32] Clement, was duely chosen Pope, and ought to be accepted and obeyed in this Realm. I never saw the Original, but shall set down the Abridgment of it, out of Sir R. Cotton's Exact Abridgment of the Records, in the following words.

An Act that Pope Urban was true and lawful Pope, and that the Livings of all Cardinals, and other Rebels to the said Pope, shall be seized in the King's hands, and the King to be answered by the Profits thereof, and that who­soever within this Realm shall procure or obtain any Provision, or other Instrument, from any other Pope then the said Urban, shall be out of the King's protection.

Serjeant Rastall hath another Abridgment of this Act, somewhat different in one passage, but in all the rest to the same effect.

An. 2 R. 2. c. 7. It was agreed, that Urban was due­ly elected Pope, and ought to be obey'd as Head of the Church, and that all Benefices and Possessions of Cardinals, and other the King's Enemies, should be seized. And it was enacted, R [...]slal [...]'s Sta­tutes, Tit. Pro­vision and Prae­munire. p. 356. 8. that if any purchased by provision, any Bene­sice or Grace, by any other named Pope then of Pope Ur­ban, or be obedient to any other Person as Pope, he should be out of the King's protection, and his Goods seized.

I should not have brought this Act upon the Stage, but that the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion, are so apt to miscall our Church a Parliamentary Church, and our Religion a Parliamentary Religion, only because our Laws confirm and establish the Sanctions of the Church of England, as the Imperial Laws and Edicts for­merly did the Decrees of general Councils; particular­ly, as, The exter­nal Bishop of the Church. Constantine the Great, who sate in the Nicene Council, confirmed the Nicene Creed, and all other things that were ordained by the Council of Nice, when he was but a Catechumenus, or Learner of the Christian Religion. He said of himself, that he was [...]'E [...], and after his death, the Fathers surnamed [Page 33]him, [...]; Equal to the Apostles. and whosoever will take the pains to run over, but with a cursory eye, the Novels of Justi­nian, the Nomocanons, and Basilicks, the Capitularia of the old French, Spelm. concil. vol. 1 and the Laws of our Ancient Saxon Kings, will find, that our religious Princes, since the Reformation, have intermedled no more with the Af­fairs of the Church, then Christian Princes formerly did.

But to return thither, where I broke off, I desire the Reader to take notice, That of 29 or Onuphrius reckons so ma­ny. 30 Schisms in the Church of Rome, I have taken notice but of nine, and that if it were requisite to say more of the Roman Schisms and Differences, I could add another Account of Anti Cardinals, and Anti-Councils, to this short one of the Anti-Popes.

CHAP. II. Shewing, That Schisms and Divisions, and the consumma­tion of them, in opposite Communions, are no good Ar­gument against the Truth, or Goodness, or Reputation of a Church.

II. HAving in the former Chapter, I hope, clearly de­monstrated, that the universal Church, and all the particular Members of it, are subject to Heresies and Schisms, I proceed in this to shew, that they are no Ar­gument against the Trueness, or Goodness or Reputati­on of any Church, because what is incident to the whole Church, and all the parts of it, cannot be a good Argu­ment against any one. If the Body may lose an Arm, it can be no disparagement to the Hand to have a Finger drop off; or if a Tree, to which St. Cyprian compares the Catholick Church, may have a Bough rent off from its Body, it can be no disgrace to a Bough to lose a rot­ten [Page 34]Branch, or to a Branch to lose a rotten Twig. If the Hand cannot in reason or prudence upbraid the Foot with the loss of a Toe, because it may lose a Finger, then certainly nothing ought to be concluded from a common Affection of all Churches, to the prejudice or dishonour of this, or that particular Church.

When our Saviour was told of the Galileans, whose bloud Pilate mingled with their Sacrifices, Suppose ye (saith he unto those that told him of it) that these Ga­lileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suf­fered such things, I tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish; or those eighteen upon whom the Tower in Siloe fell, think ye that they were sinners above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem, I tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Our blessed Re­deemer teacheth us from these Examples, how unreaso­nable and uncharitable it is to censure particular Persons, when the common Misfortunes of Mankind fall upon them. For the Galileans, who were murdered by He­rod at their Devotion, were no greater Sinners then other men; and those upon whom the Tower in Siloe fell, were, it seems, as good as their Neighbour, tho' the Jews were so apt to think and speak hardly of them for their Misfortune, contrary to the Doctrine of their own Scriptures, which taught them, that there is one Event unto all, and that no man can know the Love or Hatred of God by all that is before him. All things (saith the Preacher) come alike to all, there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked, to the clean and to the unclean, to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not. And as it is with particular men, in reference to the common Misfortunes of Mankind, so it is with par­ticular Churches, in reference to Divisions and Separa­tions, which are common Accidents to all Churches, good, or bad, true, or false, pure, or corrupt, Catho­lick, or un-Catholick, that are called by the Name of [Page 35]Christ. They are all alike subject to Divisions, and sub Divisions in Religion; and therefore those who ar­gue against any Church upon that score, treat her in the time of her Calamity, as Job's Friends treated him, who turned his Misfortunes, which might have fallen upon themselves, into Arguments against him, to prove that he was an Hypocrite, and not pure and upright, as he pretended to be.

But in the primitive Times, men were not such mise­rable comforters of Churches afflicted with Divisions. Then they were better Logicians, and better Christians, than to think a Church was not Catholick, or in the fa­vour of God, because Heresies and Schisms arose in it; as appears from the Salutations which St. Paul gave unto the Church of Corinth, when it abounded with Heresie, Faction, and Dissentions, as I shewed in the former Chapter. In the beginning of both his Epistles, he sa­lutes them in this manner: Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth. It was still the Church of God, tho' there were Hereticks, and factious Parties of men in it; nay so far was he in his infallible judgement, from unchurching the Flock of Christ there upon the account of Divisions, that he in effect apologized for them, and for the goodness and wisdom of God that suffered them; for (saith he) there must be Ac si diceret; ob hoc haereseôn non statim di­vinitùs eradi­cantur authores, ut probati ma­nifesti siant, id est, unusquisque quam tenax & fidelis, & fixus Catholicae fidei, sit amator, appa­reat. Vincent. Lirin. heresies among you, that those who are ap­proved may be made manifest.

So St. Clement begins his Epistle to the same Church, which was written upon the occasion of a great Schism, in this manner, The Church of God at Rome, to the Church of God at Corinth. It seems the Church at Corinth, rent and torn as it was with intestine Divisions, was the Church of God as well as that of Rome, in which there were then no Divisions at all. St. Peter's next and im­mediate Successor bewailed the sad Misfortune of the Corinthians, but he did not unchurch them for it; he [Page 36]told them, how it occasioned their venerable and illu­strious Name to be evil spoken of, but nevertheless he called them the §. 1. elect of God. And so Constantine the Great, in an Epistle which he wrote to the Alexandrians, when they were very infamous, upon the account of the deadly Feuds and Separations which divided their Com­munion, salutes them in these words: Socrat. H. E. [...]. 9. Constantine the Emperor, to the Catholick Church of Alexandria. Not long after, when the Arian Bishops L. 1. c. 27. conspired against Athanasius, to get the Emperor to depose him, and his Majesty upon hearing his Cause, found their Accusati­ons to be false, he wrote a Letter in his behalf to the Alexandrians, of which this is the Title: Athan opera, vol. 1. p. 779. Constantine, the great Emperor, to the People of the Catholick Church, which is at Alexandria. When he wrote this Letter to the People of Alexandria, it abounded with Melitians and Arians, who had formed themselves into opposite Communions, and yet those schismatical opposite Com­munions, were in the judgement of that learned Empe­ror, no Argument against the Alexandrian Church. So Constantine junior, shortly after his Father's death, be­fore he assumed the Title of Augustus, directed Letters to the Church of Alexandria, in favour of Athanasius, with this Superscription: Socrat. H. E. l. 2. c. 3. Constantine Caesar, to the Peo­ple of the Catholick Church of the Alexandrians. Not­withstanding all the Sects and Sectaries of Alexandria, the Church still remained Catholick, in the Communi­on of the Faithful, who retained the ancient Apostoli­cal Doctrine and Discipline. These wise Emperors con­sidered, that the Tares could not alter the property of the Wheat; and therefore tho' there were a World of Hereticks and Schismaticks in Alexandria, and all the Regions round about it, yet they called the Church a Catholick Church. It was every jot as Catholick then, as it was before the Melitian and Arian Schisms, when the People were of one mind, and one Communion; for [Page 37]it is not the great number of Church members is any Diocess, Province, or Patriarchat, but the cause and na­ture of the Communion, that makes a true Church. Otherwise, if Churches must be no longer reputed truly Catholick and good, then all the Members which are, or ought to be of it, are unanimous, and communicate together, then it must follow, that both the Church universal, and every particular Member of it, long since lost their Catholick nature, and were no true Churches in the eyes of God. What, for instance, became of the Church Catholick, after the Council of Ariminum, when almost the whole Christian World became Arian, except a very Libellus pre­cum, p. 8, 9, 10, 11. Vincent. Lirin. c. 6. small number of Bishops, who stuck to the pro­fession of the Catholick Faith? More particularly, what became of the Church of Rome, when Pope Liberius embraced the Arian Communion, and subscribed to the Sentence of the Arian Bishops against Athanasius, as Eccles. Ann. T. 3. p. 761, 762, 763. Baronius acknowledges, tho' he endeavours to prove, that he never subscribed to the Arian Confession, or He­resie? Nay what became of it, especially upon their Principle, when Pope Vid. Nili Ar­chiepiscop. Thes­salon. de prima­tu Papae, lib. [qui est ad cal­cem Salmas. de primatu Papae,] p. 33, 34, 35, & p. 61. Honorius the 1st. fell into the Heresie of the Monothelites, for which he was condemn­ed by the 6th. General Council, and anathematized for it after his death by the 2d. Council of Nice, which they receive for the 7th. General Council? Nay, if Heresies and Schisms are good Arguments, or just matter of Ex­ception against any Church, what shall we say to the Church of Rome, upon the account of the Novatian, and all the other Antipapal Schisms mentioned in the for­mer Chapter? Or to go farther back into Antiquity, what Apology shall we make for her, when Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 15. Blastus, and Florinus, a degraded Roman Presbyter, raised a great Schism in Rome, endeavouring to introduce new Doctrines, which C. 20. Irenaeus confuted in Books written for that purpose? Their Doctrines were very absurd, as well as inconsistent, with the Faith and Tradition of all [Page 38]Churches, and yet they drew away many from the Church of Rome, and enticed them to embrace their Opinions. Nay, what shall we do to defend her in the Time of Pope Victor and Zephyrinus, when she was infested with the Heresie, Euseb. H.E. l 5. c 28. which asserted our Lord to be a meer man? This damnable Heresie was first taught at Rome, by Theodotus, no better a man then a Tanner, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Victor; and afterwards in the Time of his Successor Zephyrinus, it came to a perfect Schism, when the Hereticks made Na­talis the Confessor, a Bishop of the Heresie, and settled a Maintenance upon him. One of the Scholars of Theo­dotus the Tanner, was another Theodotus a Banker, a great promoter of the Schism; and therefore I cannot but wonder, that any Roman Catholick, who understands Antiquity, should upbraid the Church of England, with the Preaching of Mechanicks and Tradesmen, when a Tanner and a Banker, in the 2d. Century, were the Ring-leaders of such a pestilent Heresie in the Church of Rome, and as an Author of that Time reports, impudently took upon them to adulterate the Scriptures, and reject the Ca­non of the primitive Faith. Why should men, pretend­ing to Sense and Learning, use and Argument that is so easily retorted upon themselves, and when it is pursued into all its Consequences, makes it impossible for them to defend either the Church Universal, or any particu­lar Member thereof? What will they say for the primi­tive Church, by way of defence against the Gnostical Heresies, if they argue against that, as they are wont to argue against the Church of England? Or to pass over the Schisms, of which I have given some Account in the former Chapter, how can they by their way of arguing, maintain the Church of Antioch to have been Catholick, in the Time of Paulus Samosatensis, who revived the Heresie of Theodotus, and taught, that Christ by nature was no more then a meer man? For this Reason, he held [Page 39]Communion with the Followers of Artemon, the Au­thor of this damnable Heresie, teaching that Christ was from the Earth, and damning the Hymns which used to be sung in Churches to his honour, as novel Com­posures, and letting his Followers chant forth Hymns to his own praise in the Church, and tell the People that he was an Angel sent from God. Was there ever such an heretical and blasphemous Archbishop in the Church of England since the Reformation, as this? But if there had been more then one such, the Church of England nevertheless would have been a truly Catholick Church, as this of Antioch then was in the judgement of the Council that deposed Paul. For in that excellent Euseb, H.E. l. 7. c 30. E­pistle, which the Council wrote to the Bishops and Pres­byters of the whole Catholick Church under Heaven, they tell them, after a long recital of Paul's Impieties, that they were necessitated to depose him, and ordain ano­ther in his stead over the Catholick Church.

I might also ask them, upon their way of treating the Church of England, upon the score of the English He­resies and Schisms, what they can say for the Church of Constantinople, in the Time of Macedonius and Nestori­us, who were both Patriarchs of that Church, and both fell into Heresie and Schism? When a Bishop and much more a Patriarch, leads the Flock into by-paths, the Schism is more deplorable, but yet it is not the A­postasie and Secession of one, or two, or more Bishops, if that should happen, that can destroy the Catholick and Apostolick nature of any Provincial, Patriarchal, or National Church. For, as I observed before, it is not the number of Communicants, but the cause or sound­ness of Communion, that makes a true Church; and therefore were there both for kind and number, ten times as many more opposite Sects and Communions, as there are in this Nation, and Bishops at the Heads of them all, yet upon supposition that the Church of Eng­land [Page 40]is sound and Apostolical in Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, that Ʋna est pars in quâ sunt multi Episco­pi, sed ubi sunt multi, illic—sacra fides Christi violata est, ubi verò paucissimi sunt, fides Christi vindicatur, Libell. precum, p 9, 12, 13. small number adhering to her Communion, must be the true Church. Nay if all the Bishops of England, but one, should fall away from the Church of Eng­land, that Non dubitandum est paucos Episcopos esle pretiosos merito consessionis, & inviola­bilis sidei, multos vero nullifieri merito hae­reseos—in causâ religiouis, & sa­crae fidei non numerus numero comparandus est, sed pura illa Apostolica fides probata ex­iliis, probata cruciatibus licet unlus, Multo­rum infidelitatibus praeponenda est. ibid. one Bishop, and the Flock adhering to him, would be the true Church of England, and as true and Catholick a Church, as if there were not one Dissenter in the Land.

The learned Papists, know this very well, and there­fore I wonder, that men pretending to Letters and In­genuity, should argue against the Church of England, from the English Heresies and Schisms. Furthermore, if this be a good way of arguing against Churches, then the Church of the Jews was twice involved in the con­sequences of it; once by the Schism of Corah, and then by that of Jeroboam, who set up a Priesthood and Altar a Bethel, in opposition to that of Jerusalem, and by the separation out off ten Tribes in twelve from the true Church of God. Nay if this modish way of arguing be true, then the separation of th Church of England, and other National Churches, from that of Rome, are as strong Arguments against it, as the Sects and Schisms among us are against the Church of England. There is no difference in the Case, because they say, that all the Protestant Churches are schismatical for falling off from them, as we say the Congregational Churches are for falling off from ours; and if ours indeed is not a Ca­tholick Church, but apparently under God's displeasure, because forsooth they can tell us of the Presbyterians, In­dependents, Anabaptists, and Quakers, then we may by just consequence say as much of theirs, because we can tell them of the Waldenses, Albigenses, and Wiccliffians of [Page 41]old, and of late of the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Church of England-men, who are all Separatists from the Com­munion of Rome. As those we repute Schismaticks, sprang out of our Church and Communion, so those whom they repute Schismaticks, sprang out of theirs; and therefore would not any man wonder, that they should so far forget themselves, as to use such Arguments against the Church of England, and make such Reflecti­ons upon it, as may be easily retorted upon themselves, to overthrow their own Pretensions to Catholicism, and weaken the Cause, and Reputation of their Church.

The Church of Rome (say they) is the Catholick Church, and the Church which Christ left upon Earth, and the Church of England hath separated from it; and therefore, say we, in their loose way of dis­coursing, the separation of the Church of England, is a good Argument against the Goodness and Reputation of that Church, which Christ left upon Earth. Nay, say they, Christ can have but one Church upon Earth, and we believe none can be that Church, but that which is called the Roman Catholick Church; but then, say we, a world of Heresies and Schisms have been bred in that one Church, the Catholick Church of Rome, and therefore it is long since this one Church of Christ was one, or a true, and good Church. Your Church (say the two late Converts to us) hath Ʋnity, or not? if not, then she is not the Church of Christ; if she hath, why are there so many Sects and Schisms among you? Now, not to pro­voke such Gentlemen to A Net for the Fishers of Men, p. 111. paint, and rip up the Sores of Protestancy, your Church (may a Turk say to them) hath Unity, or not? if not, then she is not the Church of Christ; if she hath, why are there so many Sects among you? You say, you are the one Catholick Church, but what shall we do to find it in such and bud­dle of Dissenters as are in the Empire, France, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, and other Northern Coun­treys; [Page 42]and of Ex to ordine [scilicet Cardinalium] sunt quatuor, aut quinque, quorum nomina possum proferre, si vellem, quibus reverâ probetur nostra doctrina, saltem magna ex parte, & Romana exosa sit. Sed vae illis cum fi­lius Dei enunciaverit fore ut is qui nôrit voluntatem Domini & non fec [...]it vapulet pluribus, quam qui non noverit. Vae illis iterum, poeitentiam agant, nec ament glo­riam hominum magis quam gloriam Dei. P, Vergerius in Annot, in Catalogum Hae­reticorum, p. 262. Dissemblers and In­differents in Italy, Spain and Portu­gal, and even in Rome it self. If a Mahumetan, Pagan, or Jew, should argue thus against them, as they ar­gue against us, they must either re­nounce their own Consequences, or sink under the weight of them; nay, if an Atheist, or Infidel, of any other kind, should take that advan­tage against Christianity, from the Schisms and Divisions of it, which they do against the best Church of Chri­stendom, the Church of England, I appeal to their own Consciences, whether they must not deny their own Conclusions, or expose and betray the Cause of Christ. The Pagans argued so against Christianity in the primi­tive Times, because so many Sects grew up with it, and therefore the variety of Heresies and Schisms, which have sprung up in England since the Reformation, can be no Argument against the Church. It is no blemish to her to be in the same condition with the best and purest Churches, in the best and purest Times; it was so when the Apostles governed the Church, and the Spirit of God bid the Christians, Try all things, and hold fast that which is good.

Hitherto I have proved, that Divisions and Separati­ons can be no good Argument, or matter of just re­proach against any Church, because they are incident to all Churches, as I have shewed by a sufficient Enumera­tion of Particulars; and this will farther appear, if we consider, that they may be Arguments for, as well as against a Church, and a cause of just praise and com­mendation of it, as well as of just reproach. When they are just and reasonable, then indeed they are good Ar­guments against the Church where they arise, and give men just cause to reproach it; but when they are not [Page 43]just and reasonable, but proceed from mistake in those that make them, or from worse Causes, they they are good Arguments against the dividing Parties, and just matter of reproach to them, but none at all to the Church. Wherefore it argues want of Ingenuity, or great weakness of Judgement in men, to exclaim against a Church, upon the score of Divisions and Separations, before they have examined whether the Church or the Separatists are in the fault. In Reason and Charity this ought first to be done, before either the Church, or the Separators, or both, be condemned; but our Adversa­ries of the Roman Church, without any regard to the Case betwixt the Church of England and the Dissenters, loudly defame her in all Places with the Dissentions and Separations, and object to our People the great difficul­ty and uncertainty of finding out, among so many oppo­site Churches and Religions, which is the right, if there be any such, and therefore exhort them to take Sanctua­ry in that Church, which is at unity in it self, and looks so like the one Catholick Church. But God be prais­ed, the People of the Church of England are generally better instructed, then to be imposed upon with such loose Talk. They understand very well, that as Separa­tions from corrupt and impure Churches is a necessary duty, so as long as there are Devils to tempt men, there will also be unjust Separations from found and Catholick Churches, and that therefore Separations and Divisions in the general, can neither make for, or against any Church. They know very well, that Churches, like natural Bodies, are of different Tempers and Constitu­tions, and that when any of them chances to undergo a separation of Parts, the particular nature and constituti­on of it must be examined, before a man can safely con­clude, whether the blamable Parts went off, or remain­ed with the Church. In the separation of Gold from the drossie and spurious Parts; of Wine from the Lees; [Page 44]of Wheat from the Chaff; and of the excrementitious Parts from the Chyle and Bloud, the base and impure, and unprofitable Parts go off, and the good, and pure, and profitable, stay behind: but in the separation of Wheat from Tares, of Flower from the Bran, and in all Chymical Separations, the good, the generous, and spiri­tual Parts go off, and the refuse and feculent stay be­hind. I have made use of this familiar Comparison, to shew how Separations and Divisions in the general, can be no rational Argument for or against any Church, un­til it be known what king of Body that Church was be­fore the Separation; sound or corrupt; pure or impure; Catholick or not Catholick; Apostolical or un. Aposto­lical: And when this is once stated, then it will appear, whether the Divisions and Separations which were made from her, make for her or against her. I say, when it is first known what kind of Church a divided Church was, before the beginning of the Division, then it may be known, whether the Division objected against it, be an Argument for or against the Trueness, Soundness, and Purity of it; but to argue pro or con, from Separations, before this is stated, is but to talk at Random, which it doth not become men of Learning and Ingenuity to do. According to this Rule, the Divines of England first proved, that the Communion of the Roman Church was not pure and Apostolical, and thence justified the Sepa­ration of the Church of England from it as necessary; and on the contrary they have proved, that the Com­munion of the Church of England is pure and Apostoli­cal, and thence condemn the Separation of the Dissenters from it as needless. They argue à priori against both: on the one hand proving, that the Wheat went off from the Tares, and on the other, that the Chaff went off from the Wheat. But to argue à posteriori, and in ge­neral against a Church, meerly upon the score of Divi­sions, before we examine the Constitution of the divi­ded [Page 45]Church, and state the Case between her and the Dividers, doth become no men especially no Church­men, but such as having a weak Cause, must make use of popular, for want of found Arguments, and make the best they can of Sophistry, when Reason is not on their side.

CHAP. III. That bare Ʋnity, or want of Schisms and Divisions in Religion, are no sound Argument of the Truth, Goodness, or Reputation of a Church.

III. HAving shew'd in the second Chapter, That Di­visions and Separations are no Argument a­gainst the Trueness, or Reputation of any Church, I proceed to shew in this, That bare Ʋnity, or want of Di­visions, is no Argument for the Trueness, or Reputation of a Church; and this I shall endeavour to demonstrate three ways: First, By shewing, That it is not the Uni­ty, but the things in which a Church is united, that tru­ly recommend and justifie a Church. Secondly, That Church-Unity may be the effect of culpable Causes, And thirdly, That all Churches, true or false, Catho­lick or not Catholick, are united in themselves, and par­ticularly, that the Church of England hath more poten­tial and actual Union in it, then that of the Church of Rome.

First then, It is not bare Ʋnion, but the things in which a Church is united, that must truly recommend and justifie it to the Christian World, and prove it to be the Church of God. This is a self-evident Propositi­on, which all the Churches in the World will admit at first hearing, and the very Test, by which when Dis­putes arise, they must be content to be tryed. For as [Page 46]to this Particular, it is just in Ecclesiastical, as it is in Civil Law and Government, where it is not the Union, but the Things or Cause in which men are united, that distinguish lawful from unlawful Societies and Meetings; otherwise if bare Union and Agreement, how strict so­ever, were a Sign of, or a good Argument for the true and Catholick Church, then Aaron the high Priest, at the Head of that Congregation, which worshipped the golden Calf, was the true Church of the Jews. He was their supream and lawful Pastor, and they were very unanimous in making the Calf after his direction, and in building an Altar before it, and in oftering up Burnt-offerings and Peace-offerings, to use the new phrase, in the presence of it. They sate down to eat and drink be­fore it, and said with one unanimous Acclamation, These be thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. I believe there never was a more perfect Uni­on and Agreement in the Church of Rome, then among the Communicants of this sinful Congregation, never­theless it was no Schism to divide from them, because they united in a sin. Their Union was their Crime, be­cause the object of it was highly criminal, and God was provoked to consume them, because they agreed in a thing that was so abominable in his eyes.

So the Corahites were as firmly united under Corah, as the true Church was under Moses and Aaron. Two hundred Princes of the Assembly, with a great number of People, were firmly united together in a Cause, wherein they stuck together to the death, even till the Earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and they went down alive into Hell. So likewise the ten Tribes were as firmly united at Bethel, as the two were at Hierusalem; they had number as well as union to plead, but notwithstanding both their number and uni­on, they were but a great Schism, because they united in Innovations contrary to the will of God. So to pass [Page 47]from the Jews to the Christians, there hath been at se­veral times as strict an Union among Hereticks and Schismaticks, as among the Catholicks. The Novatians in particular were remarkable for their Concord, Unity, and Unanimity. So were the Arians generally all of one Communion, and very unanimous against the Homousian Doctrine, and yet they were but a great prevailing Schism when they were at the highest, and had almost gained the whole Christian World.

From these Examples it is plain, that in passing judge­ment upon Churches, we are not to look at the Union, so much as the Cause in which they are united. We are to consider if their Doctrine and Discipline be Apostoli­cal, and their terms of Communion truly Catholick, and if they be so, then their Union in them is holy and laudable, and such as makes them true Churches of God. A concurrence of these things, is the genuine badge of a Ad bane it aque for mam probabuntur ab illis Ecclesiis quae licet nullum ex Apostolis, vet Apostolicis Autorem suum proserant ut multò posteriores, quae denique quotidie insti­tuuntur: tamen in câdem fide conspi­rantes, non minùs Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. Tertull. de praescript. Haeres. truly Catho­lick and Apostolical Church, and if those of the Roman Communion, would have us admire their Union, and be made Converts by it, they must first make it appear to us that they are united in these things. Otherwise their Unity, instead of being an Argument for their Church, is a strong Argument against it, to prove that it is but a Con­spiracy, and an over-grown Schism, from the one Catho­lick and Apostolical Church.

But secondly, Church-unity may be the effect of cul­pable Causes; and by culpable Causes, I mean, only such as in a great measure make the embracing of any Religion, an inspontaneous, or unwilling action: and these are only two, Ignorance and Compulsion, when men either are of a Religion, which they would not be of, if they knew the faults of it, or when knowing the faults of it, they would certainly forsake it, were they not under force, but left to their own free choice.

First then, Church-unity may be the effect of Igno­rance, which was one great cause of the Unity and A­greement of almost all Mankind in Paganism: and there­fore their ignorance of the Gentiles, is called darkness in the New Testament; as where our Lord is compared to the Day-spring, or Sun-rising, which gave light to them that sate in darkness, and in the shadow of death. So the Apostle of the Gentiles told them, It was their duty to shew forth the Praises of him, who had called them out of darkness into his marvellous light; and truly their spiritual darkness was so great, that God did in some measure excuse their gross error, in thinking that the Godhead could be like unto Gold, or Silver, or Stone, graven by Art, or man's device. Tho' men, who were worthy and absurd Idaea's of him, yet, as the Apostle told the Athenians, The times of their former ignorance God winked at, but then commanded all the Gentiles every where at their utmost peril to repent.

There never was a more strict and general Union among the Jews, or Christians, then there was among the Greeks. For Paganism was become the Catholick Religion, or Superstition, (as Catholick signifies univer­sal) and was spread far and wide upon the Earth; and yet, as the Apologetical Writers replied to the Greeks, when they argued from the extent of their Religion, and the consent of Mankind in it, their great agreement in Idolatry was the effect of their Ignorance; as plainly appeared from the preaching of the Gospel, upon which they forsook those dumb Idols unto which they were carried, even as they were led, and turned from their former Vanities and Superstition unto the living God. They worshipped the Gods, and observed their impure Rites, because they knew no better; but when their Understandings came to be well informed, then they made a new and manly choice, such as proceeded from [Page 49]all the Principles of humane Actions, and plainly shew­ed, that Ignorance had hitherto been the Mother of their Idol-devotion, and by consequence, that the choice of their former Religion wanted a sufficient measure of knowledge, to make it a rational and truly willing choice.

I wish those who pride themselves so much in the U­nity of the Roman Catholicks, would consider, how far the Sons and Daughters of the Church of England, may use this Plea in their own defence, against their so much celebrated Union. It is certain, that upon the Preach­ing and Writing of the Reformers, People came off in shoals from the Church of Rome, in all Places where the Reformation was taught. Whole Kingdoms revolted as one man, to the astonishment of the Beholders on both sides; and, I believe, no one man in the World, St. Paul excepted, ever made so many Proselytes as Lu­ther, the Protevangelist of the Reformation in Germany, did; which is no small presumption, that their former adhesion to the Roman Communion, was the effect of involuntary Ignorance, which is not consistent with a truly free and rational choice. I am the more confirm­ed in this opinion, when I consider, that in Countreys, where there is the free exercise of both Religions, the number of Proselytes from the Roman Religion to the Reformed, is daily much greater, then from the Reform­ed to the Roman; particularly in France, notwithstand­ing all the progressive Discouragements, which came like Wave after Wave upon the Protestants, for every Proselyte Popery got from the Reformed Church, it perhaps gained ten from Popery, while it was lawful for it to receive Converts; and I appeal to the Consci­ences of the R. Cs. whether in all likelihood there would not soon be as many Protestants in Italy or Spain, as there were in France, if there were allowed the like measure of Knowledge and Liberty in those Kingdoms, [Page 50]as there was in this. Let the Spaniards and Italians have but the free use of the Scriptures, which is their Christian Birth-right; give them but the Translations which Cyprian de Valera made of the Bible in one Lan­guage, and He was Abbat of the Monastery of St. Michael de Lemo, of the Order of St. Benedict, and his Translation of the Bible in Italian was Printed in the year 1477. when Sixtus Quartus was Pope. Nicolaus de Malhermis, and He translated the New Testament from the Original into Italian, and it was Printed at Antwerp in 1538. and dedica­ted to St. Hercules Conzaga, Cardinal of Mantua, and the Dedication or Preface is almost nothing else but a Panegyrick of the Scriptures; but this and all his other Works were prohibited in that Index of prohibited Books, which P. P. Vergerius put forth with Annotations, and which was the first of that kind. Antonio Brucioli, both their own men, made in the other, before the Reformation; and if upon the free use of these Bibles, and the Preaching of such men as Cyprian, and Savanorola, and allowance to their Bishops, to act according to the Powers of their Apostolical Functi­on, there do not arise a sudden and mighty Episcopal Reformation in both those Kingdoms, then I would acknowledge, that the Unity in the Roman Church is perfectly Aposto­lical, and that the secession of ours from the Church of Rome, is an Apostasie from the one Catholick Church.

It is very well known, what Sleidan. Commentar. l. 15 in An. 1543. Her­man, Archbishop of Cohen, Duditius, Bishop of Five Churches, and the two Sleidan. Comment. l. 21. in An. 1548. Hist. Council of Trent, l. 2. Meum etiam Germanum fratrem Baptistam Vergerium Polae Episcopum ob Paraphrafin in Psalmum 119. scriptum condemnant. P.P. Vergerius Annot. in Catal. Heret. p. 263. 119. seriptum condemnant. P. P. Vergerius Annot. in Catal. Heret. p. 263. Vergerii, Brothers of immortal memory, not to mention other Bi­shops, did in the Time of the Refor­mation; nay, Posterity knows very well, how far the Spanish Bishops in the Council of Hist, Council of Trent, l. 7. Trent, maintained the divine Right of Episcopacy, in spight of the Legates, and that Bishops derived their Authority immediately from Jesus Christ, and not from the Pope. And no man that is acquainted with Histo­ry, can doubt, that if the Bishops of the Roman Com­munion might maintain this Doctrine safely, they would maintain it freely and openly, and so wrest the Keys out of the Pope's hand. They would, if they durst, let his [Page 51]Holiness know, that they are his Non est nostri Romani Papae, non est tanta majestas ut terrere debeat: ficta est illa temporalis & sastuosa majestas, usurpata est, nulla est. Frater noster ille est, Collega, & Comminister. Antonius de Dominis in Con­silio Profectionis. §. 13. Fellows, and Collegues, and co-Boishops, as St. Cyprian called Pope Stephen; but they are quiet and peaceable, because they are under Compulsion: By which I understand, such a migh­ty degree of penal Force and Vio­lence, as ordinarily speaking, will compel men to com­ply with corrupt Churches, against the Dictates of their own Understandings; as extremity of ill Weather will constrain a Master of a Ship, with great reluctance, to cast his Cargo over-Board, to save his own life, and the lives of his men. And when such great Exigences force men to do any thing, which otherwise they would not do, they are said to do it unwillingly, and to act against their Judgements, and Inclinations; and particularly, when for fear of ruining and exterminating Penalties, which, humanely speaking, are intolerable, men con­form to any Religion, which otherwise they would dis­own; tho' as to outward Conformity, and Communion, they are of it, yet they are not for it in their hearts. I confess, me ought to endure any thing, rather then conform to any Religion, which they believe to be false, or subscribe to any Confession, which they believe not to be true; but yet we see the frailty of humane Nature is such, that extream Severity will make them comply, against their wills, with a Religion they certainly know, and firmly believe to be false. Thus Plato, for fear of the Fate of his Master Socrates, continued in the profes­sion of Polytheism, against the Dictates of his own Con­science. He knew there was but one true God, the Creator of all things, but he durst not stand up for him, but, sore against his will, frequented the Temples of the false Gods. So tho' Cicero knew the Vanity of the popular Gods, as he called them, in opposition to the one great God, yet he went to their Temples with the Peo­ple, [Page 52]and said, That their Ancestors Religion was never­theless to be had in Reverence, and retained, Reipubli­cae gratiâ that is in effect to say, A man ought not to dissent from it, for fear he should lose his Skin. So the Cum iram regis metuunt, cum non dig­nantur pro Christo filio Dei exilium perpeti — rescindunt quod piè vindicaverant, & suscipiunt quod ut impium damnaverant. —Episcopi plus iram regis terreni ti­muerunt, quàm Christum verum Deum, & sempiternum regem. Catholick Bishops, in the Time of the Arian Controversie, for fear condemned the Faith, against their own Consciences, which they had publickly asserted before: Even good old Sed & ipse Osius accersitus ad Con­stantium regem, minis (que) perterritus, & me­tuens ne senex & dives exilium pateretur, dat manus impietati, & post tot annos prae­varicatur in fidem. Libell precum. Osius, who had so long stood Champion for the Catholick Faith, fearing the Displeasure of the Emperor, did set his Hand to the Arian Confession; and in the Reign of Valentinian, when the Socrat. H. E. l. 4. c. 15, 16, 17. Catho­licks were so contumeliously used by the Arians, and were afflicted with most insufferable Evils, they turned Arians apace, to avoid the violence of the Persecution, tho' they ought to have endured it to the end. When Complaints sig­nified nothing, but to end in the ruine of the Complain­ers, and the most eminent of the orthodox Clergy were burnt alive, for presenting a Petition to the Emperor, then all the World almost became Arian on the sudden, and was externally united in the Arian Faith. But as he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that Cir­cumcision which is outward in the flesh, so in this forced Conformity, all were not Arians that seemed to be Ari­ans, but many were so in external Communion, who hated Arianism in their hearts. And the like success that the Arians had against the Catholicks, by methods of Severity, have some Eò enim nostris temporibus redactares est ut Ecclesiasticae controversiae, non Theolo­gis ampliùs, non Conciliis sed tortoribus, sed carnificibus sed sicariis, sed sanguinarris, sed parricidis defendendae Romae, ant Româ com­mittantur. Anton, de Dominis in Consilio. severe Popes and Princes had against those, that have divided, or attempted to di­vide the Roman Church, which made Cardinal Soderinus tell Adrian [Page 53] Hist Council Trent, l. 1. the 6th. That the best way of rooting out Hereticks was by Crus [...] and by exciting Princes and People to root them out; and to that end he bid him remember, that by these means Innocent the 3d. and his Successors, happily subdued the Alhigenses of Languedoc, the Wal­denses Picards, poor men of Lyons, Arnoldists, Speronists, and P [...]vines; of whom there remained nothing but the very Names. And it should seem that Pope P. P. Vergerius in Secret. Pont. Act. 2. Tamen scio cum Paulus III. anti paucos annos literas gravissimas (Breve appellamus) ad Caesarem & Rom. Regem dedisset in quibus erat scriptum, illos consultiùs esse facturos, si bello contra Turcas omisso, bellum adorna­rent contra Lutheranos, quippe qui essent Turcis ipsis lange perniciosiores, & deterio­res, &c. Paul the 3d. was of that Cardinal's opinion, who in a Brief to the Emperor Charles the 5th. and his Brother Ferdinand, King of the Romans, tells them, That it were more advisedly done, if they would clap up a Peace with the Turks, and bend all their Force against the Luthe­rans, who were far worse, and more pernicious than the very Turks. Hist. Council Trent. l. 5. So Paul the 4th. importuned the Kings of France, and Spain, to settle the Inquisition in their Do­minions, as the only means to extirpate Heresies; and at his Death, he recommended nothing to the Cardinals, but the Office of the holy Inquisition, which, he said, was the only Expedient to preserve the Church, exhort­ing them to employ all their Endeavours to get it esta­blished in Italy, and wheresoever else they could. He used to say, It was the principal Secret, and Mystery of the Papacy; but whether it were so or no, it cannot be denied, but that the Union of the Roman Church is in a great measure beholding to it, where it is most entire. Id. l. 4. After the Death of that Pope, Philip the 2d. King of Spain, rooted out Lutheranism, which had taken happy Root in that Kingdom, by extream Severity. He no sooner arrived from Flanders at Sevill, Id. l. 5. on the 24th. day of September, 1559. but he caused Johannes Pontius, Count of Bayleno, with a Preacher, and some others of the Colledge of St. Isidore, where the Religion was en­tred, [Page 54]together, with some Ladies of Quality, in all 13 Persons, to be burnt for Lutherans; as also the Statue of Constantinus Pontius, Confessor to his Father Charles, who served him in his Retirement, and held him in his Arms when he expired. Afterwards, at Valladolid, he caused 28 of the prime Nobility of the Countrey to be burned in his presence. The Spaniards, especially the Nobility, had at that time a great aversion to the See of Rome; but this extream Severity of Philip made them conceal their inward Resentments, and every one, who knows that piece of History, must confess, that the Church of Rome is obliged for its Unity in Spain to the memory of that Prince, and the continuance of the In­quisition from his Time till now. The Heresie, as 'tis mis-called, was rooted out of the Low-Countreys, by the destruction of 50000 Persons: And we know by what Methods it hath been since extirpated in other Places, where thousands of Souls, who would have counted Death a mercy, have been brought to subscribe a Con­fession, contrary to their former Religion which they still believe in their hearts. P. P. Vergerius saith, That in that Age, (the Age of the Refor­mation *Quantus est numerus nostrâ aetate non mod [...] [...]orum, qui mortis, carcerum, atque tri­remium, sed etiam qui exitiorum tulerunt, & serunt etiamnum martyria? Qui jam mi­grârunt ad dominum deum nostrum per ve­stra, inquam, martyria, sunt fermè millia centum.—Cum his vero conjunguntur voces circiter 15000 exulum, qui desertâ patriâ, desertis parentibus, desertis amicis, atque bonis alibi vivunt. P. P. Vergerius Annot, in Catalog. Haeret.,) almost 100000 Souls had been put to death, for refusing Com­munion with the Roman Church, besides those that were, condemned to Prisons, Gallies, and Banishment. And these Instances are enough, without any more, to make it ap­pear, That the Unity of the Roman Church, is in great part the effect of Force and Compulsion, which much diminishes the Re­putation of it, and might prevail with our Neighbours of the Roman Communion, if they considered it aright, not to admire it, and talk of it so much, and ring us in the Ears with it in all Places, as if it came not at all from [Page 55]Violence, but altogether by Inspiration from the Spirit of God.

But in the last place, Bare Unity, or want of Divisi­ons, is so far from being an Argument for the Trueness, or Honour of any Church, that it is a common Affection which belongs to all Churches, true or false, good or bad, Catholick or un-Catholick, small or great, as they are Societies of men; and besides, the Church of Eng­land hath more Union, both potential and actual in it, then the Church of Rome. To prove the first Part of this Assertion, we need but remember, That it is Union and Agreement under certain Laws and Rules of Go­vernment, which makes all Societies among Men and Angels, and wicked Societies are many times as well formed, and as firmly united, as the pure, the holy, and the good. Lucifer and his angels are a Guild, or Col­ledge of Spirits, as well as Michael and his, and are un­der a political oeconomy of the same nature; and he that understood it very well, said, That Satan was not divided against Satan, because if he were, his kingdom could not stand. But it hath stood firm and undivided, ever since it was first formed, before the sensible Creati­on, it was never yet shaken with intestine Divisions, there was never two or three opposite Soveraigns at one time in that cursed Hierarchy, nor two or three Pre­tenders to the Chair of Lucifer: And therefore, I hope, bare Unity, or want of Divisions, will never hereafter pass among considering men, for a mark of a truly Ca­tholick Church. And as it is among Spirits, so 'tis a­mong men: The worst Fraternities have sometimes the firmest Union; as we of this Nation very well remem­ber the Time, when those of the great Rebellion boast­ed, that God had united the Hearts of his People in his Cause as one Man; nevertheless those pretended People of God, whose Hearts and Hands were so united, that we could not break their Bonds of Union asunder, were [Page 56]no better then a Band of Rebels, and their Cause down­right Rebellion against God, and the best of Princes, tho' they acted in it as if they had been all informed with one common Soul. The like hath often happened in Eccle­siastical Societies: The Samaritans, who had neither Sadduces, nor Pharisees, nor Essenes, nor Herodians, nor Cabalists, nor Carraites, among them, for that Reason had a firmer Union among themselves, then the Church of the Jews had, and yet they were not the true Church. So among the ancient Christians, the Novatians lived in perfect Peace and Unity among themselves, when there were many Feuds and Contentions among the Catho­licks: Which shews, that bare Unity is not a good Test whereby to try Churches; or if it were, I am confident, the Church of England, upon a fair tryal, would carry the Garland from the Roman, and appear to be the more Catholick Church.

Could there be found any fit and indifferent Judge between them, I durst, as far as I am concerned, put the merit of the Controversie between us and the R. Cs. upon this single point of Union, and would engage to render my self a Proselyte, if their Church carried the Cause. Perhaps they may think his a very bold Chal­lenge, because of the great number of Sectaries that have gone out from us; but then they are to consider, that as the Protestants, which in several Parts of Europe, un­der several Denominations, have gone out from them, are now nothing unto them, so neither are the Congre­gational Sects, which went off from us, any thing, or of any account to us: But take our Church, and theirs, as they are precisely in themselves, without any regard to their respective Separations, and I am very confident, for all their boastings of Union, that the Church of England will be found to have both more potential and actual Union in it, then the Church of Rome. For first, as to potential Union, however the Church of Rome is [Page 57]actually united, it hath the seeds of Division in its Bow­els; and as Rebeckah once had different Nations, so has she different Churches struggling in her Womb. The Principle of the Pope's Supremacy, is it self sufficient, were there no more, to cause continual Feuds and Fa­ctions in the Popedom; and In his excellent Tracts, De causis dissentionum in Ecclesiis, & de primatu Pa­pae ad calcem Salmasii de primatu Papae. Ni­lus Bishop of Thessalonica, did most judiciously assign it, for the cause of all the Divisions that then tore the Catholick Church into pieces, the Bishops of Christen­dom not being able to endure the Usurpation, nor other Churches, contrary to their fundamental Liberty, to be Subjects to the Roman Church. The exercise of this usurped Power of the Pope's, being the supream ordina­ry of the Universal Church, is that, which makes the Roman Bishops themselves sigh and murmur in private, and say with Spalatensis, where they can say it safely, Frater noster ille est, Collega, & Coepiscopus nobiscum; and however they conceal their Resentments, as the Spanish Prelates did before the Council of Trent, yet they are willing, upon the first opportunity, to assert their Apostolical Equality, and like the English Prelates, at the time of the Reformation, will be glad when they can do it with a prospect of success, to cast off the Yoke, which makes Christendom groan, and which neither they nor their Predecessor were able to bear. Let but Christian Princes say the word, and then we shall see what the Bishops will do; or let there be but a free and general Council indeed, and then let us see if the Pope shall not be told in both ears, That the Church Univer­sal is a great Colledge, and the Government of it Aristo­cratical; that the Episcopat is one, but that it is divi­ded among all Bishops, whereof every one hath his share; that the Apostles received equal Power and Authority from the same Masters; that the Bishops were their Suc­cessors, and that the other Bishops receive their Autho­rity [Page 58]no more from the Successor of St. Peter, then he doth from them, but that all receive it alike from Jesus Christ. When it shall be safe, the Bishops of the Roman Church will talk and write as much to this purpose, as ever the English Divines did, who in asserting this Do­ctrine, follow the Example of their Ancestors before the Reformation; I mean, the Saxon Bishops, one of whom in his Advice to his Clergy, speaks thus: Ge sceolon eac ƿitan þat eoƿre hades syndan þa aesteran hadar aester urum hadum. and us þa nystan. gelice þa biscopas syndan ongeƿrixle þara Apos­tola on þaere haligþa gesom­nunge. sƿa syndan þa maesse pre­ostas on þam geprixle [...]pister þegna. þa B [...]sc [...]opas Aapones. and þa maesse preostas ƿone had his suna. Spelm. Concil. uol. 1. p. 586. Ye ought to know, that your Order is next after, and next to ours; for as the Bishops are in the place and stead of the Apostles, over the holy Church, so are the Priests in the place of the Disciples. The Bishops are of the Order of Aaron, and the Priests have the Order of his Sons.

This Doctrine, in all likelihood, will one day revive against the So­veraign Pontif; for the Spirit of the Archbishop of Gra­nata will for ever be upon the learned Prelates, who like Elastick Bodies under pressure, are under a constant inclination to recover their liberty, and will recover it, as soon as they can.

The next dividing Principle in the Church of Rome is, The Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which is a Doctrine more full of Contradictions, then perhaps any other, which Men or Angles can invent. It is contrary to all the Senses and Reason of Man; to the plain and obvious sense of those very words upon which it is grounded; to the Belief of the ancient Catholick Church; to the Prin­ciples of almost all Sciences: It multiplies the hypostati­cal Union; it makes Christ to have offered up himself a propitiatory sacrifice, before he was offered upon the Cross: In a word, the Contradictions involved in it, are almost innumerable, by which it equally choaks the [Page 59]learned and unlearned; and as it hath made, so it will for ever make Dissenters in great abundance, and no man, nor any Church, can ever want a just pretence of dividing from the Church of Rome, as long as it is an Article of her Faith. These two Principles, without naming any more, naturally tend to making of Divisions after Divisions among them, notwithstanding all the actual Union of which they boast. But the Church of England hath no such dividing Principles, theoretical or practical, in her Constitution; nothing is required to Communion with her, but what is primitive and A­postolical, and how much soever she hath been, or is broken, and divided, yet her Communion is truly Ca­tholick, and tends to Peace and Coalescence, and even now her Wounds are closing apace, and ready to heal of themselves.

And as the Church of England hath more potential Union in her, then that of Rome, so hath she more actu­al Union too; for her Clergy and People have no such fierce and bitter Contentions among them, as there are betwixt the Irish Remonstrants and Anti-Remonstrants, the Molinists and Jansenists, as well as Thomists, and Scotists, and Jesuites, some of which opposite Parties will not communicate with one another. And as for the Difference among them, concerning the Judge of Controversies, and whether the Pope be subject or su­perior to a general Council, it tends naturally, and by due rational consequence, to the dissolution of their Communion; and who knows but we may live to see the Comedy of Basil acted over again, and one part of the Roman Church declaring for a general Council, and the other for the Pope.

Nay I may say, that at this present the Clergy of the Church of England have been, and are united, to Ad­miration and Envy, and better then the Clergy often happened to be in the ancient Catholick Church. Had [Page 60]our Bishops ever such Broils among them, as happened betwixt the Bishops of the Eastern and Western Chur­ches, about no greater a Matter, then the keeping of Easter? And between Cpyrian, and Dionysius, and Fir­milian, three Metropolitans, and their Adherents on the on side, and the Bishop of Rome, and his, on the other, about re-Baptization, when they made no bones of Vid. [...]. Fir­miliani contra Ep. Stephani in cyprian. edit. Rigalt. p. 143. taxing the Pope with Inhumanity, Insolence and Fol­ly? Or had we ever reason to take up that Complaint against them, which H. E. l. 3. [...].1. Eusebius made against the Bishops of the Catholick Church, before the Dioclesian Persecu­tion, That they were, as it were, at War among them­selves, and wounded one another with words, as with Darts and Spears, nay, that they dashed and split like capital Vessels one upon another, striving for prehemi­nence, and enlarging the bounds of their Diocesses, which causes great Factions among the People? Or, to descend to more particular Instances, Was there ever such a tragical Quarrel between any of our Archbishops, or Bishops, since the Reformation, as happened between Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople? Epiphanius, who sided with Theophilus, and Chrysostom, Socrat. l. 6. c. .14. cursed one another, Socrat. l. 16. c. 17. much Bloud was s;hed on both sides, and the Cathedral Church of Constantinople, with the Senate-house, were burnt in the Quarrel down to the ground. Sozom. l. 8. c. 21. Sozomen protests, he was ashamed to tell many things which happened in this Quarrel, lest Infidels should come to the knowledge of them; and saith An. 400. n. 31. Baronius, going to tell the Story of it: I shall now describe a cursed Persecution, not of Pagans against Christians, or of Hereticks against Catho­licks, or of wicked against good men, but, what is mon­strous and prodigious, of Saints and holy men, one a­gainst another.

to proceed, Did the Bishops of England, since the Reformation, ever accuse one another in written Libels [Page 61]before the King, as the Sozom. l. 1. c. 17. Bishop in the Nicene Council did before the Emperor? Or is there now any occasion of using against them the words, which Vit. Nazianz. [...]ae [...]ixa operibus Nazianz. G [...]ae [...]è [...]tis Paris. 1630. Nazianzen spoke in a Council of Constantinople, which went about to depose him: It is a shame, my fellow-Pastors of Christ's Flock, and not befitting you, to fall to war among your selves, while you are to teach others peace, and perswade them to live in unity. To conclude, How many such sharp Contentions have happened among our Bishops, as we read happened between Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15. 39. and between Paul and Peter, Gal. 2.11. where we read, that because Peter was to be blamed, he withstood him to his very face. Had the Clergy, and People of our Communion, been long or often exercised by such Broils as these, the R. Cs. would have had a fair pre­tence to reproach us with want of Unity; but the God of Union be praised for it, we have no such Feuds and Contentions among us, but quite contrary, are as fast cemented among our selves in Love and Union, as I be­lieve any Church of the like extent ever was in the World.

CHAP. IV. An Enquiry into the True Causes of Schisms and Di­visions.

HAving shewed from several Arguments in the foregoing Chapter, That bare Ʋnity, or want of Divisions, is no Argument for the Trueness or Repu­tation of a Church, I shall, for the farther advantage of my Plea, proceed in this, to make enquiry into the Causes of Divisions and Schisms, and more particularly, into the Causes of these in England, with which the Chri­stians Roman Communion are pleased so to up­braid our Church.

Now in this enquiry into the Causes of Divisions and Schisms, I should very much forget both the ancient Jew­ish and Christian Theology, if I did not in the first place name the Devil, by whom we are not to understand any single evil Spirit, but the whole society of apostate Angels, who are most malicious and implacable Ene­mies of God, and of Man for God's sake, and of the Church, above all other Societies of Men. This Do­ctrine we have not only from the Scriptures of the Old and New. Testament, but from the most ancient primi­tive Christian Writers, who, as it were, with one voice, ascribe unto the Devil, Idolatry, Persecution, Heresie and Schism. He is meant by the Enemy in our Saviour's Parable, who took his opportunity while men slept, to sowe Tares in the Field of the Church: And according­ly St. Paul, who was not ignorant of his devices, calls Heresies the doctrines of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1. saith he, The Spirit speaketh expresly, that in the latter days some shall depart from the truth, giving heed to seducing spi­rits, and doctrines of Devils: And in Ephes. 6.12. saith he, Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil, for we wre­stle not against flesh and bloud, but against principali­ties and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickednesses, or wicked spirits in high places. All these are several expressions for that society of apostate Spirits, which make up the kingdom of darkness; as is plain from the 1 st. and 2d. Verses of the 11 th. Chapter of the same Epistle, where he saith, Ye were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now work­eth in the children of disobedience, who cannot be per­swaded to believe the Gospel. Wherefore the Com­bates, for which Christians are to fortifie themselves, are not only against humane Enemies, but the powers of [Page 63]darkness, the whole society of Devils, who were the Gods of the Gentile World. They are always plotting and contriving, against the Church, and when they can­not hurt it with Idolatry, Polytheism, or Persecutions, then they strive to get Altar set up against Altar in it, and distract it with Heresie and Schism. Accordingly St. Ig­natius in his Ep. to the Ephesians, calls Heresies and false Doctrines, Herbs, or Plants of the Devil's planting; and tells them in the same Epistle, That to meet often toge­ther, and receive the holy Eucharist in peace and con­cord, was the only way to weaken the powers of Satan, and prevent the ruine and destruction he would other­wise bring upon them by Division; and to convince them how malicious and vigilant an enemy he is to the Church, he tells them, That there were three Mysteries of the Christian Religion which were kept from his knowledge, The Virginity of Mary, her bringing forth, (or the Nativity of her Son) and the Death of our Lord. Had Satan come to the knowledge of these Mysteries, unless God had chained him and his evil angels up, they would have made ill use of them against the great design of man's Redemption; and accordingly many learned men have given his for one Reason of the obscurity of the Prophecies, and why God was pleased so artificially to conceal many things in them, lest Satan coming to the knowledge of them, should endeavour to prevent or obstruct the fulfilling of them, or enervate the cer­tainty and demonstration of them, after they were ful­filled. Thus Justin Martyr in his first, commonly called the second Apology, observes, That he did before-hand to the best of his skill, teach and institute many things among the Pagans, which had some semblance with the future Mysteries of the Christian Religion, that so when they came to pass, they might not seem such divine and wonderful Mysteries, as indeed they are. The like is observed by Tert [...]ll dep [...] script. Haeres, [...] 40. Tertullian after him, and made out by ma­ny [Page 64]particular Instances, to which I remit the curious Reader, which shews, That he hath a great and active spite against the Church of God, more especially against such parts of it as are pure in Doctrine or Worship, to sow Heresies and Schisms among them and divide the unity of their Communion: And therefore the same St. Ignatius, in his Ep. to the Trallesians, bids them beware of Separations and Divisions, as of the Snares of the De­vil; and in his Ep. to the Philadelphians, he prays them in his wonted phrase, to abstain from the evil Herbs, which Christ never cultivated, because they were not of his heavenly Father's planting, meaning the Weeds of false Doctrines, which Satan had sowed among them, and which, he saith, did not only cause different Parties among them, but a perfect separation of many from the Church. So Justin P. 403. Martyr in his Dialogue with Try­pho, ascribes all the impious and blasphemous Doctrines, which were then taught in the Name of Christ, to the Inspirations of the unclean spirit of the Devil; and ac­cordingly when St. Polycarp met Marcion the Heretick, he told him, He knew him to be the eldest Son of the Devil, as being a man who was acted with diabolical Impulse and Inspirations; and Tertullian, in the Book above-cited, saith expresly, That the Devil is the Au­thor of Heresie as well as Idolatry. The like is observ­ed by St. Cyprian and Theodoret, who ascribe all Heresies to the invention and artifice of the Devil; and all the Histories of Heresies and Schisms in Ecclesiastical Wri­ters, are still ushered in with prefatory Complaints of the [...], and [...], the envious and wicked Devil, whose business hath been from the beginning to deceive, and molest the Church of God. Nay, the purer any Church is in Doctrine and Worship, the more, we may be sure, he will stickle against it, and endeavour to weaken and disgrace it by intestine Divisi­ons, and perswade the dividing Parties to form them­selves into opposite Schisms.

Indeed where Churches are already corrupted in Do­ctrine and Worship, and firmly adhere to those Corrup­tions, 'tis his interest to let them alone, and not to hazard the Reformation of them, by stirring up Contentions and Divisions in them; but in Churches, where the Doctrine and Worship are kept pure and Apostolical, by the care and vigilance of the Pastors; in Churches, where the Scriptures are openly taught and read, and the whole Worship of God, but more especially the holy Sacra­ments, are duly administred by lawful Ministers, and the Communion of Saints carefully maintained: In such pure and Apostolical Churches as these, he hath no other game to play, but to get them, as far as he can, extirpated by Persecutions; or where that fails, to make Mutinies, and Divisions, and Schisms in them, and so to weaken the common Interest of the whole, by dividing it into parts. Where he cannot unite the Members of a Church in per­nicious Doctrines and Practices, he will labour hard to dissolve them by pernicious Schisms; where he cannot unite them against Truth, he will strive to divide them against Charity; and where they will not agree, he will make them, if he can, differ to their own destruction: And therefore considering him as the principal Cause of Divisions, all that can be concluded, upon that Conside­ration, against any particular Church, is only this, That the Members of it are subject, like the Members of all o­ther Churches, to be deceived and drawn away by the Devil; and if upon special enquiry, it be found, that she is pure and Apostolical in her Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, all that can then be concluded, is no more then this, That the Devil is become her particular Ene­my, and hath a particular spite against her, upon the ac­count of her Excellence and Worth. This is the worst Consequence that can be drawn from Divisions and Se­parations, against such a Church as ours, and we are wil­ling to admit it, we are willing to acknowledge, that [Page 66]the Devil hates the Church of England more then many Churches, and, if those that object our Divisions to us please, very much more then the Church of Rome. We are willing to look upon the many Heresies and Schisms among us, as the effects of his Revenge against her, for the damage he hath sustained by her; as Videns ille idola derelicta & per ni­miùm credentium populum sedes suas as tem­pla deserta, excogitaverit novam fraudem, ut sub ipso Christiani nominis titulo fallat in­cautos: hereses invenit & schismata, quibus subverteret sidem, veritatem corrumperet, scin­deret unitatem. Cyprian de Ʋnit Eccles. St. Cyprian thought the Here­sies and Schisms of his Time, were purposely invented by him, to be revenged of the Christian Religion, for destroying his Worship among the Gentiles. All this we are willing to admit upon the Theory that ariseth, from considering the first Cause of Divisions and Separations, and let those who love to reproach the Church of England with the English Divisions Religion, make the best of it they can.

But then to proceed farther in this Enquiry: After we have found out the principal, we must look after the in­strumental Causes of Divisions and Separations, and they, according to the Ancients, who spoke what they knew to be true by long Experience and Observation, were ig­norant, over-curious, ambitious, covetous, and contentious men. These are the proper Instruments by which the De­vil acts, in broaching false Doctrines, and making Divisi­ons and Separations. He is a sagacious Spirit, and can find out the weak and blind side of every man, where he will be sure to ply him with Darts of Temptation, as a skilful General will be sure to attack the weakest part of the Wall, or that part of it which is least defended, when he storms a Town.

The first Instrument then by which Satan works, in making Schisms and Divisions, are ignorant men, or men ignorant in the Scriptures, whose Ignorance makes them confident, and think they understand the Scriptures, when for want of knowing the received sence of them, [Page 67]they do not. This St. Chrysostom complains of in one of his Sermons: Hom. 37 T. 5. p. 245. Saith he, The ignorance of the Scriptures is a dangerous Precipice, and a deep Gulf of destruction, and a great betrayer of mens Salvation. It is that which hath brought forth Heresies, and which turns all things upside down. So in his T. 3. p. 1. Preface to St. Paul's Ep. to the Romans, saith he, A thousand Evils come from ignorance of the Scriptures, and the manifold sorts of Heresies have sprung from thence. To this purpose speaks a more anci­ent Author in Answer to this Query, Why God, if he was able to do it, did not root out all Errors and Heresies. Author. respons. ad Orthodoxos in resp. ad 1. Quaest. Saith he, When God abrogated Judaism, he introduced the New instead of the Old Testament, and if all those who embrace Christianity, do not agree in thier Opini­ons, but some believe right, and some otherwise, this is not the fault of God, nor to be ascribed to any defect of care, or power in him, but the fault of their own careless­ness and negligence, nor ought any man to be offended at the small number of orthodox Christians, because it is written, That many are called, but few chosen; and that streight and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. It is observable, that these ancient Fathers did not lay the blame of Heresies and Schisms, upon the free and common use of the Scriptures, but upon the careless and negligent reading of them, and to ignorant mens presuming they understood them, when they did not: The fault was not in the Scriptures, but in those who through ignorance abused them; the Scrip­tures were always common in all Churches and Langua­ges, and I dare say boldly, saith De praescript. Heret. § 39. Tertullian, That the Scriptures are so contrived by the will of God, that they should afford occasion for Heresies, because I read that there must be Heresies, and Heresies cannot be without the Scrip­tures. What I have observed out of these ancient Fa­thers, is no more in effect then what St. Peter observed of the Epistles of St. Paul, which are one great part of the [Page 68]Scriptures. Saith he, Account that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation, even as our beloved Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you, as also in all his Epistles speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are un­learned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scrip­tures, unto their own destruction. The Scriptures, it seems, suffered very much by unlearned men in the Time of St. Peter, and yet he did not order them to be kept from the People, neither in the Church of Rome, nor any other Churches. He knew that they were holy, true, just, and good, and were designed by God for publick use and be­nefit, and if ignorant men, by the instigation of the De­vil, and their own natural Enthusiasm, did misuse them, and draw false Doctrines from them, it was at their own peril, and the fault was in their own giddiness and pre­sumption, and not in the Word of God. They should have only meddled with the plain Passages of them, which contain all things necessary to Salvation, and not with those which are hard to be understood. No! if they had had a mind to understand the difficult Places of them, they should have consulted the Apostles, or those whom the Apostles set over them, about the Apostolical Do­ctrine or Tradition; and if they did not, but, as ignorant men are apt to do, would precipitate themselves into Errors, and make Doctrines to themselves, which the Church never taught, that was their own fault, and could not without very much harm to Christianity, supersede the use of the Word of God. God in his great wisdom intended it for the common Rule, or Canon of the anci­ent Catholick Faith; and if unlearned men will be so head strong, and Enthusiastical, as not to try their Con­ceptions by it, but it by their private Conceptions, it ne­vertheless remains a Standard and Rule, and no less then their Souls must be the price for their Heresies and Schisms. The Devil understands this very well, and there­fore [Page 69]being a subtil and cunning Spirit, he is never want­ing to tempt Sciolists, and men that want true Learning, especially those who are by nature powerfully enclined to Enthusiasm, to wrest the Scriptures, Sequamur uni­versitatem, anti­quitatem consen­tionem. Vincent. Lirin. adversus Haeres. c. 3. against the con­sent of universal Antiquity, to their own admired Noti­ons; and that being done, it is no difficult matter to per­swade them to set up for Teachers, altho' they have re­ally need, that one teach them again, which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God, and are such as have need of Milk, and not of strong Meat.

The second sort of Instruments by which Satan works, are over-curious, and over-inquisitive men, who trusting too much to their own Understanding, love, as the A­postle speaks, to intrude into things which they have not seen, and are vainly puffed up with their fleshly Mind. De praescript. Haeres. § 14. Tertullian, in his Tract against the Heresies of his Time, complains grievously of these men, who were always mo­ving nice and curious Questions, about things which it was better to be ignorant of then to know, and who, as his phrase imports, loved to exercise the Quantumlibet quaer as, & tra­ctes, & omnem libidinem curio­sitatis essundas. whole lust of their Curiosity about doubtful and obscure things. Their Curiosity, as he complains, was above their Faith, and their vain-glorious affectation of being counted learned and witty, above the care of their Souls; and therefore they must search the Scriptures, to find out new Doctrines and Opinions, and if they cannot find them there, they will be sure to bring them thither, tho' never heard of before, and never so contrary to the unanimous Tradition of all the Apostolical Churches. These men he complains of, for the great Adulterators of Scripture; and of such as they were, the Apostle is to be understood, 1 Tim. 1.4. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other Doctrine, neither give heed to Fables, and endless Gene­alogies, which minister Questions, rather then godly E­difying which is in the Faith. So in Chap. 6.3; 4. If any [Page 70]man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesom words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to Godliness, he is con­ceited, knowing nothing, but doting about questions, and disputes about words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings and surmisings. So in his 2d. Ep. 2.23. saith he unto him, Avoid foolish and unlearned questions, know­ing that they gender strife. And so in his Ep. to Titus, Chap. 2.9. Avoid foolish questions, and Genealogies, and contentions, for these are unprofitable, and vain, and a man that is an Heretick, after the first and second admoni­tion reject. These over-curious and too inquisitive Wits, who hunt after new Discoveries, and rack their Inventi­ons, as well as the Scriptures, to publish some new thing, are well disposed by temper for Heresie. They think in­deed they know something, but really they know no­thing as they ought to know, when they begin to despise the Simplicity of the Christian Religion, and the Do­ctrine and Tradition of the Elders, and by the wanton­ness of their Wits and Understandings, give occasion to Satan, who observes all mens Tempers, to tempt them into Heresie and Schism — Longum est universa ipsus opera commemorare, quibus profecto summis Aedi­ficatoribus Ecclestae par esse potuisset, nisi profanâ illâ haereticae curlositatis libidine novum nescio quid invenisset, quo & cun­ctos labores suos velut cujusdam Leprae ad­mixtione soedaret.—cap. 16. Vincenti­us Lirinensis observes, that Apollinaris fell into Heresie through this lust of Curiosity; and that Tantus, ac talis dum gratiâ dei inso­lentiûs abatitur, dum ingenio suo nimium indulger, sibi (que) satis credit cum parvi pen­dit antiquam Christiane religionis simpli­citatem, dum se plus cunctis sapere praesumit, dum Ecclesiaticas traditiones, & verterum magisteria contemnens quaedam Scriptura­rum capitula novo more interpretatur, meru­it ut de se quoque Ecclesia dei diceret. Si surrexerit in medio tui propbeta.— Origen also, through too great a confidence in his own Parts, and too much fondness and indulgence for his own Notions, of the greatest Doctor the Church ever had, became plainly such a one, to whom one might justly apply those words of Moses, Si surrexerit in me­dio tui propheta, If there arise among you a Prophet—saying. let us go after other Gods, thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that Prophet, for the Lord your God proveth you, [Page 71]to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.

The next sort of Instruments which the Devil makes use of, in inventing and propagating Hercsie and Schism, are ambitious and aspiring men, who would fain be Go­vernours in the Church, and sit in the Thrones of the A­postles; and when they cannot compass their Designs, then out of Envy and Revenge they strive to turn all things topsie-turvy, and bring confusion upon the Church. Such as these was Diotrephes, who loved to have the pre­eminence: He would fain have had St. John's Chair, and to that end raised Sedition against him, prating against him with malicious words, and perswading the Church not to receive him. Such also was Thebuthis, the first He­retick and Schismatick in the Church of Jerusalem, as I have shewed in the first Chapter. Such also were Monta­nus, Novatus, Arius, Natalis the Confessor, and almost all the famous Heresiarchs in the ancient Church. Such also was Melitius, a Bishop of Aegypt, who being deposed from his Bishoprick, for denying the Faith, and sacrifi­cing unto Daemons, in the Dioclesian Persecution, became the Head of that, which from him took the Name of the Melitian Heresie and Schism. He loaded Achilles his Su­perior, who deposed him, with all manner of Calumnies and Reproaches; as also his Successors, Peter and Ale­xander, who ratified the Deprivation of him, and conspi­red with Arius against the latter, that he might be reveng­ed on the Church. For Pride and Ambition is the Mother of Envy, Revenge and Discontent; it was the original Sin of the Devil, and when he meets with proud men af­ter his own image, his work is half done, and it will cost him but little trouble to tempt them to break the Peace, and divide the Unity of Churches, whereof they are Members. So an ancient Respons [...]ad or­thodox, quaest. [...] Author, in Answer to this Que­stion, Whether it is just to damn Hereticks, who do their best Endeavours to know the Truth, and cannot: Saith [Page 72]he, It is manifest that all Heresies arise from a vain affe­ctation of Glory, and study of opposition in the Authors and Ring leaders of them; and therefore the Apostle calls them, grievous Wolves: And saith St. Chrysostom, in his first Homily upon the first Epistle to Timothy, Be­cause they do not love their Brethren, they envy those that have a good Report, and from this Envy proceeds a desire to be above them, and to rule, and from this desire to rule come Heresies. So saith Theophylact on Galat. 5. The desire of Ruling is the Mother of all Heresies: And saith another Isidorus Pelusiota, p. 441. ancient Writer, From affectation of Go­vernment, and getting above others, which are two do­mineering Passions, I think most Heresies arise, for those who do not love to be in the rank of Subjects, sow new Doctrines, that they may be Chief of a new Sect. And in­deed this was the temper of Simon Magus, the first Here­tick, and false Apostle; he affected to be a great man, and to have the People from the least to the greatest give heed unto him, as the great power of God: Though he re­nounced the Devil at his Baptism, yet he kept fast hold of his Soul by this evil Affection, which was the gall of bitterness, that poisoned his mind, the bond of iniquity whereby Satan held him, when he made him the first of his Apostles, the first of those very Antichrists, who in that Age of Miracles came after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, to deceive, if it were possible, the very Elect.

The fourth sort of Instruments which Satan employs, in making Divisions and Schisms, are covetous men, who love to be at the Head of a Sect, or Party, because it is the ready way to get a good Maintenance, and become rich. There were such as these in the Apostles days; as is plain from that notable passage, 1 Tim. 6.5. where he mentions perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is Godli­ness, and from such (saith he) withdraw thy self, for we [Page]brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. There were such men as these in the Church of Corinth, who made Parties among the People for their own ends, which gave the Apostle occasion to rebuke them in words to this effect: 2. ep. cap. II. ver. 19, 20 As wise as you think your selves to be, you do with pleasure, bear with fools, nay ye suffer worse then fools, for you love men that bring you into bondage, you love men that devour you, and take Presents of you, nay you love them, best that insult over you, and as it were smite you on the face. So St. Jude tells us, That the Gnostical Hereticks ran gree­dily after the Error of Balaam for reward: And in the A­postle's Epistle to Titus, we find him forewarning him of certain unruly and vain talkers, and deceivers whose mouths (saith he) must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucres sake. So 2 Mand. 12.2. St. Hermas, who was St. Paul's Scholar, and wrote not long after him, speaks of false Spirits in his Time, who received Reward for their Divination, and if they do not receive, (saith he) they do not continue long to prophesie. So Euseb. H. E. l. 5. c. 18. Montanus the Heretick, and false Prophet, after he had gathered a great concourse of Peo­ple together, at the Place which he called the New Jeru­salem, he appointed Collectors of Money, who under the Name of Offerings took Gifts and Presents of the People, and his pretended Prophetesses took not only Gold and Silver, but fine Cloaths, by way of Present; nay, saith Apollonius, those who are called Prophets among the Montanists, take Money not only of the rich, but of the poor, and Orphans, and Widows; and therefore (saith he) either let them deny that their Prophets take Money, which we will prove by an hundred Testimonies, or else let them deny that they are true Prophets, because they take Gifts. So I shewed in the first Chapter, that Natalis the Confessor was hired with Money to be a Bishop of that schism in Rome, which taught, that Christ was a [Page 74]meer man; saith the Historian of him, Being tempted with the Bait of Primacy among those of that Sect, and of filthy Lucre which is the destruction of many men, he was scourged all night long by the holy Angels, and rose betimes in the morning, and having put on Sackcloath and Ashes, he went in great hast, and with tears in his eyes cast himself down before Zephyrinus the Bishop, and fell down not only before the feet of the Clergy, but of the Laity also, and after much entreaty, and shew­ing the Stripes which he had received when he was a Confessor, he was admitted into the Communion of the Church. Before he was beaten by the Angels, our Lord frequently admonished him of his Sin by Visions in his Sleep, being unwilling that a Confessor for Christianity should perish in Heresie and Schism; but the love of Pre­heminence and Money so bewitched him, that he was fain to use severer Methods with him, and give him a Thorn in the Flesh, before he would repent. He was constrained to lash him out of the Circle in which he stood enchanted by the Devil, and as it were by force and violence break the double Chain of Ambition and Convetousness, with which he had bound himself to Sa­tan, and save him by a Miracle, as great as his Sin.

The last sort of men by which the Devil propagates and promotes Divisions and Schisms, are contentious and litigious men; as it is written by the Apostle, If any man be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Chur­ches of God. I confess there is a contentious Disposition, which is the effect of Ambition, and so is co-incident with the third particular Cause, which I assigned of Heresie and Schism; but then there is a contentious Disposition of another sort, which proceeds from a sophistical dispu­tatious Humour, and a little sort of pride in men, that makes them love to oppose and contradict every thing for contradictions sake. This contentious Humour is most visible in men who are hot and cholerick, and it natural­ly [Page 75]puts them upon Controversies and Disputes, and main­taining Paradoxes, and calling received Doctrines into question, and opposing things that are established, and ra­ther then sit down and be quiet, it will be opposite to it self, and be against that for which it was before. This restless, unquiet sort of Spirit, hath bred much mischief in all Societies, but especially in the Church of God. It seems to me to have been the Temper of the Elder Arius, who as the Socrat. l. I. c. 5. Historian tells us, was expert in Logical Sub­tilties and Ex [...] out of a contentious humour opposed his Bishop, discoursing a little too curiously about the my­stery of the holy Trinity. If this litigious humour at any time happen to be for the Truth, it is not out of love to Truth, but with a design to oppose others; as we read of some who preached the Gospel, not out of good intent, but meerly to oppose the Apostle: Some indeed (saith he) preach Christ of meer envy and strife, and some al­so of good will; the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds, but the other of love, knowing I am set for the defence of the Gospel. To conclude, this litigious Humour is ex­pressed in Greek by a word, which signifies the love of Contention, because it is the delight and pleasure of con­tentious men, to be of a Party, and live in the dust of Controversie; they are no longer easie and happy, than they are engaged in some Quarrel: And therefore saith they are engaged in some Quarrel: And therefore saith Theophylact on Galat. 5.20. [...] &c. All Heresie proceeds from the love of Contention, and the contentious person striving to have his own will and hu­mour, doth thereby form a Schism.

Thus have I shewed the instrumental Causes which the devil uses, in sowing Differences and Divisions, and making Separations and Schisms in Churches: And per­haps of such men, acted and inspired by the Devil, as much as of the Devils themselves, St. Peter is to be under­stood, 1 Ep. 5.8. where he exhorted the Christians to [Page 76]be sober, and vigilant, because their adversary the devil as a roaring lion walked about, seeking whom he might devour, whom (saith he) resist, steadfast in the faith. If the Devil had so many Instruments of dividing the Ca­tholick Church then, methinks it should not seem strange, that he hath so many now. Nay methinks the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion, out of the particular Vene­ration they have for St. Peter, whom the whole Christian World ought to honour, should not so delight to up­braid the Church of England with the English Heresies and Schisms, it being evident from this and other Passa­ges in his Catholick Epistle, cited in the first Chapter, that there were almost as many, and altogether as great Division, while he governed in the Church, as there are now in England, and most other Parts of the Christian World.

Wherefore all that can justly be concluded upon the Church of England, from the English Heresies and Schisms, if we consider the instrumental Causes of them, is no more then this, That there are, and have been, many ig­norant, over curious, ambitious, convetous, and contenti­ous men among us, which, as I shewed before, hath been the common Calamity of all Churches, and what is com­mon to all Churches, at least according to our Logick, can be no just matter of reproach against any one. I am so confident, that there is no Inconsequence in this way of Apologizing for the Church of England, that I believe our Adversaries cannot find a better way of Apologizing for the Divisions that have formerly risen, or may here­after arise in the Church of Rome. If they were reproach­ed by others, as they reproach us, they could not but say, that the Causes of Divisions are common to all Churches; and therefore craving leave to set the Church of England in the midst of all other Churches, I desire that Church may cast the first Stone at her, which hath remained from the beginning a pure Virgin without He­resie [Page 77]or Schism. If there be a Church in any corner of the Earth, which is exempted from the common Causes of Divisions, or of so happy a Constitution, as not to be capable of suffering by them, let that Church come forth, and reproach the Church of England with the English Heresies and Schisms; but let not the Church of Rome do it, which hath so many old Scars to shew, and so many and great Rents yet visible in many parts of her Coat, as none of her most curious Workmen, with all their art and skill, will probably ever be able to make up.

I have said thus much by way of Apology for the Church of England, from considering the general Causes of Church Divisions and Separations, and shall find yet more to plead for her, upon making a more particular Enquiry into the Causes of our English Heresies and Schisms. Now in this Enquiry, no man that knows the state of Great Britain, betwixt the beginning of the great Rebellion, and his late Majesty's happy Restauration, but must needs look upon the ruine of the Church and State, to have been such a Cause of Heresies and Schisms, as per­haps never happened before to any Church in the World. Was it any wonder to see Errors, and Heresies, and Blas­phemies, abound among us, in a Time of such strange Disorder and Confusion, when there was no King, nor Priest in Israel? Can we imagine the Devil should be idle in such an Opportunity? Or can our Adversaries imagine, that the like would not happen in any other Church or Kingdom of the Roman Religion, should God in judgment dissolve the Government of them, as he did that of ours? I refer the candid Roman-Catholick Reader, to Mr Edwards his Gangraena, for an Account of the Errors. Heresies, Blasphemies, Sects, and Opinions, that sprung up in the British Isle, In a few years after the Church of England was pulled down, and her Liturgy cast out of the Churches, and Liberty of Conscience, as they called it, was set up in its stead. He was a Minister [Page 78]of the Presbyterian Party, and a mighty Bigot for the Cause, and yet he could not but acknowledge, that there came in a Deluge of Heresies and Impieties after the removal of the Prelates; and I appeal to any man of Ingenuity, if it be Reasonable, or Christian, or Gen­tile, to reproach our Church with Sects that arose a­mong us, when she was fast bound in misery, and the Iron entred into her Soul. Were not her Pastors dri­ven from their Flocks, when the Wolves entred in? and all the time she was in the House of Bondage, was it not a time of Liberty for every man to do what was good in his own Eyes? Nay, I desire those that are most petulant in upbraiding us with our Divisions, to tell me truly, if they do not think, that as many, and as monstrous Swarms of Errours and Heresies would breed in Spain or Italy, as there did in the late Times of Confusion in England, if the Divine Providence, (which God prevent) should suffer the same Tragedy to be acted in those Countries, that was acted in ours. How would Sects verminate any where in Twenty Years of such Confusion? Methinks our Adversaries should have the Ingenuity to consider this; but since they seem not to do it, I hope they cannot find fault with us, for putting them in mind of it by way of Apology for our Church.

There are many other special Causes of our English Divisions, which might fall under consideration, but for brevity sake, I shall mention but one, which is this; That we have reason to suspect that our Divisions, both in the beginning and progress of them, may have been influenced from abroad. I do not know whether this will pass for mis-representing, but some Observations have been made to this purpose. And if the Gentle­men of the R. Communion know or believe it to be true, I beseech them by our Common Saviour Jesus Christ, they would no longer upbraid the Church of [Page 79] England with the English Heresies and Schisms. In Foxis and Firebrands, in Ravialac Redi­vinus, p 72. of the 2d. Editi­on, fol. 1682. And in several Letters which passed between the Archbi­shop of Ar­magh and o­ther eminent persons, which may be seen in a late printed Collection of Letters. If the Tares which were sowen in the Field of our Church were indeed brought from other Places, then I hope they will grant, that it is not ingenuous for them of all other Christians to reproach us with them; but rather to blame those who sowed them, and who transplanted those strange Plants, which are not of our heavenly Father's planting, into the Vineyard of our Church. I confess it is very good Policy to divide us, that they may weaken us; but then it should be remembred, that no Humane Policy, nor the greatest Advantage that can follow upon it, can justifie the Dividing of any Church, though never so Heretical, by inventing new Doctrines. The Catholicks formerly durst take no such course to divide the Arians, they remembred that A­nathema which St. Paul laid upon the Apostles them­selves, and the very Angels of Heaven if they should teach any other Doctrine; and I wish for the Ho­nour of Christianity others would do so too.

CHAP. V. Of the Cure of Schisms and Divisions.

AFter this Enquiry into the Causes of Schisms and Divisions, and more particularly into those of our own Country, I proceed to say something con­cerning the Prevention and Cure of them; where, to keep close to the design of my Apology for the Church, I must declare upon a serious reflection of what I have hitherto written, that I know no sure and infallible way that is lawful, of preventing them, where they are not, or of curing them, where they are. First then, I know no sure way that is lawful of preventing of them, but some unlawful ways I confess there are, which are [Page 80]inconsistent with the Design of the Gospel, and the Rules of Christian Charity: but then the Remedy in such cases is worse than the Disease; and accordingly we see that the state of Christianity is much more de­plorable in some Countries, where Divisions are pre­vented by such methods, than in England, where no such methods have been taken to prevent them: but of lawful and justifiable means, which are consistent with the reputation and well-being of Christianity, I believe there are none that will absolutely prevent Di­visions and Schisms: I confess Humane Fore-sight and Diligence may, by God's blessing, prevent them in a great measure, but it will not always, nor altogether do so. But as Diseases will happen to the Natural Body, notwithstanding all the care and endeavours to prevent them: So Divisions and Schisms will happen to the Body Politick of Christ, and all the Parts and Members of it, notwithstanding all that man can law­fully do to prevent them; as is evident from the state of the Church, while it was governed by the Apostles. For they were most holy, most wise, and most vigilant Pastors, and therefore the greatest holiness and wisdom of the most vigilant and diligent Pastors, are not suffi­cient to preserve Unity, and prevent Schism. Nor are Miracles joyned with the Sanctity and Endeavours of the most vigilant Pastors able to prevent it; for the Apostles and their Assistants wrought Miracles, and yet in the miraculous age of the Apostles, there were He­resies and Schisms, even in Churches where God bore them witness with Signs and Wonders, and divers Mi­racles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost. Nay, Miracles are so far from having a Soveraign Vertue to prevent Schisms, that in the Church of Corinth, which abounded with miraculous Gifts, there were Envyings, Strifes, Contentions, and Divisions: Nay, as I shewed in the First Chapter, many of those who had he gift of Mi­racles [Page 81]in the Apostles time, wilfully fell away from Chri­stianity, to which they had born witness, and did there­by despite unto the Spirit of Grace.

And, as Miracles joyned with the utmost Sanctity, Wis­dom, and Diligence of Pastors, are not sufficient to pre­vent Divisions; so neither is Infallibility added to all the rest: for the most holy, the most wise, and most vigilant A­postles, were all infallible Judges certainly endow'd by God with the personal Gift of Infallibility; and yet in their time there were as many, and as great Heresies and Schisms, as perhaps have been since in any age of the Church. To use some of the emphatical words of another Author, every one of them was such a Judge of Matters Spiritual, from which there needed no Appeal; every one of them had Authority and Ability to Interpret the Scriptures, and de­cide in Matters of Conscience, and yet there were as many Controversies and Differences about Matters of Consci­ence and Religion then, as are now to be seen in England, or herhaps any other Country of the Christian World. Do what the Apostles of the Circumcision or Ʋncircumci­sion could, they could not prevent the Enemy from sow­ing of Tares, nor the Tares from growing up, to the great prejudice and detriment of the Wheat: Heresies and Of­fences would come, notwithstanding the Infallibility of S. John, who lay in our Lord's Bosom, and of S. James who was his Brother, and of S. Paul who was rapt into the third Heaven, and of St. Peter, to whom Christ said, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. The R. Cs. may see from this little which I have said, that if they had an infallible Judge, his Infallibility would be no certain Remedy against Heresies and Schisms, if they had no other ways that would not hin­der but that Divisions might multiply among them as much as in the days of the Apostles, or as much as they are now multiplied in England, where the Church pro­fesseth to have no infallible Judge. I say, if they had [Page 82]an infallible Judge, his Infallibility would not be able to secure them against Divisions but alas! they have no infallible Judge, for though they are all agreed, that their Church is infallible, yet they differ about the Seat of the Infallibility; they cannot tell us for certain where it is lodged: and truly to have an Infallible Judge, and not to know who, or where he is, is in effect to have none at all. What then, is there no certain way of preventing Heresies and Schisms? Certainly there is no lawful way certain; which Consideration alone me­thinks might be Apology enough for the Church of Eng­land, against the reproach which she now suffers upon the account of the English Heresies and Schisms.

And as there is no certain way of preventing Heresies and Schisms where they are not: so there is no certain way of curing them where they are. Provincial and General Councils, where all emergent Differences may be freely and fairly debated, have by experience been found to be the best means which God hath been plea­sed to bless with success; but tho' they are very good means, and have often proved very successful, yet as we learn from the History of Councils, they are not al­ways infallible Remedies, as is evident from the first General Council, in which the Apostles and Elders, and Brethren met at Jerusalem, to determine whether or no it was needful for the Gentile Christians to be Cir­cumcised and keep the Law of Moses. St. Peter after much Dispute on both sides, first stood up, and decla­red, That to oblige the Gentile Disciples to the Mosaical Observances, was to put a Yoak upon their Necks, which neither the Jews nor their Fathers were able to bear; then James having first heard Barnabas and Paul, de­clared it was his sentence, that the Gentile Christians should be troubled with no more Jewish Observances, but to abstain from Pollutions of Idols, from fornica­tions, from things strangled, and from blood. To [Page 83]him the Apostles, and Elders, and the whole Church con­sented, and said, it seemeth good to the holy Ghost, and to us, and yet the Authority of this infallible and unani­mous Council, did not quite put an end to the Contro­versie: for, as it appears out of several of St. Paul's Epistles, and more especially out of that to the Galatians, & some Ad Magnesios, ad Philadelph. Epistles of St Ignatius, there were those afterwards who taught the Gentile Christians Judaism, and commanded them to be circumcised, and keep the Jewish Law. So I need not relate, how the oecumenical Council of Nice, tho' backed with the Authority of the Emperor, was not able to extinguish the Arian Schism, nor make the Ari­ans acquiesce in its Determinations: And, to multiply no more Instances, the learned R. Cs. know very well, how far the Christian World was from submitting to the se­cond Nicene Council, which they call the seventh gene­ral Council, in its Determinations for Image-worship. Quite contrary the Northern and Western Bishops una­nimously opposed that Council, and its Doctrine; and in another Concilium Franco surtes A. D. 79 [...]. Council, wherein about 300 of them met together, they condemned it and its Decree for Image-worship, and proscribed it out of the number of general Councils, and the Church of England at the Time was so far from acquiescing in its Determinations, that her Pa­stors received that Decree for worshipping of Images, with great indignation and contempt.

But then, tho' it appears from these Examples, that general Councils are not infallible Remedies for Here­sies and Schisms, yet it must be acknowledged, that they are very good ones, and the best that can be had, when they are truly Cum dicunt Concilium: Ca­tholicum, aut universale, hoc intelligunt ut in eo debeant adesse viri pii, docti, & prudentes ex omni­bus nationibus. P. P. Vergerius in secretar. pontific. Act. primâ. general and Cum dicunt Liberum, volunt ut liceat tum publicis, tum privatis personis, sub fide publici salvi conductûs praesliti venire, stare, & discedere, quoties illis libitum fuerit, & ante omnia, ut liberè sine ullo metu, aut impedimento loqui liceat, suam (que) sententiam dicere in ipso Concilio. ibid. free. And therefore as [Page 84] Nilus of Thessalonica proposed a free and general Coun­cil, as the best Expedient for ending all Differences be­tween the Greek and Latin Church above 300 years ago, so I hope I may without offence, propose it now, as the most hopeful Remedy to heal all Differences between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. It would be an Enterprize worthy of the Greatness, and holy Character of the Pope, dispensing with the Pontifi­cal Oaths, to use his Interest among Christian Princes, for the procuring of a free and ge­neral Council, wherein Statuerunt etiam quod amnes definiti­ones, & conclusiones articulorum, de quibus suerit disputatum, sierie debeant ex divinâ, & sacrâ Scripturâ, doctrinà (que) antiquorum patrum, &. ibid. Scripturae eloquia aliter atque aliter, alius atque alius interpretatur, aliter nameque illam Novatianus, aliter Pho­tinus, aliter Sabellius, aliter Donatus expo­nit, aliter Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, ali­ter Apollinaris, Priscillianus, aliter Jovini­anus, Pelagius, Caelestinus, aliter postremo Nestorius, atque idcirco multùm necesse est propter tantos tam varii erroris ansractus, ut Prophetice. & Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici & Catholici sensûs normam dirigatur. Vincent Lirinens. adversus haeres. cap. 2. the holy Scriptures, and the Writings of the ancient Fathers, should be laid open, and the Differences of the two Chur­ches fairly tryed by them, as the Dif­ference between Nestorius and his Antagonists, was tryed in the third general Council. The Differences happened in the following manner. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, openly taught, that it was not law­ful to call the Virgin Mary [...], or the Mother of God. This alarmed Cyrill of Alexandria, and many other Bishops, who sus­pected that Nestorius had a design, under the covert of that Assertion, to bring into the Church the Doctrine of Paulus Samosatensis, and Photinus, who asserted, that Christ was a meer man. Upon these Suspicions they stout­ly opposed Nestorius, and his Adherents, for their new Opinion, and the Contention grew so high, that the Emperor was fain to call a Council at Ephesus to compose it; and the Bishops being met together, after some previ­ous Altercation, at last thought it the most Catholick, blessed, and desirable way of determining the Contro­versie, to produce the Opinions of the holy Fathers, who had been Martyrs, or Confessors for the Faith, or at least [Page 85]had continued in the true profession of it unto the end of their lives. Upon this were brought into the Coun­cil the Writings of St. Peter Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Theophilus, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Na­zianzum, Gregorius Nyssenus, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and St. Foelix, and St. Julius, Bishops of the Imperial City of Rome, with the Writings of other Fathers; all which being examined, it did appear that Nestorius was an Innovator, and that Cyril was in the right, who said, that the ancient Fathers used to call the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God. I have taken this short ac­count of the manner in which the Council of Ephesus proceeded against Nestorius, because it is proposed by Quod ne praesumptione magis nostrâ quàm, autoritate Ecclesiasticâ promere vide­remur, exemplum adhibuimus Sancti Con­cilii, quod ante triennium fermè in Asiâ apud Ephesum celebratum est, Viris clarisse­mis Basso Antiochoque consulibus. Ʋbi cum sanciendis sidei regulis disceptaretur ne qua illic forsitan prophana novitas in modum perfidiae Ariminiensis obreperet, universis Sacerdotibus, qui illo ducenti sere numero convenerant hoc Cacholicissimum, faelicis­simum atque optimum factu visum est, ut in medium sanctorum patrum sententiae pro­ferrentur, &c. Vincent. Lirin. adversus. haeres. cap. 42. Vincentius Liri­nensis, as the best method of ending Controversies in Religion; and I am perswaded, if the same Apostoli­cal course was taken in a General Council now, the Differences be­tween the Church of Rome, and the Churches that dissent from it, would come to an happy Conclusion, and by God's Blessing, make them all u­nite into one Communion, and be­come one Catholick and Apostolical Church. I know very well that the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion are apt to tell us, that the Council of Trent was a Free and General Council, but we know the contrary, that it was neither Free nor General, or if it were, why may not the Church be represented a­new in another Free and General Council, as She was represented in the Council of Chalcedon, shortly after the second Council of Ephesus, and in the second Council of Nice, within thirty years after the seventh General Council of Constantinople, which expresly con­demned the Worship of Images? But they say the second [Page 86]Council of Ephesus, and the This Council did not err in condemning the worship of Images. seventh General Council Constantinople erred, and decreed false Doctrine: so say we of the Council of Trent, and therefore let ano­ther Free and General Council be called to umpire the Controversie between the Church of England and the Council of Trent; and if upon a fair tryal by the Scri­ptures, Fathers and Councils, such a Council shall con­demn the Church of England, then I will leave her Com­munion, and own I have been guilty of Heresie and Schism. I think no Son of the Church of England need scruple of say as much, nor fear to promise to stand to the Determinations of such a Council, as will freely and impartially try all Controversies by the ancient Touch­stone of In Ipsâ ca­tholicâ Ecclesiâ magnopere cu­randum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubi (que) quod semper, quod ab omnibus credi­tum est.— Hoc ita demum fit si sequamur Ʋnisversitatem, Antiquitatem, Consentionem. Vincent. Lirin. Cap. 3. Vide etiam Cap. 38. Ʋniversality, Antiquity, and Consent. This was the Catholick Test of old, and ought to be so still, and to shew how indifferent I am between the two Churches: I heartily beseech Almighty God that She may flourish and prevail, which is most willing to un­dergo, and best able to abide this Test.