A TRACT CONCERNING schism AND SCHISMATIQVES. WHEREIN, Is briefly discovered the original causes of all schism.  
Written by a Learned and Judicious Divine.  
TOGETHER, With certain Animadversions upon some Passages thereof.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD for Edward forest. 1642.   

A TRACT CONCERNING schism.  
Heresy and schism as they are commonly used, are two theological scar crows, with which they, who uphold a party in Religion, use to fright away such, as making enquiry into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either erroneous or suspicious; for as Plutarch reports of a Painter, who having unskilfully painted a Cock, chased away all Cocks and Hens, that so the imperfection of his Art might not appear by comparison with Nature; so men, willing for ends to admit of no fancy but their own, endeavour to hinder all enquiry into it, by way of comparison of somewhat with it, peradventure truer, that so the deformity of their own, might not appear: but howsoever in the common manage, heresy and schism are but ridiculous terms, yet the things in themselves are of very considerable moment, the one offending against Truth, the other against Charity, and therefore both deadly, when they are not by imputation, but in deed.  
It is then a matter of no small importance, truly to descry the nature of them, that so they may fear who are guilty of them, and they on the contrary strengthen themselves, who, through the iniquity of men and times, are injuriously charged with them.  
schism (for of heresy we shall not now treat, except it be by accident, and that by occasion of a general mistake, spread through all the writings of the Ancients, in which their names are familiarly confounded) schism, I say, upon the very sound of the word imports division, Division is not but where Communion is or aught to be: now Communion is the strength and ground of all Society, whether Sacred or civil; whosoever therefore they be, that offend against this Common society and friendliness of men, if it be in civil occasions, are guilty of Sedition or Rebellion; if it be by reason of ecclesiastical difference, they are guilty of schism: So that schism is an ecclesiastical sedition, as Sedition is a lay schism, yet the great benefit of Communion notwithstanding, in regard of divers distempers men are subject to, dissension and Disunion are often necessary; For when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for truth, and Acts either unlawful, or ministering just scruple are required of us to be performed, in these cases, consent were conspiracy, and open contestation is not faction or schism, but due Christian animosity.  
For the opening therefore of the nature of schism, something must be added by way of difference, to distinguish it from necessary separation, and that is, that the cause upon which division is attempted, proceed not from Passion, or from Distemper, or from Ambition, or Avatice, or such other ends, as human folly is apt to pursue, but from well weighed and necessary reasons, and that when all other means having been tried, nothing will serve to save us from guilt of Conscience, but open separation; so that schism, if we would define it, is nothing else but an unnecessary separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church, of which they were once members; now as in mutinies and civil dissensions, there are two attendants in ordinary belonging unto them: one, the choice of an Elector or Guide, in place of the general or Ordinary Governor, to rule and guide, the other the appointing of some public place, or rendezvous, where public meetings must be celebrated. So in Church dissensions and quarrels, two appurtenances there are, which serve to make schism complete.  
First, in the choice of a Bishop, in opposition to the former, (a thing very frequent amongst the Ancients, and which many times was the cause and effect of schism.)  
Secondly, the erecting of a new Church and Oratory, for the dividing parts to meet in publicly. For till this be done, the schism is but yet in the womb.  
In that late famous Controversy in Holland, De Pradestinatione & auxiliis, as long as the disagreeing parties went no farther than Disputes and Pen-Combats, the schism was all that while unhatched; but as soon as one party swept an old cloister, and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it, for the separating party there to meet; now what before was a Controversy, became a formal schism. To know no more than this, if you take it to be true, had been enough to direct how you are to judge, and what to think of schism and schismatics, yet because of the Ancients, (by whom many are more affrighted then hurt) much is said and many fearful dooms are pronounced in this case, we will descend a little to consider of schism, as it were by way of story, and that partly farther to open that, which we have said in general by instancing in particulars, and partly to disabuse those, who reverencing Antiquity more than needs, have suffered themselves to be scared with imputation of schism above due measure, for what the Ancients speak by way of censure of schism in general is most true, for they saw (and it is no great matter to see so much) that unadvised and open fancy to break the knot of union, betwixt man and man (especially amongst Christians, upon whom above all other kind of men, the tye of love and communion doth most especially rest) was a crime hardly pardonable, and that nothing absolves men from the guilt of it, but true and unpretended Conscience, yet when they came to pronounce of schism in particular, (whether it was because of their own interest, or that they saw not the truth, or for what other cause God only doth know) their judgements many times (to speak most gently) are justly to be suspected, which that you may see, we will range all schism into two ranks.  
First, there is a schism, in which only one party is the schismatic: for where cause of schism is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that is the cause of separation is the schismatic.  
Secondly, there is a schism in which both parties are the schismatics, for where the occasion of separation is unnecessary, neither side can be excused from guilt of schism.  
But you will ask, who shall be judge, what is necessary? Indeed it is a question which hath been often made, but I think scarcely ever truly answered, not because it is a point of great depth or difficulty truly to assoil it, but because the true solution of it, carries fire in the tail of it (for it bringeth with it a piece of doctrine, which is seldom pleasing to Superiors) To you for the present, this shall suffice,  
If so be you be animo defaecato, if you have cleared yourself from froth and grownes, if neither sloth nor fear, nor ambition, nor any tempting spirit of that nature abuse you (for these and such as these are the true impediments, why both that and other questions of the like danger are not truly answered) if all this be, and yet you know not how to frame your resolution, and settle yourself for that doubt; I will say no more of you, than was said of Papias S. John's own scholar, your abilities are not so good as I presumed.  

ANIMADVERSION.  
THIS tract, I must confess, is handsomely and acutely penned, and many things in it well worthy our observation. Yet because I greatly honour antiquity, and highly reverence the holy Fathers of the Church, I must crave pardon, if I deal plainly, and roundly with the Author thereof, who in some passages (as I conceive) doth two much neglect antiquity, and indeed all authority.  
For first, in that he saith, the Fathers generally mistake in confounding these names of Heresies and schism, they do not mistake them, but commonly distinguish them, or it is no great matter if they do, they are so nearly linked together, that they are seldom separated, you shall hardly find any one guilty of schism, but he doth easily and very often fall into heresy.  
schism, say you, is an unnecessary separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church, of which they were once members. But as you will put the question afterwards, who shall be judge what is necessary? and you are loath to assoil this question because the solution thereof carrieth fire in the tail of it, for it bringeth with it a piece of doctrine, seldom pleasing to superiors.  
Is this doctrine, let me ask you, good or bad? If good, than it should, than I hope it will be pleasing to superiors; If bad, then should it displease superiors and inferiors too. But the truth is, the doctrine is most pernicious to government, and therefore to all sorts of people, to wit, in plain terms, it is this, that every one must judge for himself with this proviso, so he be animo defaecato, And I pray who shall judge of this? Even yourself also. So that if you be persuaded that you are animo defaecato, and if you think you have cleared yourself from the froth and grownes of fear, sloth, and ambition, than it must needs be so, whereas the heart of man being deceitful above all things, there is nothing more usual than for a man to deceive himself, and think he is thus and thus, when he is nothing so. And seeing the best of us all have faces enough in us, why may not superiors have as few of these dregs in them as inferiors, and so as well able, at the least, to judge a right, as they. And you may talk what you will of being clear from the froth of ambition, I know not what greater pride and ambition there can be then thus to pull down all authority and jurisdiction, and erect a tribunal in every man's breast; And yet he that goeth about it, will think himself to be animo defaecato: And you may well say it carrieth fire in the tail of it. For thus to trample under foot all power and authority, by making every one his own judge, must needs raise a great combustion and a strange confusion in the world.  
Secondly, you cannot endure that they should be truly heretics and schismatics which were anciently so esteemed. For say you, men are more affrighted then hurt by the ancients, and that many reverence antiquity more than need, and after tell us in plain terms, that when they came to pronounce of schisms in particular, whether it were because of their own interests, or that they saw not the truth, or for what other cause God only doth know, their judgements many times to (speak most gently) are justly to be suspected.  
Where I will not go about to defend all the particular tenants of every Father, for questionless, being men, they had their passions and perturbations as well as we, so that take them singly, we shall find in many of them such private conceits of their own, which cannot be so well excused: Yet for all this, when all, or most of them agree together in any point, we are not to question or doubt of the truth of it, according to that ancient and hitherto well approved rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, 
Lib. ad Her. cap. 39  Whatsoever all of them, or most of them, in one and the same sense shall plainly frequently and constantly deliver and confirm, let that be esteemed as a ratified, certain, and undoubted truth.  
So then, though one or two of them may be mistaken, yet that all or the greatest part should agree together in a falsehood, I cannot easily believe. And therefore I cannot think that the current of the Fathers should thus be mistaken, and that they should generally account them for heretics and schismatics, which were not so indeed; I shall not so much suspect their judgements, as his that thinks so. But all this I perceive is, that there might be some opinions favoured now, which were commonly condemned by them, as we shall see afterward.   

TRACT.  
But to go on with what I intended, and from that that diverted me, that you may the better judge of the nature of schisms by their occasions, you shall find that all schisms have crept into the Church by one of these three ways, either upon matter of fact, or upon matter of opinion, or point of ambition: for the first, I call that matter of fact, when something is required to be done by us, which either we know, or strongly suspect to be unlawful; so the first notable schism, of which we read in the Church, contained in it matter of fact, for it being upon error taken for necessary, that an Easter must be kept, and upon worse than error (if I may so speak) for it was no less than a point of Judaism forced upon the Church, upon worse than error, I say, thought further necessary that the ground of the time, for keeping of that Feast must be the rule left by Moses to the Jews, there arose a stout Question, whether we were to celebrate with the Jews on the fourteenth Moon, or the Sunday following? This matter though most unnecessary, most vain, yet caused as great a combustion as ever was in the Church, the West separating and refusing Communion with the East, for many years together: In this fantastical hurry I cannot see but all the world were schismatics, neither can any thing excuse them from that imputation, excepting only this, that we charitably suppose that all parties did what they did out of conscience, a thing which befell them through the ignorance of their guides, (for I will not say through their malice) and that through the just judgement of God. because through sloth and blind obedience men examined not the things which they were taught, but like beasts of burden, patiently couched down, and indifferently underwent whatsoever their superiors laid upon them: by the way, by this we may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity, for resolution in controverted points of Faith, and how small relief we are to expect from thence; for if the discretion of the chiefest Guides, & Directors of the Church, did in a point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the truth in a subject, wherein it is the greatest marvel, how they could avoid the sight of it, can we without the imputation of great grossness and folly, think so poor spirited persons, competent judges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches; pardon me, I know not what Temptation drew that note from me.   

ANIMADVERSION.  
Thirdly, about keeping of Easter, say you, anciently all the world were schismatics.  
A strange assertion, to lay such an heavy imputation upon all those ancient worthies. Had they been thus guilty, it had been the part of a dutiful son to have made some apology for them, and to have covered his father's nakedness. But a far greater crime it is, thus to accuse them without a cause. The best of it is, I shall not have occasion here to excuse their error, but to defend their innocency. For first, their difference is not about a point that concerneth Faith or Good manners, but only the outward discipline and government of the Church: about the keeping of a solemn feast. And that not, whether we should keep it or no, (for all agreed well enough that it ought to be kept) but about the time of keeping it, whether at this or that time, which is a matter of far less moment.  
The occasion of this difference briefly was thus, St Peter and his successors at Rome kept Easter the Sunday after the fourteenth Moon. But S. James and many of his successors at Jerusalem, being all of them Ministers of the circumcision, the sooner to win their brethren the Jews, condescended to keep their Easter, as the Jews did, 14ᵒ Lunae. Which diversity of observation continued for the space of 200. years, neither Church censuring or condemning one another for it. Till at the length Victor Pope of Rome would needs take upon him to bring all those Eastern Churches to his custom, and excommunicate them for not yielding, whereupon grew the schism. So that although at the first they kept Easter diversely for a long time together, yet so long as there was no breach of charity between them, there was no schism, by your own confession, who tell us, that schism offends against charity, as Heresy against truth.  
So then, whiles they were charitable one to another, all the world were so far from being schismatics, that no part of it could be justly thus branded. The schism indeed began, when the Pope would needs rashly and unadvisedly excommunicate those Eastern Churches, with whom he had nothing to do. But then was not the whole world, but only Victor and his partisans the schismatics according to you, who unjustly divided themselves from the other side, the East Churches continuing their old custom without any schism at all, yet some of them not forbearing to tell Victor of his unadvised and unjustifiable action.  
For shall we not allow to several Churches (especially when they have no dependency one upon another) their several rites and observations, but they must be all schismatic for it? You may as well call both these church's schismatics for this also, because the one Church fasts on Saturday, the other fasts not; the one administers the Eucharist in unleavened, the other in leavened bread. These and such like points concern not the body of the Church, but her garments: now although her body must be but one, yet her garments are of divers colours. Nay, as one saith very well, diversitas rituum commendat unitatem fidei. The unity of faith doth more gloriously appear amidst the diversity of ceremonies and ritual observations.  
I wonder if one of our refined spirits now a days, who is animo defaecato, had lived in those times, what could he have done to avoid this schism? how could he have chosen but be a schismatic on one side or another? I conceive how he should have escaped by you, to wit, to join with neither side by keeping no Easter at all: for with you it is an error to think that an Easter must be kept: which position being put in practice will prove the greatest Schime of all, thus to divide one's self from all the Christian world. For although these holy Fathers differed for a while amongst themselves about the time, yet they all agreed against you about the thing itself, and not only the orthodox but the very heretics of those times kept an Easter. Not so much as the Novatians (who called themselves Cathari the Puritans of the Primitive Church) but an Easter they had, though they were very indifferent about the time of keeping it. And the whole Christian world ever since hath duly observed the keeping of Easter. But you take no notice of this, only your ear is to excuse those Fathers the best you can. And you can find but this one way to do it, That we charitably suppose that all parties did what they did out of conscience, a thing which befell them through the ignorance of their guides, for I will not say through their malice, and that through the just judgement of God, because through sloth and blind obedience, men examined not the things which they were taught, but like beasts of burden patiently couched down, and indifferently underwent whatsoever their superiors laid upon them.  
Do you call this an excusation, and not rather an heavy censure and accusation both of Priest and People in those purer times: For what a dishonour is this to the Pastors and Prelates then, that they who lived so near the Apostles should be such ignorant guides? Nay what a disparagement is it to the very Apostles themselves, that they should choose such ignorant guides, that could instruct the people no better. For some of these you speak of, certainly were the immediate successors of the Apostles themselves. They have been accounted hitherto men, not only of conscience but of learning, knowing and understanding, pious and devout men, in many of them the gift of doing miracles still remained. I cannot with patience speak against this imputation.  
But you are as bold with the people, by accusing them of sloth and blind obedience, and to be beasts of burden, because they did not examine what they were taught.  
Whereas this good people had well learned, that they should not, they could not be wiser than their teachers; and they had been newly taught from St Paul's own mouth, that they were to obey those that had the rule over them, and submit themselves. Which was not a blind but a wise discreet holy and dutiful obedience.  
But you it seems will teach the people another lesson, to wit, to guide their guides. And they are now apt enough to learn it. For they begin to practise it apace.  
But you infer upon these weak premises. By this you may plainly see the danger of our appeal to antiquity for resolution in coutroversed points of faith, and how small relief we are to expect from thence; For if the discretion of the chiefest guides of the Church, did in a point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them as not to see the truth, &c.  
But you build too large a structure upon such a sandy foundation. For here the discretion of the chiefest guides of the Church did not fail them, as you imagine: but they constantly kept their own several customs in love and charity, and therefore without schism, till Victor would needs take too much upon him, whereas the whole business was afterwards settled in that famous council of Nice.  
So that here is no oversight of any truth, as I conceive, unless, as you intimate before, the truth is, they should have kept no Easter at all: and then as you say, it was most unnecessary and most vain to strive about the time of keeping it. But such a truth as this, the Christian world hath not yet embraced, neither do I know when it will. So that for aught yet appears, (Unless you bring better reason against them) we may take good directions from antiquity in the resolution of our modern controversies: and we may for all this examine the question on foot, by the doctrine of those purer times, and heroic spirits, although you are pleased to term them poor spirited persons. Which to me seemeth a very strange appellation, was S. Ambrose a poor spirited person, who durst excommunicate that great Emperor Theodosius, and forbid him to enter into the Church? Was S. Chrisostome a poor spirited person, who did preach against Eudoxia the Empress, and valiantly suffered banishment for it? Was S. Athanasius either, a poor spirited person who durst stand out even against all the World, as it is storied of him, Athanasius against the world, and the world against Athanasius? Or were any of those father's poor spirited persons, who did courageously suffer martyrdom for the testimony of Christ? Can you name any one author ancient or modern, that hath so called or esteemed of them? If not, than it is but thus with you. The Fathers are poor spirited persons, because I say so, who am animo defaecato.  
Neither are you yet constant to yourself in this assertion, for although here you call them poor spirited persons, yet afterwards you do in effect unsay it, where you so much approve of what Socrates observeth of them, that they were the great disturbers of the Christian world. Do poor spirited persons use to make such hurly-burlies? Pardon me, say you, I know not what temptation drew this note from me.  
And if you would pardon me, I could give a great guess at the temptation. I fear it is a temptation of pride and singularity, thus to trample upon those ancient worthies, the better to make way for some kind of novelty. And I would it were no worse than this, of not keeping Easter.   

TRACT.  
The next schism which had in it matter of fact, is that of the Donatist, who was persuaded (at least pretended so) that it was unlawful to converse or communicate in holy duties with men stained with any notorious sin, for howsoever, that Austen do specify only the Thurificati and Traditores and Libellatici, &c. as if he separated only from those, whom he found to be such, yet by necessary proportion, he must refer to all notorious sinners, upon this he taught that in all places, where good and bad were mixed together, there could be no Church by reason of Pollution, evaporating as it were from sinners, which blasted righteous persons, who conversed with them, and made all unclean on this ground, separating himself from all that he list to suspect, he gave out, that the Church was nowhere to be found but in him, and his Associates, as being the only men among whom wicked persons found no shelter, and by consequence the only clear and unpolluted company, and therefore the only Church. Against this Saint Augustine laid down this Conclusion, Vnitatem Ecclesiae per totum Mundum dispersae propter nonnullorum peccata non esse deserendam, which is indeed the whole sum of that father's disputation against the Donatists. Now in one part of this Controversy, one thing is very remarkable. The truth was there, where it was, by mere chance, and might have been on either side, the reason brought by either party notwithstanding, for though it were Defacto false, that pars Donati shut up in Africa was the only Othodox party, yet it might be true, notwithstanding any thing Saint Augustine brings to confute it; and on the contrary, though it were de facto true, that the part of Christians dispersed over the whole Earth were Orthodox, yet it might have been false, notwithstanding any thing Saint Augustine brings to confirm it. For where, or amongst whom, or how many the Church shall be, or is, is a thing indifferent, it may be in any number more or less, it may be in any Place, Country or Nation, it may be in all, and for aught I know, it may be in none, without any prejudice to the definition of a Church, or the truth of the gospel, North or South, many or few, dispersed in many places, or confined to one: None of these do either prove or disprove a Church.  
Now this schism, and likewise that former, to a wise man that well understands the matter in controversy, may afford perchance matter of pity, to see men so strangely distracted upon fancy, but of doubt or trouble what to do, it can yield none; for though in this schism the Donatist be the schismatic, and in the former, both parties be equally engaged in the schism; yet you may safely upon your occasions communicate with either, if so be you flatter neither in their schism: For why might not it be lawful to go to Church with the Donatist, or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman, if occasion so require? since neither Nature, nor Religion, nor Reason doth suggest any thing of moment to the contrary? For in all public meetings pretending holiness, so there be nothing done, but what true Devotion and piety brook; why may not I be present in them, and use communication with them; Nay, what if those to whom the execution of the public service is committed, do something either unseemly or suspicious, or peradventure unlawful? what if the garments they wear be censured, nay indeed be superstitious? what if the gesture of adoration be used to the Altars, as now we have learned to speak? what if the Homilist have preached, or delivered any doctrine of the truth, of the which we are not well persuaded? a thing which very often falls out: yet for all this we may not separate, except we be constrained personally to bear a part in them ourselves; The Priests under Ely had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily sacrifice, that the Scripture tells us, they made them to stink, yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle, nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest, for in those schisms which concern fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusing of Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected act; for not only in reason, but in religion too, that maxim admits of no release, cautissimicuiusque Praeceptum quod dubitas ne feceris; long it was ere the Church fell uponschisme, upon this occasion, though of late it hath had very many, for until the second council of Nice, in which concileable, Superstition and Ignorance did conspire, I say, until the Rout did set up Image-worship, there was not any remarkable schism upon just occasion of fact, all the rest of schisms of that kind were but wantons, this was truly serious; in this the schismatical party was the Synod itself, and such as conspired with it; for concerning the use of Images in sacris,  
First, it is acknowledged by all that it is a thing unnecessary.  
Secondly, it is by most suspected.  
Thirdly, it is by many held utterly unlawful, can then the enjoining of such a thing be aught else but abuse? or can the refusal of Communion here be thought any other thing than duty? Here or upon the like occasion to separate, may peradventure bring personal trouble or danger, (against which it concerns any honest man, to have pectus bene Praeparatum) further harm it cannot do, so that in these cases you cannot be to seek what to think, or what you have to do.   

ANIMADVERSION.  
Fourthly, you fall foul upon S. Austin in particular, who, I may boldly say, hath deserved as well of the Christian world as any one man since the Apostles times. And if this were my opinion alone, I should suspect it, but I appeal herein to the general applause the learned have of him.  
The truth was, say you, on S. Austin's side against the Donatist, but by mere chance. For the Donatist might have been the only orthodox party, for any thing S. Austin brings to confute it, and the other party might not have been orthodox, for any thing S. Austin brings to confirm it.  
Then which, what could have been spoken more derogatory to so famous, learned and renowned a Father? As if his arguments were so slight and silly, both to defend himself and offend his adversary, that they are not worth the reading or regarding, but are as much, as if he had said nothing at all. Whereas it is well known and confessed, that although this good father was renowned for many things, yet his master piece doth appear in his polemics, who, to the admiration of the World hitherto, is accounted to have acutely subtly, & soundly confuted all those heretics and schismatics he wrote against; and therefore deservedly styled Malleus haereticorum, the mauler of the heretics.  
Now he must be esteemed a silly man, and to have said nothing against them. You should do well, now you have thus accused him, to set down and make it appear unto the world, that his arguments both offensive and defensive against the Donatist, are so slight and weak as you would make us believe. There be some that will defend him, and maintain that this Father hath proved against the Donatist by irrefragable arguments drawn out of Scripture, that the Church of Christ neither than was, nor ever shall be, drawn into such a narrow compass, as you and they imagine.  
I would ask you this question. If S. Austin hath given you so little satisfaction against the Donatist, how do you know, but that the Donatist may be defacto in the right, and S. Austin in the wrong; for it seems by you, it was but hap hazard, which way it would go. I would therefore willingly learn the way you take to discern which of these two ways is the right, for it seems you have learned nothing by S. Austin.  
But methinks you go a strange way to work to say the Church may be in none, without any prejudice to the definition of the Church or the truth of the gospel.  
I would willingly know how you define a Church, which shall consist of none, and whether this be not most derogatory to the truth of the gospel, that Christ should have a Church which is in none, that is, as I conceive it, should have no Church at all. For although it pleaseth God to remove his Candlestick from one Country to another, and that his Church should be like the Moon, sometimes in the full, and sometimes in the wain; yet that it should be utterly eclipsed, and quite vanish away, directly crosseth the prophecies of the old Testament, and the promises of the new.  
But you will pity S. Austin and those Fathers before him, that were thus distracted upon fancy.  
And methinks the greatest pity of all is, that some of our wise men that so well now understand the matters in controversy, had not lived in their times, to have rectified them, and put these fancies out of their heads. But I know not, whether it be not the greatest fancy of all, to think ourselves so wise, and them so fantastical.  
But you easily resolve the doubt, and think it lawful to go to Church with the Donatist, or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman, so you flatter neither in their schism, and there be nothing done but what true devotion and piety will brooks.  
But how can this be? for your joining with them in their custom and communion, must needs, if not flatter, yet much hearten and encourage them in their schism. Besides you give a great scandal and offence to the Orthodox party, and make them justly so suspect, that because you thus join with them in their public communion, that you favour, at the least dislike not, their private opinion. Thus then to scandalize your brethren, can never stand with true piety and devotion.   

TRACT.  
Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of schism, arising upon occasion of variety of opinion: It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves, with that measure of Faith, which God and Scriptures have expressly afforded us, but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed, they have attempted to devise things, of which we have no light, neither from Reason nor Revelation, neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of Church authority (which is none) or Tradition (which for the most part is but feigned) they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon other a necessity of entertaining conclusions of that nature, & to strengthen themselves have broken out into divisions and factions, opposing man to man, Synod to Synod, till the peace of the Church vanished, without all possibiity of recall: hence arose those ancient, and many separations amongst Christians, occasioned by Arianism, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, photinianism, Sabellianism, and many more both ancients, and in our own time, all which indeed are but names of schism; howsoever in the common language of the Fathers, they were called Heresies, for heresy is an act of the will, not of the reason, and is indeed a lie and not a mistake, else how could that of Austen go for true, Errare possum, Hareticus esse nolo: indeed manichanism, valentinianism, macedonianism, Mahometism, are truly and properly Herises: For we know that the Authors of them received them not, but invented them themselves, and so knew what they taught to be a lie: but can any man avouch that Arius and Nestorius, and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity, and the person of our SAVIOUR, did maliciously invent what they taught, and not rather fall upon it by error and mistake? till that be done, and upon good evidence, we will think no worse of all parties than needs we must, and take these Rents in the Church to be at the worst but schisms, upon matter of opinion, in which case what we are to do, is not a point of any great depth of understanding to discover, if so be distemper and partiality do not intervene: I do not see that opinionum varictas & opinantium unitas, are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or that men of different opinions in Christian Religion, may not hold communion in Sacris, and both go to one Church, why may I not go▪ If occasion require, to an Arian Church, so there be no Arianism expressed in their Liturgy, and were Liturgies and public forms of Service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only such things, as in which all Christians do agree; schisms on opinion were utterly vanished: for consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been, and remove from them whatsoever is scandalous to any party, and leave nothing but what all agree on, and the event shall be, that the public Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer. Whereas to load our public forms, with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most sovereign way to perpetuate schism unto the world's end; Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, Reading of Scriptures, Administration of Sacriments, in the plainest and the simplest manner, were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, though nothing either of private opinion, or of Church Pomp, of Garments, or prescribed Gestures, of Imagery, of music, of matter concerning the Dead, of many superfluities which creep into the Church, under the name of Order, and Decency, did interpose itself.  
To charge Churches and Liturgies, with things unnecessary was first the beginning of all superstition, and when scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended, there schism began to break in; if the special Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of encumbering Churches with superfluities, or not overrigid either in reviving obsolete customs, or imposing new, there would be far less cause of schism or Superstition, and all the inconveniance likely to ensue, would be but this, they should in so doing yield a little to the imbecility of their Inferiors, a thing which S. Paul would never have refused to do; mean while wheresoever false or suspected opinions are made a piece of Church Liturgy, he that separates is not the schismatic, for it is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falsehood, as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions.   

ANIMADVERSION.  
Fiftly, having trampled upon the ancients, you come now to the Church, and level that also with the ground. It hath been, say you, the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of faith which God and Scriptures have expressly afforded us, but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed, they have attempted to devise things of which we have no light from reason nor revelation. Neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of Church authority (which is none) or Tradition (which for the most part is but feigned. &c.  
Ay, hath the Church no authority? did not our Saviour give power to the Church to punish & excommunicate a notorious offendor? when he saith, go tell the Church, and if he hear not the Church, let him be to thee a heathen or a Publican. And did not his S. Paul give great power to the Church when he calleth it the Pillar and fortress of truth. It were easy here to enlarge myself, and prove out of the Ancient Fathers did you not reject them, that they attributed great power & authority to the Church. But the Church of England (whose son suppose you are, and therefore cannot so well neglect her authority) will tell you, 
Artic. 20.  that the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith. But here you would cry up the authority of the Scriptures, that thereby you might decry the authority of the Church, whereas these two are not opposite, but subordinate one to another; I mean the Church to the Scripture; If therefore you will commend unto us the authority of Scripture, you must also uphold the authority of the Church, which is founded in Scripture, but if you nullify the authority of the Church, you must also neglect the authority of the Scripture, which giveth the Church such power. And let no man think the Roman Church will here break in upon me, for by Church, I mean the truly ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church, from which the Roman Church is far enough.  
And as by Church, so I mean by Tradition, for where Tradition is feigned, none are to esteem of it, but when it doth appear unto us to be truly ancient Catholic and Apostolic, it is not a little to be regarded. Hereupon Vincentius would have us duplici modo munire fidem, to fortify our faith two manner of ways, 
Cap. 1. & 2.  primò, divinae legis authoritate, deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione, first, by the authority of divine law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church. Then he putteth that objection, which you here, and many others are used to make; seeing that the canon of Scripture is perfect enough and more than enough sufficient in itself to all things, what need is there that we should join unto it the authority of ecclesiastical exposition. Unto which methinks he giveth a very satisfying answer, Because all do not understand the holy Scriptures, by reason of the height thereof, in one and the same sense: but one interprets it one way, and another a several way. So that there be as many minds and meanings about it, almost as there be men. For Novatus expounds it one way, Donatus another, Arius another, Pelagius another, &c. Therefore it is very needful, by reason of so great and diverse errors, that the line of prophetical and apostolical interpretation, be directed according to the rule of ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.  
So that true and Catholic Tradition, is like unto a strong wall about the garden of holy Scripture, which keeps it from the incursion of heretics, or if they chance to get in, it is a sovereign antidote to preserve us from the poison they suck out of these sweet flowers.  
So that take the Church and Tradition in a right sense, there is much to be attributed to them, but I intend brevity. Only I cannot omit, how you would make us believe, that this authority of the Church hath caused those separations which Arius, Nestorius, and other heretics have raised, when you say, hence arose those ancient and many separations amongst Christians. &c.  
Whereas indeed it was the authority of the Church and Catholic Fathers which hath quelled, confuted, and silenced all those Heresies, and heretics which it seems you have a mind to revive, for you will not have them called Heresies, but schisms, for indeed, say you, they are but names of schism, howsoever in the common language of the Fathers they were called Heresies.  
But you must pardon those who think it safer and sounder to follow the common language of the Fathers, than your own private assertion.  
But you have a reason for it. For heresy, say you, is an act of the will not of reason, whereas indeed it is both. For doth not the heretic first fasten upon a false opinion, which is an act of the understanding and corrupted reason, and this is the material part of heresy. And then doth wilfully and stubbornely▪ being convinced of it, maintain the same, which is an act of the will and formalizeth heresy. And in this sense, not in yours, is that known speech of St. Austin true, errare possum, haereticus esse nolo, that is, I may err and so fall into the material part of heresy, by apprehending and judging that to be a good doctrine which is false and erroneous, but haereticus esse nolo, I will not be an heretic, that is, I will not persist in this opinion, being lawfully convicted and condemned for it by the Church and governors thereof. For than I should be formally and properly an heretic. For howsoever you slight and nullify the authority of the Church, yet in the primitive times when the Church was at unity, when there was not altare contra altare, it was then esteemed to be of great power and authority, which authority of that Church hath justly declared not only the Manichees, Valentinians and Marcionites, but also the Arians, Nestorians, and Pelagians to be heretics. Howsoever you are willing to distinguish them, and make these latter scarce schismatics, for you will take these rents in the Church to be at the worst but schisms. Then at the best it seems they are not so much as schisms.  
Yet I cannot be persuaded so ill of the former; as to think they knew what they taught, was a lie, and so went directly against their own consciences: nor yet so well of the latter to excuse them with you, from heresy, for I am yet to learn, that heresy is nothing else, but to know that a lie is taught, such kind of wickedness I shall rather term open blasphemy then heresy, when men go against the light of their own consciences.  
Sixtly, you chalk us out a way, wherein we may safely walk, not only with the Donatists, But with the Arian and all other heretics. And that is to have Liturgies and public forms of service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only such things, as in which all Christians do agree; and then, schisms on opinion were utterly vanished, and thus, say you, I may go to an Arian Church.  
A pretty fancy indeed. But first I think you could not prevail with the Arian party to frame their creed so, as might not give offence to the orthodox side, for in all Liturgies they use to have a confession of their faith.  
And secondly, if you could prevail with them, how could you persuade all our Churches, to put that clause out of our creed. [I believe in Christ the only begotten son of God, begotten of his father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the father by whom all things were made.] which was a good illustration of our Creed joined to it, and made a part of it by the fathers of the Nicene council against the Arians then, and will serve as a sufficient bulwark against our Sosinians now: which Creed hath had the general applause of the Christian Churches since, and hath the honour to be one of the Creeds of the Catholic Church.  
You must prevail with them likewise to blot out of Athanasius Creed (which though it were made but by one man, yet by general approbation is now also become the Creed of all our Churches,) I say you must put out of it, these clauses. [there is one person of the Father, another of the son, another of the Holy Ghost, but the Godhead of the Father & of the son and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal, the Father eternal, the son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal: the Father is God, the son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.] All which do directly overthrow these heresies. And do not call these clauses, particular and private fancies, for they are part of the universal and public faith of the Church, which all the East and West, all Popish and Reformed Churches do unanimously profess and believe. It is not a time now to add, much less to detract, from our public Confessions of faith.   

TRACT.  
The third thing I named for matter of schism was Ambition, I mean episcopal Ambition, showing itself especially in two heads, one concerning Pluralities of Bishops in the same Sea. Another concerning the superiority of Bishops in diverse Seas. Aristotle tells us that necessity causeth but small faults, but Avarice and Ambition were the mother of great Crimes; episcopal Ambition hath made this true, for no occasion hath produced more frequent, more continuous, more sanguineous schisms, than this hath done; the Seas of Alexandria, of Constantinople, of Antioch, and above all of Rome, do abundantly show thus much, and all ecclesiastical stories witness no less, of which the greatest part consists of factionating and tumultuating of great and potent Bishops.  
Socrates Apologizing for himself, that professing to write an ecclesiastical story, he did ofttimes interlace the actions of secular Princes and other civil business, tells us that he did this to refresh his reader, who otherwise were in danger to be cloyed by reading so much of the Acts of unquiet and unruly Bishops, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in which as a man may say, they made butter and cheese one of another, for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that I may show you a cast of my old office and open you a mystery in grammar, properly signifies to make butter and cheese, and because these are not made without much agitation of the milk, hence {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, by a borrowed and translated signification, signifies to do things with much agitation and tumult.  
But that I may a little consider of the two heads, I but now specified, the first I mentioned was the plurality of Bishops in one Sea. For the general practice of the Church, since the beginning, at least since the original of Episcopacy, as now it is, was never to admit at once more than one Bishop in one Sea, and so far in this point have they been careful to preserve unity, that they would not have a Bishop in his Sea to have two cathedral Churches, which thing lately brought us a book out of France De monogamia Episcoporum, written by occasion of the Bishop of La●gres: who, I know not upon what fancy, could not be content with one cathedral Church in his diocese but would needs have two, which to the Author of that Work seem, to be a kind of spiritual Polygamy; it fell out amongst the Ancients very often, sometimes upon occasion of difference in opinions, sometimes because of those who were interessed in the choice of Bishops; that two and sometimes more were set up, and all parties striving to maintain their own Bishop, made themselves several Churches, several Congregations, each refusing to participate with others, & many times proceeding to mutual excommunications; that is that which Cyprian calls Erigere Altare contra Altare, to this doth he impute the original of all Church disorders, and if you read him, you world think he thought no other Church tumult to be schism but this. This perchance may plead some excuse, for though in regard of Religion itself, it matters not whether there be one or more Bishops in one diocese, and sometimes two are known to have set at once; for Epiphanius reckoning up the Bishops of Rome, makes Peter and Paul the first: and Saint Augustin acknowledgeth for a time he sat fellow Bishop with his predecessor, though he excused it, that he did so by being ignorant that the contrary had been decreed by the council of Nice, yet it being a thing very convenient for the peace of the Church to have it so, neither doth it any whit savour of vice or misdemeanour, their punishments sleeps not who unnecessarily and wantonly go about to infringe it.   

ANIMADVERSION.  
Seventhly, you come to episcopal Ambition, than which you say none hath caused more frequent, more continuous, more sanguineous schisms.  
It is very true indeed, we shall read of many uproars and much bloodshed about the election of some Bishops, for which you cannot so much accuse the Bishops as the factious, furious, and unruly multitude, who eagerly pursue their several humours, and are violently carried into extremes. And therefore for the cure of this mischief, the order and power of Bishops was not taken away, but the choice of them, you know, was taken from the giddy multitude and translated unto the nomination and election of temporal Princes.  
As for your story out of Socrates, you should have done well to have put down the place, that your reader might have seen, you have urged it to your own advantage. I shall set it down plainly as I find it in his proem to his fift book: where Socrates intending to write an ecclesiastical history, and yet withal is willing to mingle amongst it temporal affairs, makes three apologies for it. First, saith he, that these warlike affairs might not be forgotten, but come unto posterity, for it seems there were few or no historians in his time. The second excuse is (which you allege) for variety sake, lest the reader should be cloyed with perusing only Church affairs, which is no more than if a man writing a story of a commonwealth, should for variety and delight, intermix here and there businesses of the Church. Not that the commonwealth was then more quiet than the Church, but there were full as many troubles and tumults in that as in this. Nay which may serve somewhat to excuse the unquietness of the Clergy, it was caused through the disturbance of the commonwealth. For that is Socrates his thirde and chiefest reason, because by setting down the affairs of the temporal estate, we may know from whence these tumults amongst Bishops arose. For when, saith he, the commonwealth was thus tossed up and down with troubles and seditions with factions and divisions: the estate of the Church and chiefest churchmen {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as it were by a certain kind of Sympathy, could not choose but be infected with the same disease.  
Besides, suppose some Bishops than were factious and ambitious, you should consider that this concerneth the persons of Bishops, not their calling, though I think you might have spared both. Now what a vulgar and illogical way is this, through the sides of any man's person to wound his very calling. And had our great writer of Bishops lives been as careful to lay together all that makes for them, as he hath been industrious to rake together all that makes against them, he might have made his volumes swell twice as big.   

TRACT.  
But that other head of episcopal Ambition, concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers Seas, one claiming Supremacy over another, as it hath been from time to time, a great trespass against the church's Peace, so it is now the final ruin of it. The East & West through the fury of the two prime Bishops being irremediably separated without all hope of Reconcilement. And besides all this mischief, it is founded on a vice contrary to all Christian humility, without which no man shall see his SAVIOUR; for they do but abuse themselves and others, that would persuade us, that Bishops by Christ's Institution have any superiority over other men further than of Reverence, or that any Bishop is Superior to another further than Positive order agreed upon amongst Christians hath prescribed: for we have believed him that hath told us that in Jesus CHRIST there is neither high nor low, and that in giving honour, every man should be ready to prefer another before himself, which saying cuts of all claim certainly of superiority, by title of Christianity, except men think that these things were spoken only to poor and private men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath an hand in this heraldry of Secundum sub & supra, all this comes from Composition and agreement of men amongst themselves, wherefore this abuse of Christianity to make it lackey to Ambition, is a vice for which I have no extraordinary name of Ignominy, and an ordinary I will not give it, lest you should take so transcendent a vice to be but trivial.  
Now concerning schism arising upon these heads, you cannot be for behaviour much to seek, for you may safely communicate with all parties as occasion shall call you, and the schismatics here are all those who are heads of the faction, together with all those who foment it: for private and indifferent persons, they may be spectators of these contentions as securely in regard of any peril of Conscience, (for of danger in purse or person, I keep no account) as at a Cock fight where serpents fight, who cares who hath the better? the best wish is that both may perish in the fight.  
And for conventicles, of the nature of which you desire to be informed, thus much in general evidently appears, that all meetings upon an unnecessary separation are to be so styled, so that in sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of schismatics, yet Time hath taken leave sometimes to fix this name upon good and honest meetings, and that perchance not altogether without good reason, for with public religious meetings thus it fares. First, it hath been at all times confessed necessary, that God requires not only inward and private devotion, when men either in their hearts and Closets or within their privaet walls, pray, praise, confess and acknowledge; but he further requires all those things to be done in public, by troops and shoals of men, and from hence have proceeded public Temples, Altars, forms of Service, appointed times, and the like, which are required for open Assemblies, yet whilst men are truly pious, all meetings of men for mutual help of piety & devotion wheresoever and by whomsoever celebrated, were permitted without exception.  
But when it was espied that ill affected persons abused private meetings, whether Religious or civil to evil ends; religiousness to cross Impiety, as appears in the ethnic Elusinia, and Bacchanalia, and Christian meetings under the Pagan Princes, when for fear they durst not come together in open view, were charged with foul imputations, as by the report of Christians themselves plainly appears, and civil meetings many times, under pretence of friendly and neighbourly visits, sheltered treasonable attempts against Princes and commonweals,  
Hence both Church and State joined, and jointly gave order for forms, Times, Places of public meetings, whether for Religious or civil ends, and all other meetings whatsoever, besides those of which both time and Place, are limited, they censured for Routs and Riots, and unlawful Assemblies in the State, and in the Church, for Conventicles.  
So that it is not lawful, no not for prayer, ●earing, for Conference, for any other Religious office whatsoever, for people to Assemble otherwise, then by public order is allowed, neither may we complain of this in times of incorruption, for why should men desire to do that suspiciously in private which warrantably may be performed in public.  
But in times of manifest Corruptions and persecutions, wherein Religious Assembling is dangerous, private meetings howsoever, besides public order, are not only lawful, but they are of necessity and duty, else how shall we excuse Meetings of Christians for public Service, in time of danger and persecutions, and of ourselves in Queen Mary's days? and how will those of the Roman Church amongst us, put off the imputation of Conventicling, who are known amongst us privately to assemble for Religious exercise against all established order, both in State and Church? For indeed all pious Assemblies in times of persecution and corruption howsoever practised, are indeed or rather alone the lawful Congregations, and public Assemblies though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stained with corruption and superstition.   

ANIMADVERSION.  
Eightly and lastly, you take away all superiority from Bishop's when you say, they do but abuse themselves and others, that would persuade us, that Bishops by Christ's institution have any superiority over other men, further than of reverence.  
Where (although you intended only to speak against the superiority of one Bishop over another) yet you seem to take away, not only all power of one Bishop over another, but of a Bishop over a Presbyter, yea of a Bishop over any other private man. I cannot here (intending brevity) enter upon the dispute about the power of one Bishop over another, or of the power of a Bishop over a Presbyter. The former of which is no doubt confirmed by a long continued ecclesiastical power, the latter by an apostolical. But that a Bishop should not have any superiority over an ordinary layman, seems strange to me. Certainly our Saviour intended some power and authority unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, when he gave them the keys and wished them to open and shut, to bind and lose, whose successors Bishops are, and though some make question whether they succeed them as Bishops, yet none doubt but they succeed them as Pastors of the Church, and thus have they power over laymen. S. Paul wills Timothy to command and teach, 1. Tim. 4. 11. and in another place willeth others to obey those who had the oversight of them, Heb. 13. 17.  
Now where there is commanding on the one side and obeying on the other, there must needs be superiority.  
But I could not have imagined this had been your meaning, but for your proofs which follow. For we have believed him that hath told us, that in Christ Jesus there is neither high nor low, and that in giving honour every man should be ready to prefer another before himself, which saying cuts of all claim certainly of superiority, by title of Christianity, except men think that these things were spoken only to poor and private men.  
Where, you consider not, that you run into an anabaptistical humour, and take away all superiority in the commonwealth, as well as in the Church, and entrench upon the sceptre of the King as well as upon the mitre of the Bishop. But your proofs are easily satisfied. For the first, though we find not those very words in Scripture, yet I suppose you aim at that place wherein it is said, we are all one in Christ Jesus, Gal. 3. 28. where the true meaning of the place is, that as we are Christians we are all one, that is, we have all equally, and alike been partakers of Christ by baptism, as he saith, vers. 27. as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. So that as members of Christ we are all one, & all make but one body of Christ. Yet as amongst the natural members of our bodies, so amongst the mystical members of Christ, though they be all one as members, being compared with the head: yet being compared one with another, S. Paul tells us, there are more honourable and less honourable members, 1. Cor. 12. 23.  
Your other place, that we should in giving honour prefer one another, teacheth humility, but taketh not away superiority.  
But you go on and tell us, that nature and religion agree in this, that neither of them hath an hand in this heraldry of Secundum sub & supra: whereas in it they both join hand in hand. Nature acknowledgeth this heraldry, that she may avoid ataxy and confusion: And religion also, for did not our Lord and Master acknowledge a Caesar, and commanded us to give unto him that which belonged unto him, to wit, obedience & subjection. And doth not his Apostle S. Paul command that every soul should be subject to the higher power. Rom. 13. 1. where you see this heraldry of sub & supra, is put down in express terms: and pray let us observe the Apostles reason why we should thus be subject to the higher powers, for, saith he, there is no power but of God, & the powers that be are ordained of God. How hear I then, that all this comes from composition and agreement of men amongst themselves.  
But I spare to prosecute this doctrine any further, lest I should discover in it a very transcendent crime.  
FINIS.