A TREATISE OF THE SCHISM OF ENGLAND.  
Wherein particularly Mr. HALES and Mr. HOBBS are modestly accosted.  
By PHILIP SCOT.  
Permissu Superiorum.  
AMSTERDAM Printed Anno Dom. 1650   

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.  
The Author Superviving intended to both the Universities, as a Theme to be discussed in their next Scholastic Olympics.  
WHen Fabius was asked who was a good Orator, he said he would give the same answer, which the Stoics would give if this question were propounded to them concerning Zeno, Cleanthes, or Chrysippus, whom they esteemed great and worthy men; but not such as had obtained the height of which human nature is capable.  
The same I confess of you, ye have made large progresses in the school of wisdom, and many of you have almost reached the top of human capacity, but yet ye have not obtained pure wisdom: And truly, I fear as the old Platonists confessed of themselves, ye will never reach it till your souls final separation: when she will to her loss find where she missed her footing, except ye would (which were a noble design) maugre the injuries of the time and place where ye live, life up your eyes, and conclude with Epictetus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our aim shall be to seek God with a pure Soul. This cannot be done unless without any limitation ye submit to these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to those commanding Oracles (as the Ancients call them) which God by his holy Spouse propoundeth to our obedience; to this end it is first necessary to know which is the only Church, whence all wisdom as from a pure source flows: to this the ensuing discourse will enable the Reader.  
Witten by your Servant PHILIP SCOT   

A TREATISE OF THE Schism of England.  

CHAP. I. The Church of Rome taken in the latitude of her Communion is God's only Church.  
THis titular Thesis will seem a Paradox, by reason of the strong prejudice our Country is infected with against an apparent truth: but the succeeding discourse will demonstrate by lineary deduction the most assured certainty of it.  
Paucis opus est ad bonam mentem litteris; Sen. ep. 106.  
I shall be brief; yet I hope sufficiently large, because as St. Cyprian, tract. 3. de simplicitate Prelatorum. Tractatu longò atque argumentis non est opus. Probatio est ad fidem facilis compendio veritatis. Our holy faith needs no tedious proofs, but only compendious declarations. That the Church of Rome did hold, and openly profess the true faith of Christ in the Apostles time, St. Paul Rom. 1.8. is an abundant witness: That also the other Churches through the world did in faith communicate with her, is there manifest; and that she kept the same faith sure and untouched, for the first six hundred years from Christ to Gregory the great; not only the learnedst Protestants for the most part confess, but by this, even to the blind is apparent, that all Counsels assembled in those times, and especially the first four general ones; as is most evident in the Acts or actions (as they call them) of each Council agreed in the same profession of faith, held very strict communication against all heresies; as in the condemnation of Arrius in the Nicen; of Macedonius in the first Constantinopolitan; of Nestorius in the first Ephesian; of Eutiches, and Diostorus in the Chalcedon Counsels: So that thus far we are secured of the integrity of the Church of Rome, that is, till St. Leo the Pope who was contemporary with the Chalcedon: whence is concluded also that all Churches then dispersed through the whole world; and their Doctors (except such as have been branded with some heresy or other) did always communicate in faith with the Church of Rome. The forenamed general Counsels witnessed the faith of all Churches; therefore if the erred, it is necessary that all the other Churches erred also, and consequently that Christ had no true Church upon earth. He who desires to look into these things in a most compendious way, let him only read the Epistles of S. Leo, and the Register of St. Gregory, and there he shall see most evidently, as in a mirror the connexion and agreeing of things together with the former and succeeding ages. I speak to those that know the Law, therefore to have given but a hint is sufficient.  
Now Gregory the great (who is not noted to have innovated any thing in the faith which he received from his Ancestors, especially of St. Leo; who, as we declared was contemporary to Chalcedon, and held by all the world entire in his faith) this needs no other proof than the confession of the Greeks, who always reverenced him and entitled him a Saint, and therefore numbered him among the Fathers; as appeareth even by the Schismatic Greeks in the dispute of Purgatory in the Council of Florence; St. Damasene, who was contemporary to St. Bede, and a little above one hundred years after St. Gregory gives so much credit to his writings, that he confesseth all the East and West to adhere to them, even in some smaller things which are not generally received amongst us; whence it is most evident that he was Universally esteemed a follower of his, and their forefathers in faith.  
To bring this evidence more home, we will stay in the 4 first general Counsels: They did before secure us of the integrity of the Roman Church, and they will do as much for St. Gregory, for no man is ignorant that he taught all the world to reverence their faith, next to the four Evangelists, whence is concluded, that he was of the same faith with them; now St. Gregory sent over the same faith to England, then involved with the darkness of infidelity by St. Austin the Monk, and other holy and learned men, who devoutly received it, and constantly and faithfully kept it until the revolt of Henry the eighth. But that the Christian faith which we received from St. Gregory by St. Austin may to every body appear to be the same, which not only the western, but the Eastern Church did profess; that is, what the whole universal Church did profess, besides what I have said before, it is demonstrable by the Epistles of St. Gregory directed to the East, in which he signifieth that England was converted to the faith of Rome, as appears more particularly in his thirtieth Epistle, which is to Eulogius the Patriarch of Alexandria, and by reciprocal congratulatories received from them, for so great a gain of souls etc. whence it followeth manifestly, that the Greeks and the East were of the same communion of faith with the Church of Rome, otherwise there had been no mutual intercourse of congratulatory letters in things of this nature; this is clearer than can be controverted. Moreover that England never erred from the faith first received, or left in any thing that faith, is manifest even to children if they cannot read; in looking upon the pictures in glass-windows & graves, in seeing the altars still in some places extant, in seeing the very Churches, Monasteries, old Hospitals and Colleges, with the old forms of government and Statutes, which without book are conveyed from hand to hand, as in fasting, keeping such and such holy days in memory of certain miracles obtained by invocation of particular Saints, Annual obsequies and solemn prayers for the dead benefactors, institution of certain Masses to that and such other ends: if they can read, in running over the Chronicles and Histories of our country, where you shall observe a constant memory of all these old truths, but not any innovation or change of faith was ever noted by any Historiographer for so many ages together; insomuch that our countryman Gulielmus Neubrigensis in his History. l. 3. c. 3. witnesseth, that neither Puritanisme nor any other heresy could fasten upon England, though in alijs mundi partibus tot plluluaverint haereses all other parts of the world had been infected with them. A great testimony written by so knowing a man in point especially of our Histories: And Wicklef's case confirms all, for he got grounds a thousand miles hence, as in Bohemia, but here was decayed before he was well born: or what is more brief, that the Church of England retained her primitive communion as well with the Roman, as with all other Churches dispersed throughout the world (except those which for heresy or schism, were noted by the Counsels) besides our own Histories, no Council, no Ecclesiastical History ever imposed the contrary upon our nation; yea it appears by all monuments, holy and profane, that England did positively and clearly communicate with all other, or what is all one, that England conserved her primitive faith untouched: and that was, as is showed before, the Catholic faith, or the faith of the Catholic Church: therefore England till Henry the eighth was a member of the true Church of Christ; from which he revolting, made her Schismatical. All this is witnessed by Ball in his Catalogue, and Dr. Humfries Jesuitismes p. 2. and B. Usher in his tract of Succession, whereunto an infinity of Protestant writers agree.  
Some will say, as of late a Protestant Doctor did; that England was not therefore noted in this, because there was none to note her besides her own in the West; but it appears, that invocation of Saints and many other doctrines were brought in as a matter of faith against the ancients: that is to say, that the Church of Rome did bring in those innovations in the Council of Trent.  
To this I answer: First, that the Doctor did not well observe into what a precipice this would cast him; for if there were no known professions of Christ but such who were ours, it's evident that then the Roman Communion was the only Church of God, even then when it was in his judgement at the worst, or else there was no Church: This many of their greatest men have acknowledged; as Perkins saith, that for many hundred years this Communion had possessed the whole world; Napier upon the Revelations, that for a thousand years' Popery had over-swayed the world; to the same tenure many more of them speak: All which concludes what I said.  
I answer secondly: That the first and purest times of the Church taught the same Truths, as almost every one of them is confessed by those of Magdeburge in the fourth Century dedicated to Q. Elizabeth; where they give us a list of Justification by works, merits, Sacramental confession, Tradition, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, miracles obtained at the relics of Saints, etc. This testimony had from Protestants; that is, from a body of the most learned Protestants, who jointly had studied and examined ex professo the differences betwixt us, were enough alone.  
Daneus, in his tract of the Church, a very fierce Protestant, dividing the whole time since Christ into ages, giving to the Apostles the first age, specifies that even then virginity was introduced as more worthy than marriage. The Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ; and there was reverence used to the very symbols Parum importune; a great deal to soon Traditionum indigesta moles, whole heaps of Traditions were unwisely brought in; ordination of Church ministers with anointing them, which was also used in baptism, extreme unction, and the like, Bishops, Primatus ecclesiae Romanae nescio qua credulitate in coelum sublatus est. The Roman seats Supremacy, I know not by what easy belief, was even then cried up to the very heavens, and so began mysterium iniquitatis the great mystery of iniquity.  
A fair confession; and in the next age he is more prodigal, but here is enough for any ingenious man; if you would also read him upon St. Augustine his tract of heresies, how he inverts the judgement of the old Church, and will have those doctrines which then were esteemed heresies, to be true doctrines; and in this he shows how Protestants are constrained to turn the Church upside down, which is indeed true Protestancy to make all old and first Christian's heretics with us. To whom our countryman Perkins in his Problems agreeth, bewailing that God's Church above thirteen hundred years ago was polluted and overspread with these errors. Usher in his latin book of Succession of Protestant Religion, which in the frontispiece promiseth a deduction from the Apostles downward; in the book itself he doth not once make any real pretence to it, as if he had wholly forgotten what was promised in the title; he turns himself to discover where there is the least shadow, the imperfections of our forefathers, as if he gloried to see their nakedness, which Christian Charity and modesty would cover; but to show the existence of any Protestantisme he doth not once touch it, till the Albigenses began 1170. years after Christ, wherein it is also most evident, that he gaineth little to his purpose, though after much struggling. All this must needs convince what before in gross was declared from consent of Counsels, and the constant sense of the whole Church.  
I answer thirdly: As Christians have in all ages upon the same pretences replied to sectaries, that some of these points were more explicitly declared in the council of Trent against these new heretics; but they were generally preached, & every where, even by the Greeks believed before, as all writers even our adversaries confess: Nay, Luther's own writings free the council of Trent from this calumny, because he accused the Church of all these things before the Council of Trent was dreamt of; it being convocated to repress his innovations, or new condemnations of these general received truths: otherwise not Luther, but those Catholics which first opposed him, had been noted and accused of novelty by the rest of the body of the Church: And further, no man is ignorant, that before the Council of Trent, England by Henry the eighth, by B. Fisher, by Sir Thomas Moor in his works, as also in his Tindal, etc. Germany by Eckins, Daventrius, Vervesius, Hofmesterus, and others; yes the universal Church by infinite writers of that age, of this and the other part of the world, did rise against these upstarts, and laid novelty to their charge.  
Therefore England and other nations remained in their primitive and Apostolical faith, until the aforesaid revolt; nay, these upstarts themselves never came to that impudence, to accuse Catholics of novelties then rising, but referred it to former; that is, latter preceding ages, accusing their forefathers of innovation; and this hath always been, and is the practice of upstarts: Therefore Catholics who embrace this faith derived from the Apostles themselves, and established by continual succession, ought not to be too solicitous of the truth of it, seeing they hold it by constant succession, and no way interupted possession.  
Neither will the breach which the Greeks have made from the Latins any way help them; because they in England are as well broken from the Greeks, as they are from the Romans: which evidently appears, in that they can not give their letters of communication to them no more than to us. They hold the propitiatory sacrifice of Mass; they hold Transubstantiation, seven Sacraments, prayer for the dead, invocation of Saints, veneration of images, the Supremacy of a Tope, though some of them pretend exemption, etc. As Balsamon for the patriarch of Constantinople, which Zonaras, though a Greek Schismatic acknowledgeth to be in the B. of Rome, as the rest were accustomed to do; nay Nilus, after he hath much violented authorities for his pretences against the Pope's Supremacy, in conclusion yields up the bucklers, and confesseth that they are bound to obey him in all lawful commands. I said that the Greek Church acknowledgeth a Supremacy: which I therefore said, because that some of those who follow rigidly Photius his heresy, touching the procession of the holy Ghost, pretend that the Latin Church for that lost the Supremacy, and ipso jure et facto it was transferred to Constantinople, but the Abettors of this last point are almost vanished, as by divers counsels, especially the great Lateran, Linos, and last Florence general Counsels sufficiently appears, where it was not once arrogated, neither doth Hieremy their patriarch, or any of their posterior writers once say it. How ever this fundamental rock of scandal of the sea of Rom's Supremacy, if removed according to those few Greeks pretences it would not avail you, for you deny any Supremacy: they grant this, and would only challenge it for themselves injuriously which pretence is also ceased: These are the stones of scandal betwixt you and us, which ye force all to abjure. So that the main West and East Churches have nothing to do with you, ye are no members of their communion; some small conventicles you may find here, and there in the West in some things agreeing with you, though no notable part at all of your communion, no not in this very nation. But the Roman in her communion over all the world, communicates entirely without any dissection of faith; we therefore have all security in religion: but the reason concerning Protestant's is clean otherwise, for seeing they have separated themselves from the Roman Church, commended by the Apostles, the mother from whom they sucked their faith; in which their forefathers lived, and continued, and what is proper to heretics and schismatics, they went out from us, (as St. Augustive used the like argument against the Donatists, fusely and frequently out of St. John) they I say, are bound to make inquiry into the cause of their separation, and not so lightly believe the masters of their error, and as it were one part being only heard to give sense in a matter of so high concernment, but they ought diligently to hear the reasons of Catholics, and exactly to weigh all things on which their eternal salvation depends, or if they fear any fallacies may be used by us in proof of our Religion, let them judiciously read the reasons in Chollingworth which moved him to become Catholic, and counterpoise them with those which he puts down for his virtiginous revolt, and truly they will be forced to confess, that the former are unanswerable, and the latter wholly inconsiderable. The ground of our hopes of salvation dependeth upon the integrity of our faith, and therefore we must look into it, for as St. Augustine Cont. Lit. Petil. l. 1. c. 1. It is a dangerous thing to defend the haughty perverseness of their forefathers with a more foolish obstinacy; neither doth it satisfy as St. Augustine there noteth l. 3. c. 5. if one should say I will follow him, because he made me a Christian for none preaching the name of Christ, or ministering the Sacrament of Christ, is to be followed against the unity of Christ. This is often heard from the mouths of many of the wifest amongst them; here I wax baptised, here I will remain: but 'tis raw and  to be born and baptised in this or the other Church, except it be in the unity of Christ; if from the other we or our forefathers have revolted, or been any way separated, we must return from whence we have revoked by schism or heresy. That therefore we may proceed in so weighty a matter, with more care and solicitude, we will show in the following Chapters in what danger of eternal damnation (I speak not of every particular person, whom how far invincible ignorance may excuse, we leave to God's secret counsel) they have miserably precipitated, and cast themselves headlong by separating themselves from the Church of Rome: I do not mean here to treat of the infinite subdivisions of schism, which are this day risen up within the latitude of Protestantism (as in time pasts amongst the Donatists) and what sort soever of separatists have always been, among whom they labour sometimes to patch up together, but never so much as think to do it with Catholics: but I will consider how piously the Catholic root diligently seeketh the bough, that is broken from her, if the bough likewise shall labour to close up that breach which is made by it. August. apud Baron. 411.  
Here therefore with all reason and truth may be averred, what Tertullian in his excellent book of prescriptions Chap. 29. religiously incultateth against all sectaries: If your state of division is lawful; if your souls are secure in this lamentable separation, the holy Gospel hath been falsely taught to all the world, all Christians have salsly believed; so many thousand thousands falsely baptised; so many acts of faith; that is, all Sacraments falsely administered; so many acts of religion; so many miracles adulterously done; so many priesthoods; so many Sacrifices; last of all, so many Martyrdoms falsely undergone for the faith of Christ: all hath been in vain which in testimony of Christ hath been performed, if Christ Church were not the Roman, in, and with her communion, since there was no other acknowledged till ye came.   

CHAP. 2. Catholics may certainly be saved.  
IT may be convinced with irrefragable arguments; that Catholics in the Church of Rome remaining, believing, and doing what she propounds and prescribes shall attain unto eternal salvation; which sufficiently followeth out of what hath been said in the first Chapter, if well attended; much more also might be produced from Christian discoursing upon principles of holy Scripture and consent of old and modern Doctors.  
But to bring our Doctors here is superfluous labour, seeing Protestants with whom I have dealt sincerely acknowledge, and ingeniously confess so much; and many of them of no small account, have delivered in books that the Church of Rome is the Church of God, and that the errors in her, are not so much as do overthrow the foundation of Salvation; and therefore with them many have and may now be saved: So Morton, Regn. Jer. page 94. the Papists are to be thought of the Church of God, because they hold the foundation of the Gospel, which is faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God. Hooker, Eccles. Polit. page 140. we willingly acknowledge Papists to be of the family of Christ. Covel. Apol. ad Archep. Cant. we affirm those who are of the Church of Rome to be part of the Church of Christ, and those who live and die in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved: and he accuseth the Puritans of ignorance that think the contrary. Soame, Apol. p. 146. if you think that all Papists that die in the Papistical Church are damned, you think absurdly, and you descent from the judgement of learned Protestants. D. Burlo in his 3. Sermon ad Clerum saith: I dare not deny, etc. D. Laud, late Archbishop of Canterbury in his great volume against the Jesuit, doubteth not of ordinary Papists salvations; and of late Doctor Taylour in his liberty of Prophesying; out of his principles necessarily concludes so much in his twentieth Paragraph, and number the 3 d. he speaks thus. They keep the foundation etc. and therefore all the wisest personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation, whilst their errors are not faults of their will, but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding, etc. The foundation of faith stands secure enough for all these vain and unhandsome superstructures, etc. Chillingworth hath both the same tenants frequently, and as you may gather by his manner of expression, he grants them, yet very plainly, though unwillingly; sometimes he saith that they are not damnable, othertimes that they are damnable in themselves; but not to Catholics except they stick to them out of affection of error: It was well he added this, else he had in one stroke broken the whole fantastic fabric of his verbal, not rational volume, flashy, no way substantial, as any sober man will judge.  
The whole result of his work, is; that every man believing Scriptures, and feriously labouring to deduce a probable sense out of them, is sufficiently provided for in order to his salvation; which is to exclude a necessity of communion with any in point of Religion, as every man seethe against all Scripture, and the Creed. This is by the way.  
There are indeed some amongst them, as Field, Ʋsher, and others, who seem sometimes to speak more rigidly touching catholics Salvation.  
But they observe not how repugnant this is to a generally admitted, and cried up principle amongst them; which is this, namely, that they differ not from us in fuundamentals or necessaries.  
By this they labour hard to make their breach from from us, not to be damnable, being they differ not in points of necessary belief.  
Which if it hath force, doth it not inevitably, and with more strength conclude a security for us?  
We must therefore conclude, that whether they will or no, they do all conclude a possibility of salvation for us, adhering to our faith delivered from our forefathers; and to omit innumerable others, King James shall serve for all, for he speaks in the name of all in his speech to the Parliament, Novemb. 9 1605. we rightly (saith he) confess that many Papists, especially our progenitors, putting their only trust in Jesus Christ, and his merits, may, and are frequently saved, detesting according to that, and judging the cruelty of the Puritans worthy of fire, who will grant no salvation to any Papists. Yea, D. Potter in his book set forth by the command of King Charles, pag. 76. & 77. confesseth that those things which Protestants think erroneous in the Roman Church, are not in themselves damnable to those who believe as they profess; and that all may be saved with them, who bona fide believe and profess the Roman Religion, as long as they find no motives sufficient whereby their judgement is convinced, that they be in error. To conclude all Protestants of any moderation, who are not poisoned with the tincture of rigid Calvinisme, freely confess, that Catholics in their religion may be saved, and do accuse them of want of Charity, that they do not think so of them. So our adversaries are our judges, as appears by their own confession, that we may attain unto salvation in the Church of Rome. I could give you a longer list, but it were superfluous in a confessed doctrine.   

CHAP. 3. Schism is an enormous Crime.  
SChism, if we look upon the force of the word, it signifieth division; if it be in the civil common wealth, it is called Sedition; if in the Church, Schism; or the same word may be used for both, and be distinguished by Epithets: in the one case it is civil Sedition, in the other Ecclesiastical Division. The Church may be divided two ways; first, by revolting from faith, which doth not only make Schism but heresy: hence it is that they who fall from the faith and doctrine of the Church, setting up their contrary opinions, as Arrians, Macedonians, and the like, are not only termed schismatics, but Heretics. Secondly, the Church is divided by revolting from the chief Pastor, or general Counsels by disobedience; or from communion with the other members, although faith be conserved entire: and this makes pure Schism as it is distinguished from heresy. So the Donatists, and Meletians at first keeping the faith of the Church, but abstaining from communion with the other members in divine worship, prayer, and other holy rites; or when they erected altar against altar, then, and not before, they were properly accounted Schismatics; from whence it is gathered that although Schism continuing, is wont to degenerate into heresy, because as St. Hierom saith in Tit. 3. There is no Schim which doth not frame to itself some heresy, that they may seem to have just cause to revolt from the Church: Hence St. Augustine l. 2. contra Cresconium c. 7. Schism is a new revolt; Heresy is an inveterate Schism: yet speaking in rigour heresy violating the faith of the Church, Schism breaking her charity, they are both grievous sins, seeing they separate from the Church, and consequently from the head, which is Christ. But now we will only treat of the greviousness of Schism.  
There are a sort of people who cannot conceive, that a Christian Commonwealth, remaining obedient to the civil Magistrate, can be guilty of Schism: because they do so far subject Ecclesiastical persons and causes to civil magistracy, that they do scarcely acknowledge any Ecclesiastical power at all contradistinct from the Temporal in a Christian Commonwealth; except in things internal: as Mr. Hobbs holds, Chap. 17. n. 21, 22. etc. though afterwards he gives some small nothings to them: he will have the Prince supreme, even in spirituals; c. 18. n. 13. and therefore they must depend on the Prince in the use of all; and at last in his last chapter and number, he repeals all he had granted. The truth is, he is so zealous in his structure of a civil Commonwealth (wherein he hath some excellent things) that he either neglects, or reduceth the spiritual common-weath or Church almost to a Platonical inexistent Idea.  
Reason tells us, that as natural, so moral powers and offices are known to be specifically different, and not only numerically distinct by their several operations; the difference of operations is known by their several objects, or sometime by the very several tending to the same specifical object as Philosophers know.  
Now the offices of ecclesiastical and civil magistracy are obviously known to have these ways to declare their real and specifical differences. St. Paul in his fifth chapped. to the Hebrews, even from the very beginning sufficiently declares it from their operations and objects, and tells us that the Priest is taken to his office from amongst men: by men is understood the temperal power, from whence this other power is severed by St. Paul. I wish the ingenuous Reader to peruse it all, and compare Mr. Hobbs his grounds to St. Paul and what I annex in the ensuing discourse.  
I am sure besides scriptures; the judgement o● ancient Christians was fa● otherwise. There were bounds for ecclesiastical and temporal magistracy always acknowledged great Athanasius in his Epistle to these who observe Solitary life to this purpose reciteth, and applaudeth an● epistle of Hosius of Cordub● to Constantius the Arriar● Emperor. Cease I beseech thee and remember that th●● art mortal, fear the day of judgement, intermeddle not with ecclesiastical matters, neither do thou command us in this kind, but rather learn them of us; to thee God hath committed the Empire, to us he hath committed the things that belong to the Church: and as he who with malicious eyes carpeth thine Empire, gainsayeth the ordinance of God: so do thou also beware, least in drawing to thee Ecclesiastical matters, thou be made guilty of a horrible crime: It is written, give ye the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things that are Gods to God: Therefore neither is it lawful for us in earth to hold the Empire, neither haste thou (O Emperor) power over incense and sacred things. This extent is far beyond internals, or Mr. Hobb's limits. St. Ambrose also to Valentinian in his fifth book of Epistles in his oration of delivering up of Churches (Valentinian by ill advice of his mother Justina an Arrian, required to have one Church deputed in Milan for the Arrians) saith thus, We pay that which is Caesar's to Caesar, and that which is Gods to God: Tribute is Caesar's, it is not denied: The Church is Gods, it may not verily be yielded to Caesar, because the Temple of God cannot be Caesar's right. Which no man can deny but it is spoken with the honour of the Empire; for what is more honourable than that the Emperor be said to be the Son of the Church, for 〈◊〉 good Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church He is diametpically opposite to Mr. Hobbs.  
Out of these, and infinite other texts, or monuments of antiquity it is most clear; that all Christians grounded upon Scriptures, as they conceived, did believe that the Church taken rigidly, and strictly was understood to consist only of spiritual men; and a city, or a commonwealth did, and doth import a body of Christians considered as not consecrated to divine service and functions, but as members of the civil or temporal body: and that therefore though as civil persons, they were subject only to this, or that city or country, namely in civil or temporal things, yet in Ecclesiastical they might be subject to Ecclesiastical power; though sometimes seated in foreign countries, (Spiritual things are not circumscribed by place) and consequently my own temporal Prince according to St. Ambrose, might be a fellow subject with me in this; which depends not at all upon the temporal power, but is wholly of another, and a higher nature; though Mr. Hobbs denies it, which I wonder at; reason methinks will necessarily carry us to prefer spiritual before temporal: and therefore St. Peter in his first Epistle Chap. 2. calls temporal magistracy a human creature, that is in a peculiar way derived from man: But St. Paul Acts 20. speaking of Ecclesiastical magistracy saith, the Holy Ghost hath placed you to rule the Church of God: and St. Ignatius contemporary to the Apostles, gives us his own, and the sense of Christians in those days, when he exhorts the people of Smyrna in his Epistle to them, first to honour God, next the Bishop, and then the King.  
They are not therefore in the sense of Christians the same thing, a Bishop, and Christian King, nor their office the same; the one tending immediately to things which belong to God in order to souls: The other immediately to things of this world, namely, to the external peace of Subjects; though secondarily with reference to God also, but the Ecclesiastical by supernatural mediums; the other properly by natural, which is more remote and indirect; and therefore St. Paul to the Hebrews cap. 5. saith, this power is conversant circa ea quae ad Deum sunt, which is not where simply asserted of the other, and in the law those are called Sors Domini in a peculiar strain.  
And to speak truth Mr. Hobbs had done very well, if he had taken St. Paul along with him in framing his new model of a Christian City; who distinguisheth each members office very often.  
All authority is not in the Princes, but Hebrews 13. lay people are commanded to obey their Provosts, and to be subject to them, etc. where he sufficiently distinguisheth the Tribunals. No Christian can be ignorant of the authority which the Holy Ghost giveth to Praelates regere Ecclesiam Dei to govern the Church of God; so that this spiritual government is of God; and it is a government, and therefore not only declarative or instructive, as Mr. Hobbs saith even of Christ himself, c. 17. n. 13. but it is a regitive power, else S. Peter had most heavily transgressed his commission in adjudging Ananias, and after his wife Saphira to present death for a spiritual crime: St. Paul in his excommunicating the fornicator: St. John and the rest had abused their power also; which I touch in the seventh Chapter, who went beyond pure declaration of their guilt expected not the city's sentence in it. Mr. Hobbs acknowledgeth indeed in Pastors a power to execute a spiritual sentence, in case the Church, that is the city judgeth of the offence, and in like manner Priests may absolve, if the city judgeth it fit, else not. St. Athan. in the place cited. Quando ab avo condito auditum est; Mark M. Hobbs, Quando judicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit  
It was never heard from the beginning of the world, that the Church hath her power from temporal power. In earnest I wish he had taken the sense of Christians along with him; in his expounding holy Scriptures, he should have read the old Counsels in making Ecclesiastical laws, which power Christian Emperors submitted unto as from God: Constantine in the Nicen, Martian, Leo, and all others whom the Christian world esteemed not Antichristian, as they did Constantius for entrenching.  
St. Nazianzen in his oration concerning moderation in disputations, tells us that Praelates have power to make laws, etc. in order to the soul. St. Damascen in his second oration of Images saith, Kings have no power to prescribe laws unto the Church, and proves it out of St. Paul and therefore he shows, that in framing the Church of God; that is, in declaring Christ's model of his Church, St. Paul never at all mentioneth Kings.  
In fine: I find all Christianity from the infancy to these day's growth to have conveyed to us this sense, as delivered from Christ without contradiction.  
Which Topics, I insist upon, by reason Mr. Hobbs will not be thought to reject them, neither doth he use any other considerable principles, though sometimes he glanceth at heavy inconveniences to a civil commonwealth, if this be granted. But I am not willing to take too much notice of it, lest any might fear his aim to be, to destroy Christian Religion: for surely the Romans insisted most upon that, as the Roman Histories show, and it is clear in Julian the Apostate.  
All which the very great Turk admits as a truth; namely, a spiritual power of governing among Praelats, most consistent with his supreme rights over Christians; and therefore stumbleth not at the spiritual power of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which he exerciseth over Christians, and corresponds with them in this kind, though not subject to the Turk; and therefore Mr. Hobbs needs not fear in Christians, what the Turk doubteth not. Out of all this it followeth, that there may be Schism in defect of obedience, in order to the Church, without breach of duty to the Prince.  
Sacrilege of Schisms saith St. August. l. 1. cont. ep. Far. c. 4. exceedeth all other crimes: and St. Jerom. gives the reason, because they cut and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and as much as in them lieth kill it: and therefore as he who should tear in pieces the body or members of a man, should be thought to do the greatest injury and damage: So he who divideth the Church, which is the body of Christ, which he so loved, that he gave himself for it, doth commit a grievious fin against him.  
Therefore we find in holy scripture no crime more grievously punished, or revenged with a more dreadful torment, than Schism.  
For when Core, Dathan, and Abiron (by whom what other things is signified, saith St. Ambrose l. de 42. mansi. man's. 15. then, those who bring Schism Heresy into the Church) had separated themselves by wicked Schism from Moses and Aaron, not only they but their wives and children with all their substance were swallowed up into the earth, and descended alive into hell: Numb. 16. & this truly happened to them visibly, to be an argument to future ages, how enormous the crime of Schism is before God, & to deter men from plotting or following the same.  
Neither are present Schismatics punished with lesser pains, though they appear not to our eyes. By the aforesaid example St. Augustine ep. 164. writing to Emiritus the Schismatic, gathereth how much this crime of Schism is esteemed in the divine judgement. Read, which I make no doubt you have read, you shall find Dathan and Abiron devoured by opening of the earth, the rest who consented to them consumed with fire, being in the midst of them. Therefore our Lord God brandeth that sin with present punishment, as an example to be avoided; that whom he patiently spareth, such he showeth to reserve to the last punishment. For as the same St. Augustine elsewhere saith: whosoever is separated from the Gatholick Church, although he thinketh he liveth laudably; for this only fin, that he is disjointed from the unity of Christ he shall not have life, but the anger of God remains upon him and after him: St. Fulgentius de fide ad Pet. c. 39 Hold certainly & doubt not, that what Schismatic or Heretic soever, is baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, if he be not joined to the Catholic Church, what alms soever he shall do, though also he shall spill his blood for Christ, can never be saved. In fine; we need not go further than to blessed St. Paul to learn the horror of Schism, who in the 1 Cor. 13. If I should speak with the tongues of men and Angels, and not have Charity, I am but as brass sounding, or a Cymbal gingling; and if I have the gift of prophecy, and shall know all mysteries and all sciences; and if I have so great faith, as to remove mountains; yet if I have not Charity I am nothing: If I shall distribute all I have amongst the poor; if I deliver my body up to the fire; if I have not Charity, that is; if I shall adhere to Schism, all is worth nothing. A heavy sentence, if deeply considered: Alas, what will follow out of this, St. Paul's doctrine touching all those whom we have known, and of others whom yet we do know; who have been of untouched lives, liberal to the poor, of pious inclinations, or what you will; all is lost according to St. Paul, being they were members of this Scismatical body.  
Contrariwise, who do not only in themselves avoid Schism, and keep inviolated the Church union; but where they perceive any danger of breach, each man in his rank and degree endeavouring with all his possible diligence to preserve it; they piously and laudably bestow themselves and their endeavours, and truly merit much of God and man. Of such it may be truly said, that the Charity of their neighbour doth urge them, and the love of God as St. Augustine saith, l. 15. de Trinit. doth divide betwixt the children of the eternal kingdom, and the children of eternal perdition, thinking, and worthily, that they have not the charity of God, who do not love his Church, & as much as in them do not procure her unity: It is all one from what head insolent disobedience springeth, from whence floweth Schism; or I would say the reason of Schism is not altered in itself, for the divers motive of rebellion; for whether from the ambition of Bishops, as too often it happeneth, of which we have sad examples in Histories; or whether from emulation of equals: or to conclude, for what cause soever of the pride of subjects it ariseth; if it maketh separation it is Schism, and divorceth the souls of all those that formally & knowingly adhere unto it, as from the union of the Church, so from the love of Christ.  
I am not ignorant what the school men teach in a speculative sense touching the extent and effects of invincible ignorance, in order not only to Schism but Heresy; but we abstract now from speculations or from cases which are accidental or only immaginary: and therefore considering Schism as it is understood in the common and practical notion, which the word gives in the sense of Christians; I have universally concluded that it separateth us from the love of Christ, and consequently from heaven.   

CHAP. 4. Catholics and Protestants divided by Schism.  
WE said before, that Schism was sometime taken for Separation from the Catholic faith, sometimes taken for separation from communion only, although faith be kept entire. Now whatsoever may be said of Schism of the first kind, of which for the present I do not treat: we say that Protestants are divided and separated from Catholics, whom they term Papists, at least by Schism of the latter kind, and that appears so manifestly; that it needeth no proof; for not only Catholics and Protestants do so abhor mutual communion in divine worship, Sacraments, prayer, and holy rites; that no Protestant will frequent Catholic service, especially the holy sacrifice of Mass: and every Catholic will avoid whatsoever is esteemed religious among Protestants; as the bread of sorrow, and esteem all that shall but touch them, contaminate and defiled.  
Moreover, Catholics excommunicate Protestants every year, and Protestants Catholics frequently in England, yea they exhaust such as in law shall be convicted with pecuniary mulcts; and by the public statutes and laws of the Land, any one who shall convert a a Protestant to the Catholic faith, is guilty of death, but a Priest who shall celebrate Mass is made guilty of high treason. How therefore can one Church grow up together of such different members? Or who will deny that here is manifest Schism and division, if ever any Schism was or can be made?  
O how far is this from the spirit of old Christians: they gloried in that which the ancient called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sweet, humane, or neighbourly tenderness to delinquents of this kind. Spiritual sins the old Christian Church cured by spiritual Cataplasms, at most proportioned to them; when they contained not themselves within the compass of spirituality, but made eruptions into sedition, and disturbance of the public peace; then their Authors justly lost the benefit of Ecclesiastical mildness, and tasted sometimes the imperial severity, but without death for many ages: If our persecutors would limit their cruelties within this verge, it would be less execrable; they complain of the severity of Q. Mary's days, and yet far exceed what they condemn in her.  
Mr. Hobb's will put a difference in these cases, for Chap. 13. n. 5. he tells us that Princes do against conscience, who permit their subjects to practise a religion, which they judge to be damnable to them. This was Q. Mary's case as all know; but the case is far otherwise with us, for it is evident that our Princes have professed, with their Doctors, that Salvation may be had in our Church; and therefore according to Mr. Hobbs they should not disquiet their subjects in using their liberty in their Religion. But to let Mr. Hobbs pass, and come a little nearer to the business, I will say one thing (though not taking upon me to discuss or excuse her proceed in every particular) that the state of the question is wholly changed: She punished for innovation in religion, which even amongst Jews, Turks, and the very Romans was reckoned a most enormous crime. These punish us because we will not innovate, but stick close to the religion of our and their forefathers; a crime unheard of amongst all who have had any taste of God, but most especially among true Christians.  
Many indeed have for some years cried out for immunity, in order to tender consciences: and yet they themselves; who were the heads of those Tenderlings, did not endure to have Recusants accounted such, who have title to it above all, all things considered, as being best able to manifest to the world, their reluctancy in matter of conformity to all Changeable religions. Indeed to be grounded upon true tenderness of conscience that is upon religious fear of offence of God, and yet for this they are most strictly treated.  
Is it not an unparalleled exorbitancy with such high cruelties, as quartering, hanging, and setting up the disserted quarters upon gates, and citadels for fouls to tear, and devour, of persons most innocent in their lives towards God, and men's laws, most quiet in order to the weal public; only for embracing, or teaching that religion of Christ, which our and their forefathers in this nation followed for almost a thousand years: a crime most horridly opposite to the first principles of nature. Is it not parricide thus to profane the urns of their forefathers? Is it not to the uttermost of their power, to exercise the forenamed cruelties upon them their own progenitors; in doing them upon those who are guilty of no other crime, than what they knowingly professed and endeavoured to transfuse to their posterity? Their sanguinary proceed against these, clearly maketh known to the world their hearts venomous and bloody rancour even against their Parents.  
They commonly say, that they do not punish us for religion, but for acts of treason or felony, etc. but it is not so common as impertinent: Thus all persecutors of Christians did palliate their cruelties. The Roman Historiographers will tell us, it was for sedition that those cruel persecutions were against us, the Jews thus laboured to baptise their false accusations against our blessed Saviour, and after against St. Paul, Minutius, Felix, and other ancient writers, as Eusebius, Theodoret, etc. will tell you of Christians accused of confederate conventicles against all their laws when they had their religious solemnities. Thus Julian to take the glory of Martyrdom from our constant religious progenitors laboured to deceive the vulgar. The Roman Emperors made many edicts, and some capital against all Christian conventions: Julian against Christians children frequenting their Schools; against Bishops residing in their Seas, etc. For this point of debarring christians from their schools, he had a specious prenence, which he shrewdly urged, that is, because the Authors who taught in Schools (Christians being not yet so commonly masters of Sciences) were Ethnics, and therefore we had no title to them; but this is far otherwise with you, for all your learning is ours: examine all your Schools fee the prefection of your studies of Philosophy, Theolgie, Can on or civil law, Physic, are they not all ours? Nay, are not the founders of all Colleges ours? And yet beyond Julian ye debar us of our own Schools. The truth is the laws are made against religion, and against the propagation of it, against the professing of it, in frequenting Sacraments, only administered by Priests.  
When a town or castle is besieged, convoys stopped, all hanged who attempt to bring ammunition, viures, hath any intercourse with them; are not these in this case persecuted for their allegiance, if they expose themselves to all these dangers out of duty to their Prince, or whatsoever is Supreme Sovereignty? This is our case, ye hang and quarter all who would bring unto us spiritual ammunition, and Sacramental vivers, by death ye obstruct all convoys, and why all this? Is it not to extirpate our religion; is it not to force us to render the small holds we have, wherewith God almighty hath entrusted us, of his holy religion in our Souls?  
There are some who would seem to abolish all persecution from Catholics, in blood and fortunes, pretending it to be injustice to persecute for religion; and upon this glorious title of Christian liberty, and neighbourly tenderness, do cover malice beyond all proceed of Christians, even against Jews, or of the Turks, even against Christians, subject to their civil empire; and truly what human nature abhors, namely to take their children from them, and educate them in their own airy and uncertain ways. The Church of God in her most flourishing times as under Constantine, and Theodosius, when all Insidels and Jews were under their power, never attempted such a cruelty, against the law of nature.  
Nay, the Turks never do it, except upon fail of their ordinary exactions: which truly are nothing to the burdens of Catholics here. If it be unlawful to persecute (as they hold) in their fortunes for religion, its most in consequent to hold it more lawful to persecute in children. Lands and goods are appropriated only, jure gentium, children jure naturae: wherein no power, except God himself can dispense. To take away goods or land, is theft or rapine: This must be reduced to Homicide. Nature is so little acquainted with it, that there is not a proper appellative yet appointed for it. Christian Divines out of this principle have judged it unlawful even to baptise Infidels, or Jew's children against their parents wills, by reason of the high title of the natural law of parents to children: hence some have taught, that baptism so attempted would not be valid. But to let that pass; here is a fortiori, as Logicians speak, concluded: That to dispossess parents of their children, in all schools of Christ, of law, of reason, is abominable; and therefore I cannot believe, that our laws will admit such acts to be lawful: especially since by precedent Sanctions its already felony to take away children upon any pretences.  
There are yet another sort, who seem more tender than all the rest; and pretend to reduce all to an Henoticon, or Unitive; namely, that we may all in offensively retain our own faith, referring the examine of all differences to God's court, to whom alone as the gift of faith; so the animadversion or punishment of transgressions in it proportionably and consequently is to belong, as they say: what real effect will this produce time will discover, if they proceed consequently to their principles, it must needs take away many unchristianlike animosities, which hitherto have been nourished. Michael Balbut, as Zonaras in his Annals witnesseth, promised in the beginning of his Empire, that he would not compel any to follow any other opinions of God, than what each man would himself: but soon after he persecuted Catholics cruelly, permitting all others to do what they listed, he was a man indeed full of all wickedness. But Josephus l. 2. against Apion saith, that it was honourable in the Romans, that they would not compel their subjects to violate their ancient laws and neligion; but content themselves with such honours and duties, as the giver may with piety and equity give them: for they account not of forced honours, or duties, which come of compulsion. A course certainly worth all Princes observing in order to their subjects, and the only way to be secure of their loyalties; as the liberty of France in order to Protestants, and Holland to Catholics manifestly show. However, it is evident out of these premises, that there is a great Schism betwixt us in England.  
Protestants are wont to say, that they are not separated from Catholics, or the Catholic Church, no not from the Roman; but that they do communicate with all the members thereof, fearing and worshipping God truly, and make one Church with them: they only separate themselves from Papistry; which is not (say they) the Church, but an Imposture, adhering to the Church, or an heap of errors brought into the Church, by the tyranny and fraud of the Bishops of Rome. That they and Catholics are not two fields, sepatated the one from the other, but one; whereof one part is covered with nettles and darnel, over-sowed by the Pope, but the other part is purged by the labour and industry of the Protestants; but this if it were true, doth not infringe, but rather confirm what we have said before: for when we see with our eyes Catholics and Protestants to abhor from mutual communion, who in his wits will deny that there is Schism and division betwixt them; or who will affirm, there is any unity among them requisite to make one Church? And that they add, that they are separated from Papistry, and the errors of the Pope; that they are as it were the one part of the field, purged and cleansed; Catholics the other part covered with errors: Although all this were granted (which yet is never to be granted) it makes nothing at all to the diminishing, but adds much to the augmenting of Schism, because according to this, Protestants are not only separated from the communion of Catholics, which is sufficient for Schism; but likewise from the doctrine, which as I said before maketh heresy. So whilst they strive to take away, or patch up Schismatical division, they bring in heretical confusion; which is much more pernicious, and more difficultly consistent with Catholics.  
Therefore it remains for certain, that there is a true Schism betwixt Catholics and Protestants, the question will be only to see, which of these made first the breach.  
The other main Achilles which they use, that they withdraw themselves from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome without Schism; is, because he had only patriarchal power over them, introduced only by human right, and custom, is frivolous for to omit that right, that he hath from Christ over the whole Church which is Papal.  
I will only give this touch.  
We indeed are principally accused for adhering to the Pope's supremacy as being a novelty: But how clearly it was acknowledged in the 4 first counsels, needs no other proofs than themselves: Nay, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Ireneus, the first writers acknowledge it, though in some particulars they were offended with the Popes. Tertullian though persecuted for Montanism, by that sea; yet acknowledges the power. 1. de pudicitia: Audio edictum esse propositum et quidem peremptorium, Pontifer scilicet maximus, etc. I understand that the Pope hath made a peremptory decree, etc. where he is angry at it, because against his heresy, but doubteth not of his power. St. Cyprian, as Erasmus in his notes confesseth, everywhere acknowledgeth it, even St. Stephen, and Cornelius his adversaries. Usher who boggles at all things, because St. Cyprian calls Cornclius brother, would seem to doubt, but Erasmus less squintsighted will teach him, that it is in respect of his conjunction in faith, not equality of person. St. Ireneus is so vulgarly known, that all confess it. Nay, even Usher, who seems to have sworn to corrupt the clearest passages of antiquity; yet confesseth in the business of Easter, that St. Victor Pope, did then pretend his supremacy over the rest of the Churches, as appears in his Catalogue, as he calls it in the second Century. So that it is no new title of the Popes, even according to Usher; The full sway of this great Bugbear in every age, according to the enlargement of Christian bounds, appears still more gloriously in the Oeconomy of the Church before, in, & after the four Counsels to St. Gregory: Therefore I touch this no more. every Abodary controvertist forceth them to confess it to be truth.  
Mr. Hobbs indeed c. 17. in the end of n. 26. denieth that there is, or can be a Rector of the universal Church, by whose authority the whole Church may be convocated: He ventures also to prove it thus; because to be a rector in that sense, over the Church, is to be rector, and lord of all Christians in the whole world, which is not granted to any but God.  
If he had been a stranger in Christian principles, it had been no wonder to have misunderstood so solemn and public a Tenet. The Supreme Pastor of the Church hath an acknowledged power for preservation of the Church in integrity of faith, to convocate Bishops to a general deliberation, and determination of things necessary to salvation; and to this end he hath coactive power in the exercise of his spititual sword, and no otherwise.  
What connexion this hath with a Dominion over the world, I know not, which by God himself is denied him in holy Scripture, and in this his power is distinguished from temporal principality. His power is spiritual, his weapons are spiritual, the objects to which he tends are spiritual: in this confinement he commands without prejudice to temporal rights; wherein Princes are simply supreme, and only have the coactive sword of justice, independently in respect of him, and this only is dominion.  
He thinks this too much, and therefore will not acknowledge that there is any subordination in Christianity, out of each city or county; but every city is supreme to itself in Spiritual and Ecclesastical matters; and therefore no Prince, or city, or particular Church, can be excommunicated or interdicted.  
Supposing the antecedent, the consequence would without much difficulty be proved; for if the Prince is supreme in all things, he cannot be excommunicated, which is an act of superiority: neither the commonwealth by itself, for it were to dissolve itself into no city, if it should deprive itself of mutual commerce, which he acknowledgeth to be an effect of excommunication.  
But he leaps over the proof of the Antecedent, which had been indeed worth his doing by Topics fit for him, taken out of Scripture, antiquity or reason, subordinate to these principles. At least, he should have showed an inconsistency of the public welfare of a commonwealth, with the spiritual subordination of particular Churches to a supreme, seated out of the temporal confines. Surely if there were not a most ordinate subordination, all religion would turn to a Hidra's confusion, which were to destroy Christ's acquired spiritual kingdom on earth, and is evidenlty against the light of reason, and one main article of the Creed, which he accepteth of communion of Saints.  
The excellency of Christ's kingdom is, that though universal; yet it troubleth not, but much conserveth each kingdom in their particular Oeconomy, though much different betwixt themselves. St. Augustine in his city of God, Orostus in his History; and many others against the Gentiles, demonstratively show, the benefits all places receive, by this spiritual subjection to Christian principles: Amongst which this was always judged one of the most capital, as St. Device, St. Ignatius, and the rest show of this Hierarchy instituted by God.  
He would tell us, not persuade us, c. 17. n. 22. that all power, which anciently the Church of Rome exercised over particular Churches or Cities, was derived from the Sovereignty of the Emperors, and was shaken off when their Empire was abdicated: and in pursuit of this, he saith, that the Roman Church was indeed very large anciently, but always confined within the limits of the Empire.  
How false this is, no man can be ignorant, that hath perused antiquity.  
Prosper, assures us, that Rome is made greater by the faith of Christ, then by the civil Empire, and so the rest of the Fathers; but especially he, the vacation Gentium, l. 2. c. 16. Roma per Apostolici Sacerdotij Principatum, amplior facta est arce religionis, quam solen Potestatis. St. Ireneus indeed tells us, that the reason why Rome was chosen for the head; was, because it had been the head of the Empire, but none will say that it was confined by it, or measured her spiritual territories by it. Who knows not that even in the Apostles time, and ever since vast Empires were reduced to this spiritual Empire of Rome, which never had to do with the Roman Empire. Our own countries ever acknowledged subjection to the Church of Rome under this title. Scotland also, and Ireland were most oxthodoxly subject to the mitre, though not to the Sceptre.  
This is only by the by to Mr. Hobbs. But besides this the Patriarchal right, which he hath over this our nation, cannot be deposited by them: for by the same causes, authority should be destroyed, by which it was set up; as the Jurists agree: seeing therefore, that the Bishop of Rome, hath had his Patriarchal power granted unto him by general Counsels; to wit, by those four first, which St. Gregory received as four Gospels, and especially here by the Parlimentary laws, are esteemed sacred, it followeth manifestly, that by less power than a general Council it cannot be abolished; for our Britain is one of the seven provinces of the western Church, which are the ancient bounds of the Roman Patriarchate, as all know. In times past I grant, that the Archbishop of Canterbury was called Patriarch by Pope Urbane the second, with Anselme, and Malmes, and the Gloss. c. Clero. d. 21. as also the Bishop of Algar in the districts of Venice; but this was for honour's sake, not for exemption, as the thing itself speaketh, and the perpetual stile of the Church; yea, the very Council of England convince in Spelman.  
'Tis true, those Churches which were out of the Roman Empire, were subject to no Patriarch, as much as can be gathered out of the Canon of the Council of Ephesus, except they put themselves under any one; or I think rather, that by law they ought to be subject to that Patriarch, from whom by his Apostolical Missionaries, they first received the faith of Christ, ob similitudinem casus Bulgarorum. Nam secundum Juristas; similium similis est ratio. As we argue of the Indies, and others lately converted Japonians, and those of China. It is true, de facto, some Provinces against all Law, have revolted from the Patriarch of Rome, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, after the division of the Empire, and others from him to others: as Russia to the Bishop of Moscovia: but these are done against all laws and government of the Church.  
The shift which our Countrymen fly to, saying they were compelled unto it, for the too much cruelty of the Pope, with the same facility it is rejected: for it ought to have been examined by a general Council, and parts on both sides be heard, as in the Council of Trent, an excellent occasion was given; (but ours appeared not) because if it be lawful for subjects to withdraw themselves from the obedience of their superiors, as often as they pretend tyranny, or what oppression soever, so that themselves be actors, and judges in their own causes, it is to be feared, that subjects of Princes, or whatsoever soeveraignties, by this occasion will lay hold on easy pretences of Rebellion: for if the reason be good, it is  in force, and so any province out of apprehension of tyranny etc. may justly, and lawfully withdraw itself from their Prince, or the Sovereign Magistracy.  
Therefore it remains firm: that seeing England by the most ancient and strong right was subordinate to the Bishop of Rome, neither hath that subordination been hitherto abrogated by any lawful and sufficient Council; yea, neither the cause heard: therefore they ought to remain under obedience of the same sea, until a full discussion of the matter; otherwise she can be no ways free from the crime of Schism and rebellion, according to that of St Nazianzen, ep. 1. We desire to know what this great lust of bringing novations about the Church is, that every one that will: etc. For if they who now make the stir had any thing that they might disprove, or condemn in us, about faith: not so truly, we not being admonished, was it meet to commit such a wickedness: For you ought to be willing either to persuade, or be persuaded (if so be also we are in any place or number, that who fear God and for the defence of the faith have undergone great labours, and have well deserved of the Church) and then (if also then) we machinate new things, but notwithstanding by this reason, these petulant and contumelious men might peradventure have some sufficient excuse. Behold how this great Saint, and Doctor of the Church maketh any recess from the Church impossible and unlawful! The pestilent poison of Schism, covered over with an ill plaster, may be judged sound by impudent men: but truly except it be purged, and wiped to the very bottom of the soar with the plaster of Christian peace, it will be Schism still, and consequently bring death to those that are infected with it.  
Some labour to cloak their Schism, and pretence of reformation under the fact of Ezechias. Reg. 4.18. The business is this: The Jews had fallen into an inveterate custom of erecting altars, and offering incense upon the mountains to the brazen Serpent, etc. contrary to God's command. The kings his predecessors were often reprehended for their neglect herein, and Ezechiah much commended for his zeal and fortitude in breaking this ill custom.  
Hence they argue it lawful for kings to reform abuses in the Church, as in England. All which is nothing to the purpose: For first, he did it with consent of the high priest, as Josias also did, in completing the work begun by Ezekias, as appears c. 23. Secondly, there is no doubt but Princes are obliged by their office, as being nurses of God's Church, to labour especially with the Prelates of the Church, to suppress all emergent, insolences or innovations.  
Thirdly, Which is the main point Ezechias did not erect any new altar of division against the mother Church, Jerusalem, but took away the breach or division which be found made by others.  
In the case of, England, it is just contrary. King Henry the eighth began, the rest have increased the Schism, and erected new altars of division, against God's ordinances in the old and new law, as Jeroboam did, Reg. 11.29. which God so severely punished. So that I cannot see at all, with what modesty this fact of Ezechias, or Josias could be alleged to warrant the dissection of our Country from the Church, since it plainly inferreth the contrary; namely, that abuses, though never so much authorized by wicked Princes, or long customs are to be abolished by succeeding Princes, to redintegrate the primary union, and conformity with the mother Church, which is the case of England.  
A main Objection which they use for their Schism is, because as they say, we forbidden a discussion of our tenants by the light of reason, which they esteem to be against reason, which should be our guide in all things, and especially in matters of religion.   

CHAP. 5. Of what use Reason is in disoussing of Faith.  
PHilosophy and Faith go upon contrary principles; and hence peradventure they lay hold of occasion of error: the antiquity of opinion in Philosophy, if it be any thing, it must be fortified with new reasons, otherwise in process of time it vanisheth: but in Christian faith, reason itself, that it may be efficatious springeth from antiquity; otherwise, in that it is new, it vanisheth away, according to that of St. Augustine against two Epistles of the Pelagiuns c. 6. The antiquity of our doctrine declares the truth of it, as the novelty of the other shows it to be Heresy. In Philosophy reason reigneth; here it serveth and consequently is captivated according to the Apostle: It is not quite rejected, neither is it admitted out of the bounds of a servant: for as Roger Bacon excellently speaketh in his fourth part of his greater work: We do not seek reason before faith, but after it. Here was Chillingworth's error, in objecting that Catholics, as well as they, recur to reason in faith: we do indeed use reason as a servant, not as a mistress. We put it, as Friar Bacon notes, after faith, not before it: but these new pretenders to divinity, prefer their reason before faith: Turn the cat in the pan, and make faith subservient to their reason: as Teriullian against Hermogenes. They descend from the Church to the School of Aristotle, they appeal as to the supremest court, to the seat of common sense, and as St. Basil upon the 115. Psal. They constitute their sense the measure of all things; is not this to invert the whole frame of God's spiritual world? According to that of St. Basil in his 43. ep. As in things which are seen with the eyes, experience is of more consideration than reason, so in the most excellent tenants of our faith is of more force, than any juncture of reason. O how St. Augustine meets with these socinians towards the end of his 56 Epistle! To these straits they are driven, who finding themselves most miserably laid on their backs, when their authority is put in balance, to see how it will endure the test against the authority of the Church. They do therefore endeavour, under the show and promise of reason to quell the inmoveable authority of the holy Church; neither is it any news, for it is the accustomary practice of all Here ticks: and in his, 22. Ep. he saith: That if a Catholic desires a reason of his saith, that he may understand what he believes, there must be an eye had to his capacity, that he may by reason obtain a proportionable measure of understanding; whence we learn, that's the regular discipline of heretics under a false vizard of reason to lay aside the most firm authority of God's Church. Hence we also learn, how Catholics make due use of reason, in matters of Faith, explicating holy mysteries according to each capacity.  
I wondered to find Mr. Hobbs in his 12. Chap. n. 6. to be so positive, in attributing it to an error of the vulgar, to hold that Faith is not begotten by study, and natural reason. His principal ground is, because it were impertinent to oblige us to give an account of our Faith; that is, to render a reason of it as he would have it Englished, if our reason doth not acquire it. Of how great force this his reason is, I leave any man to consider.  
He deals fiercely against inspiration of Faith; and saith, all the world is mad in asserting it, he conceives that every Christian would be a prophet, if he had his Faith by supernatural infusion.  
Therefore in order to him, Chillingworth, and the rest; and any who shall desire to know in what manner, or how far Catholics use the assistance of reason, particularly in Faith: I will briefly decipher it, because here is the main scruple of our new modellers of Christianity.  
To this end, we must understand that Logic hath two questions. The one is, a sit? Whether the thing questioned hath any real existence: The other is, Quid sit? Or Propter quid sit? That is, what the essence of it is, or by what cause it is?  
In the first question, as Neophites, we make enquiry after the truth of Catholic Faith, by weighing the motives: which being considered ab intrinseco, or from the internal principles of them, we find profoundness, even surpassing the greatest jugdments, with simplicity, proportioned to the weak, est understandings, contempered with sanctity, compared to the tenants of all sects, either of Infidels or Heretics, wherein they do infinitety exceed them all.  
If we do consider ab extrinseco; that is, by their inseparable annexed habiliments: we find perpetual, and inviolable succession, delivered from hand to hand, from the very fountain to us, witnessed sufficiently by the very Church walls; we find also most exemplary holiness of those, who embrace this faith, which St. Augustine celebrates, in his book entitled of the manners of the Catholic Church: also wonderful change of manners in those who are new converts by the ancient, much valued Angelical purity, and stupendious austerity of both Sexes, who embrace Heremitical, Cenobitical, or Anachoretical reclusions: also the gallows adorned with the blood of so many illustrious martyrs, as in our Country, where so many learned men expose themselves to all cruelties, for the good of others, and voluntarily under go ignominious death daily for the confirmation of others: Lastly, the working of miracles, that is, such wonders which either in substance transcend all nature, as to restore sight to them that are born blind, or raise the dead, and the like, or in the manner as to cure diseases, without applying causes, etc. Out of these and the rest of the motives, by reason we attain to be able to make a firm judgement; first, of the manifest credibility of Catholic mysteries: insomuch that we clearly see, that it is more reason to be matriculated into the Church, then into any other Sect. This step being made and digested, by further penetrating, discursively all the motives, we find the conjunction of them all to be impossible to the whole latitude of nature: which a wise man weighing, in comparison to the continual mutation, and vicissitude of all natural causes, will be able to demonstrate the Catholic to be supernatural, and absolutely true, because reavealed and inspired by God, which is the last resolution of our Faith; wherein as you see reason conducteth us in our enquiry, to the full result; that is, to the formal object of our Faith; which is, God revealing, where we stick not for our reason: but for the revelation of God, wherein Christian Faith is completed. It is true, that the first Christians, to whom these revelations were immediately made, were prophets: but to the especial assistance of God in our assenting to these supernatural truths already revealed, doth not make prophets, which is an action of a different nature from formal revelation, as schoolmen at large demonstrate in the tract of Faith, and it is evident in itself; wherein Mr. Hobbs seems to have erred.  
Hitherto we use reason in the disquisition of the truth of Faith according to the question, An sit.  
In the other question, called, Quid sit? Or by what means, or causes is it? Which amongst Logicians is the nobler question. In this we proceed not by doubtfully enquiring of the truth of objects of Faith, or of their real existence, which is disputed in the State of our Neophitism; but all fluctuancy and doubt deposed, touching the truth of them; wherein our Socinians boggle, for they stick still at An sit. But our learned men proceed to the other question, labouring to understand the truths, speculating the essences and natures of each of them, and the Subalternal connexion of them each to other, which is the proper Sphere of a divine, or school-man, for his own and others satisfaction. There are the bounds of our reason, intervening to attain and to preserve already attained Faith; wherein as is clear, reason is the servant, not mistress.  
But on the contrary, ye give no limits to reason: but as in the progress, or search, so in the possession of Faith, ye still stick most to your reason, and therefore ye doubt or deny, what ye understand not, for ye persuade yourselves, that the mysteries necessary to be believed, aught to be per se nota clear in their very terms; insomuch that every one of you brag your absolute comprehension of them. And hence it comes, that the Socinians call in question, if not absolutely deny the deity of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; hence with the Pelagians, they reduce Christ's death to example of our imitation only, not to be the price of our redemption; hence generally they profess with Chillingworth and others, whom I could name; that holy Scriptures are to be understood according to each man's small reach of reason, as if nothing were contained in them, what is not commensurated to our understanding, and therefore needs not any supernatural aid from God; which Mr. Hobbs very well confutes, Chap. 17. n. 28. Yet he saith, it belongs to the City to interpret Scriptures, at least in all such things, which he will please to call juridical, or Philosophical, which have far too great latitude in his sense. For purely supernatural, he speaks more reason, than any others of these new ones: from whom hath proceeded contempt of Prelates, and Doctors; because every one of the most inferior Laiety of these Enthusiasts by their impetuous imaginary instinct, and private spirit: or what is the same, their particular ratiocination, though most groundless, are supreme and infallible Masters and Doctors to themselves. Neither do they believe any thing to be Divine, which flows not from the senseless impetuosity of their imaginations, without any respect to higher considerations.  
Yes truly, those who are esteemed the wiser sort, following Socinas, stick in the same puddle; expounding holy Scriptures and all mysteries of our holy Faith; not according to the universal reason of the Church, delivered by the hands of the ancients to us as Catholics do, but by their private spirits, or by the conduct of their private reason: A thing ridiculous to conceive, that the profoundness of Christian mysteries, should not exceed the shallow reach of our reason. Which error is the Source of all dissonancies, and inconstancies amongst them: which even by intrinsecal & necessary consequence, must needs cause a perpetual flux, or issuing out of changes of conclusions of Faith: for the effect cannot be more noble than the cause.  
On the other side, Catholic tenants must by a great necessity be always constant: because they depend not upon our daily changeable reasons, or ratiocination, but upon the unvariable word of God, revealed and delivered by the Church.  
The sum of all is: that the verity of a Philosophical conclusion, is demonstrated by the verity of human reason: the verity of Christian reason is proved by the verity of ancient faith; indeed one verity may be divers, but never adverse to another. Neither doth Divine contradict human; but often surmounteth it: and therefore it is comprehended by the sparks of our scanted reason, but it is fetched from else where, Ask thy Father, etc. This is a safe way, in which there is no danger to be dashed upon the rocks of errors, according to that of Athanasius in his Epistle to Epicietus, teaching how Heretics, & Schismatics are to be treated with. There is no better way, and indeed it is alone sufficient to answer them: Those things not to be orthodoxal, which our forefathers have not taught us. This is plea enough against all pretences, in the judgement of Athanasius: let therefore Christians, and they that bear the name of Christ, be ashamed; if leaving the fountain of antiquity, from whence all sound doctrine floweth, to follow certain small rivulets, full of vanity and foolery, shadowed under a precious show of reason: which from whence they had their Source and beginning none for certain know. We Catholics therefore adhere to the holy Counsels and ancient Fathers in the first place after the holy Scriptures: neither dare we accuse them of foolery, a Christian mind will hurdly permit them to be rashly and presumptuously defamed: But these men, and others of the some tribe, who make the glimmering of their reasons the rules of Faith and Religion: easily reject them. It is a wonder rather, that they do not with their supercilious spectacles climb up the heavens; and there with the Albumazar, Aicabatius, Massaeius, and infinite other Astrologers, seek out the verity of all Religions: and one while, for the conjunction of Saturn with the Sun adhere to Judaismes; another while, for the conjunction of Mars with Jupiter, promote the  Sect; if with Venus, the Mahumetical; if with Mercury, the Christian. So by some little show of reason drawn: from the heavens, they may change their religion (as for the most part, they are wont to do) several times of the year, according to the several dominations of the planets, or certainly every year according to the annual dominion: or if this seems to much aerial, they may according to the Successory government of those intelligences, which they call Seconds, appoint the stations, retrogradations, and cadences of their divers sects and religions, as some not without applause of such lunitick persons have unhappily enough attempted: as especially some attribute the innovation of Luther's sect, to the new lunary inteligences then 1517. undertaking the world's government. And Tycho Brahe affirms that those sects, which indeed are derived from men's brainsick fancies, may be found out in the heavens, both in their rise and fall: Of which this present age administereth change enough.  
The truth is; Judas the Apostle toucheth these home: whatsoever they do not know they blaspheme; whatsoever like bruit beasts, they know they are corrupted in. They are indeed so swollen in their imaginations, that breaking they corrupt themselves and others   

CHAP. 6. A digression against Mr. Hales, the supposed Author of the Treatise of Schism: And a farther proof of Schism in England.  
Mr. HALES, who is said, and supposed to be Author of the Treatise of Schism; objects that Schirm may be spread over all the parts of the Church, and so the whole be infected; in which case Schism cannot be imputed to one place more than to another: and this may peradventure be affirmed of the sepuration of England from other Churches, as it was touching the ancient celebrating of Easter; wherein also, a how Schism is rison, for aching not necessary; yea, (saith he) in a matter ridiculous. If I should bring the general Council of Nice condemning and separating from these Quartadecimans, he would deride it; he accuseth all the ancients of foolishness in this matter: Thus he sporteth and trifleth in mysteries of faith, to root out all faith out of the minds of the faithful.  
I deny first what he averreth; that the West and East were at variance: that is to say, that that Schism did invade, the whole Church, and cleave her into two parts for the matter of Easter, but that some considerable part did raise stirs in the East, yea, in the West also, is manifest amongst historians; this cause of division in a late work de consilijs made in latin by a Country man of ours, is laid open to the very root.  
But to peruse a little more the grounds of his mistakes in this important point of Schism, we must always remember what before we noted; that Schism is not properly a separation for Heresy or Error in point of doctrine, or Faith; but in point of disobedience, which is not a trivial matter, as all commonwealths will easily conceive, being that nerve, upon which all order de pends; and therefore the Quartadecimans being rebellious to the mandatory decree of Nice, all Catholics had reason to decline their communion.  
I know Theodoret, in l. 1. c. 13. of his Ecclesiastical History, and other learned men with St. Athanasius in his tract of Synods, do esteem that the question of Easter was not defined, as a point of faith, but commanded to be observed as a custom derived from the Apostles; and in confirmation of this, they observe that the Council varieth the form of speech in a migitatory way, from the accustomary stile in declaring points of faith, saying: Visum est ut omnes obtemper arent; in question of faith, they did not write visum est. But credit Ecclesia Catholica: Thus the Catholic Church believed etc. And therefore, if his undervaluing the cause of this Schism, grew from this gross misprision of the state of the controversy, he should do well to resume his better diligence in examining it.  
He might with greater appearance, have brought that folemn word combat touching person & hypostasis, betwixt the eastern & western Churches: which great Athaenasius more clearly opened and closed up again. Many contested ignorantly after the manner of those who fight with their eyes shut, and beat the air. Some held three hypostasis, other but one in the deity: from whence great contentions arose: But as Athanasius relates: When we asked out of what reason they speak these things, or why all do use three kind of words? They made answer, that they believed in the Trinity, etc. Approving therefore this interpretation and excuse, we examined those who asserted that there was but one hypostasis, etc. Who affirmed that they understood Hypostasis, that is person, to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is essence, etc. To conclude all by the grace of God, after this interpretation of the words did approve of the best and exactest rules of faith, which the Fathers of Nice had instituted.  
Some indeed for their material errors, did deny communion; but as yet there was no formal Schism betwixt the Churches, but particular persons, perhaps it might have grown to a greater head, had not great Athanasius interposed or rather had not Christ Jesus hindered it.  
But among us, the altar of division, is erected against the altar of union with Christ: out of which it is impious to celebrate Christ's mysteries: the difference is not of words, but substance, not against the letter, but the life and sense of the holy Soripture. If these things be trifles; why do you separate yourselves? Why do you punish Priests with death, who are followers and ministers of our communion? Against all meekness and clemency of the ancients. To conclude; Why have you built a new altar, framed the stones of scandal and division? At leastwise, ye have broken down and demolished all the old ones? insomuch, that ye abhor the very name of tar, as these later times in your d●in● stick, yet fiery contention in pulpits and pamphlets about 12. years past, sufficiently testify: to what end is all this, if the difference betwixt you and us be nothing else, but about a Cock and Bull?  
And that the same Author, affirmeth it to be lawful to communicate with the Arians, and Eutychians, Nestorians, Photians, Sabessians; because it is not certain, that these invented their heresies out of malice: but it is otherwise concerning the Manichees, Valentineans, Macedonians, and Mahometans; because it is manifest to all, that they taught these blasphemies against their own judgements.  
I wonder at this assertion, from a person of his eminency: for abstracting from the intention of the former, against whom notwithstanding there was sufficient presumption, as among the ancients is clearer than the Sun, no less then against the other; but to grant, I say, what is not to be granted, what is that to me, whether they have vomited out their heresy to the eternal destruction of souls, with a formal or only interpretive intention to deceive? As long as I communicate with them, and leave the truth taught from the beginning, and delivered by the hands of the Fathers unto posterity. We must look here upon the heresy, not the mind or intention of the heretic: that not this, damneth the souls of those that communicate or pertinatiously adhere unto it: as St. August. often argueth in the the errors of St. Cyprian, and the Donatists, whom this Author also derideth. But to come home to him: Who knoweth not but that Luther against his own judgement began this Schism? Who knoweth not that Henry the eighth framed it out of a feigned and adulterate conscience? Who of us doth not know, that Queen Elizabeth out of no Religion but politic ends, perverted the Schism into Heresy? If therefore for this reason, Communon with such are not lawful, (as he affirmed of the last Apostates) neither certainly is it lawful here.  
Neither will it help them what the others are wont to object; that England did enjoy a privilege, which they call Cyprium; indeed Tomakas, C●drenas, and many were that the Bishop of Cyyprus, was declared exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch: The consequenc● most not be drawn to England, in respect of the Sea of Rome, except an express privilege can be sheweth, which hither to was never dreamt of; yea, besides other common titles of obedience; the case of the Bulgars, may, and aught to be drawn unto us, to wit, for the title of conversion, as the decision of the cause is in the law.  
Indeed there is extant a decree in Con. Consta. c. 2. That Bishops must not confound and intermingle their Churches, but stand to the appointed rules and their certain limits are affigned to the Patriarches. In the first Council of Ephesus also, it is decreed, that no Bishop invade the province of another, which was not first and from the beginning under his, or his ancestors jurisdiction: Hence it was, that the cause of the Church of Cyprus was heard, which the Bishop of Antioch would have subject unto him: but it was judged that that yoke should be shaken off upon another title.  
The Country was converted unto Christ by St. Barnaby, whose relics being found there with St. Mathew's Gospel upon his breast, written by St. Barnaby; this gave occasion to commence a suit of exemption, that they might enjoy the privilege of a Metropolitan: which was granted; so that afterwards they were only subject to Constantinople. The general Council itself in the eighth Canon speaks home of it, and checks the Bishop of Antioch, for having transgressed Ecclesiastical and Apostolical rules in this pretence: namely, because he did ordain in Cyprus, which was always an act of jurisdiction, to which he had no just title, because these Churches were never put under him, as appears in the Council. What similitude hath this case with the known subjection of England to Rome; known I say, and acknowledged; even by our laws ever from the conversion of the Country under St. Gregory. All lawful mutations of Provinces, which were ever made, as long as the Church was in her full power, had to this effect the especial authority of some general Council. So in the Council of Constantinople many dioceses, and some whole Provinces were made subject to that Patriarch, which before were subject to Ephesus, and the Primate of Trace. So in the Council: of Chalcedon, exchange of Provinces was decreed between the Patriarch of Antioch, and Jerusalem: and in the first general Council, the sea of Jerusalem was created a Patriarchate; and the refore the Fathers took some Provinces from the Patriarchate of Antioch, others from Alexandria: And in the foresaid example; the Cyprians could not shake off the authority of Antioch, till the decree was produced of the Council of Ephesus. Much loss this Island ought to separate from the Sea of Rome, by reason of the titile of conversion, and only under Gregory the first, but long before the entrance of St. Austin, under Pope Elutherius, by Elvanus, and Meduinus, Priests, being requested thereunto by King Lucius, Anno Dom. 179. Whilst it was possessed by the Britain's, in which primitive faith, it remained immaculate and uncorrupted (except the question of Pascha, in which it was corrupted by Picts, and Scots) indeed they resisted St. Austin, because they thought he sided with the Saxons, who had expelled them by force out of the kingdom, and because they had an Archbishop of their own of Legancestriae.  
Those other things, which the Author so often cited of the Treatise of Schism, mentioned (for he proves nothing:) concerning the nullity of power, or of all superiority of Christians as they are such; so that no obedience but simple reverence, is due to our betters, except that which may arise, by certain convention amongst men, not by right.  
This Tenet indeed, if made good would make all Schism impossible; all superiority ridiculous, and arbitrary but it is far from Christian verity, being against Scripture itself, and all common sense of Christians. And truly, whatsoever the same Author saith, in, and for the cause of the Donatists; if it hath any favour, he doth not only accuse St. Augustine, but the whole Church of foolishness, and malice; and all the Prophecies of the fignes of the Church, upon which St. Augustine, & before him Optatus, Hierom, and all Bishops and Doctors rely, out of the old and new law, the Prophets and the Acts of the Apostles; all which in them this man derideth: what he speaketh of the use of Images, he simply affirmeth, as the rest; but is so far from proving any thing, that he doth not so much as attempt it, neither is it a thing worthy my insisting upon, since every Abodary Controvertist, makes it obvious to children. Yet Mr. Hobbs will force me afterward to join issue with him in it.  
In fine: The Treatise of Schism speaketh many things which seem destructive to Christian faith, which he barely proposeth, or rather supposeth, out of which false supposition he doth falsely conclude, that there is no Schism in the Church; but as Aristotle Pol. l. 2. c. 4 rightly admonisheth: Suppositions indeed may be made, as every one pleaseth, but not impossible ones.  
Neither is it of more moment, what Antonius de Dominis l. 4. and others contend; that it was not lawful for the Africans to appeal to Rome, according to the 22. Canon. Concil. Melevit. And in like manner England was not bound to recur thither, or elsewhere; but justly provided for its own right, whilst it withdrew itself from the Roman yoke; as the African Church living in the district of the Patriarchate, procured to itself the same ease.  
First I say; that Africa did in no wise withdraw itself from the obedience of the Sea of Rome. I add moreover, neither did it deny the right of appeals, but in certain cases & certain persons; to wit, simple Clerks, which did appeal thither without observing any order of law, which the Bishop of Rome did & doth at this day condemn; otherwise read St. Augustine, ep: 162. Omitting others, who expressly affirms the right of appeals to the Sea of Rome. So the pretended Canon, made by the consent of the Bishop of Rome, showeth no other thing; but in no wise, as I said, did it withdraw itself from the obedience of the Sea of Rome. Neither is there the least show of it, but of the clean contrary in the reciprocal letters of that Council to the Pope, and of him to them; as may be seen in the body of the Epistle of St. Augustine, it would be tedious to learned Readers if I should write them out, they will more easily recur to the place cited.  
I add further, worthy to be noted: If the right of appeals had been there abrogated, yet it concludes not, that the jurisdiction of the Sea of Rome over them, was annulled: except any should be so senseless, as to imagine that the prefects of the Praetorian Court, were not subject to the Roman Emperors, because their authority deserved to be advanced to such a height, that it was not lawful to appeal from them, l. 1. F. de offic. Pref. Praet  
I am not ignorant, that some Grecians as Nilus contend, that the right of appeals which the Seat of Rome hath (for he acknowledgeth that) in respect of the other Patriarches, doth not convince that Seat to have jurisdiction over them.  
Because by the same reason the constant Inopolitan having by the Council of Chalcedon, Can. 9 the same power over their Metropolitans, doth not exexcise jurisdiction over them.  
I answer; That be denieth only the Bishop of Rome to have the same power over the general Patriarches, which he hath over other Bishops who are ordained by authority derived from him, and therefore concludes, that the Pope cannot trouble their ordinary government, which is true.  
This therefore confirmeth what hitherto hath been said; and maketh good, that England by all law remains subject to the Sea of Rome, under pain of Rebellion.   

CHAP. 7. Protestants have made this Schism.  
IT is clearer than noon day, that not Catholics, but Protestants have made this Schism, and divided the Church: because, when in any Commonwealth governed under the same Prince, or Sovereignty, and by the same laws a few men withdraw themselves from the obedience of authority, and increasing in number, they begin to set up their conventicles, make laws; and the rest of the body remaining in the ancient manner of government, under their own Sovereign power, proclaim a war: It is manifest, not the Body of the Common wealth which still persevereth in the same state; but these few men receding from the Body with their adherents, have made the division, and blown up the rebellion: In the same manner have Protestants behaved themselves towards Catholics, before the scandal of Henry the 8th. or rather of Luther, the whole Catholic Church consisting of divers Kingdoms, in which England is comprised, did obey divers Princes; were governed by divers civil Laws and Statutes, yet they worshipped God but in one faith, and in one sacrifice, were sanctified with the same Sacraments, did acknowledge the same spiritual Rector, the Bishop of Rome. Then arose Luther, Henry the eighth, Queen Elizabeth, etc. Who broke Communion with the whole world, to take away the sacrifice of the whole Church, and the greater part of the Sacraments, and the holy rites, to revolt from the Bishop of Rome, all the Church besides persevering in the same unity, worship and obedience, which before it did profess.  
Who therefore doth not see, that they have revolted from the Church, and erected altar against altar (if they have any) and have been the sole Authors of the divided unity of the Church: I add, that Schism is always a dividing of an united body, or a separation of a part from the whole preexistent, or fore being: now the Catholic Church was an united body, existent before Luther, from which the Protestants might go out, and divide themselves; but the Protesants seeing they were not where, could make no body from whence the Catholics could recede; therefore the Protestants could only first make the division, and blow up the Rebellion.  
The other often heard fantastic refuge, wherewith when these are branded with novelty, like men in a desperate naufrage, they catch at any broken reed; namely, that they always were of us, and amongst us, and so continued till they were cast out of us.  
To the first part I answer; That till Henry the eighth they were indeed amongst us; that is, all their progenitors were Catholics; this every man in the testaments and records of each family can witness, for the world till then knew no other: all public profession of Religion was that.  
To fly to interiours, that is to say, that they were in their hearts, Protestants, were to recur to divination: which were more than childish in things of this nature, when all exterior acts contradict any such dreams; and yet to this clear nonsense they are put, being compelled to assert their Church for above a Thousand years, to have been invisible, as it is understood under the notion of a body separated from the Roman; you will see it in Whittaker in his 2. and 3. Controversy p. 479. Field seeing how destructive this Tenent would be, in his 10. C. Accounts it foolish, to say that a Church should not have always known professors; and White in his defence of the way c. 4. p. 790. Saith positively, that Religion is false, if it cannot show a continual descent; yet, p. 520. he is not ashamed to say, that their Church hath had indeed always succession, but not visible; so that being pressed to show the real succession, he is constrained to recur to this ridiculous divination of men's interior protestancy, though they professed otherwise.  
Which contradictory shist of theirs, were enough to destroy their pretended Church. Prideaux in his ninth Lesson of the invisibility of the Church, after many brags comes to this poor refuge, and beats about like a man desperate, to save his case upon a broken reed, or distracted sentence in any obsolute or forlorn Author.  
But sa I noted: They will say that they divided not the Church, neither did they recede from it, but were cast out of it by excommunication of the Pope; and therefore not they, but the Pope was the Author of this division: but this helpeth them nothing. For to omit; that excommunication is a punishment which is inflicted upon such, as go out of the Church, not so much casting them out of the Church, as depriving them of the participation of common benefits thereof: to omit this it is notoriously known to all that Henry the eighth, Luther, and Queen Elizabeth went out of the Church before they were excommunicated, as being condemned by their own proper judgements: and so they separated themselves, and before any excommunication, made the Schism, in punishment whereof they were excommunicated: touching Henry the eighth, it is manifest, that he was excommunicated for his disobedience and contumacy in grievous crimes: and Queen Elizabeth, by and by when she had gotten the Crown upon her, she seeing the Pope difficult in declaring her lawful title unto it, not for her religion (for then she had not changed it) but for illegitemacy, even according to Acts of our Parliaments under her Father, broke off all Communion with the Church of God: So Camden in Elizabeth. The English also compiled a book of Canons wherein they also confess, they went out of the Church of Rome; therefore it is a frivolous thing, that they pretend they went not out, but were driven out of the Church.  
They may perchance reply, that they were as amongst us, so of us before this division, and so are yet; because it is sufficient to incorporate any body into the true Church of Christ, if he believeth the Creed of the Apostles as hear Protestants do.  
To this I answer: First, that in some cases this may be enough, yes even to believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God is sufficient, as in the case of the Eunuch and such like, that is an implicit faith, may suffice till other necessary truths are sufficiently propounded: For the Gospel had and hath a time of growth in every new Christian. In these and such like cases it is sufficient, not to misbelieve formerly other truths, to constitute a man a member of Chirst's Church.  
I answer: Secondly, That the same God who trusted his Church with this, hath as well entrusted her with all other necessary truths, The Holy Ghost hath taught her omnem veritatem all and every necessary truth, as our blessed Saviour promised: which she pro re nata, as heresies pullulate, declares to her children, that they may be able to avoid the danger of swallowing stones instead of bread.  
These truths, thus by supreme power propounded to the faithful, they are obliged to receive by obeying their Prelates, who have a charge over their souls, according to that of the Apostle obedite praepesitis vestris, etc. Hence the Nicene Fathers declared as a most fundamental truth, Christ Jesus to be Deum de Deo et consubstantialem Patri, etc. to be God of God consubstantial to the Father, etc. which is not in the Apostles Creed: neither is it there that the Holy Ghost is God, nor the Fathers of Nice did declare that great truth, because yet heresies touched not that point: as St. Basile, and St. Gregory Nariane teach; yet I believe, that every true Christian will esteem it necessary to believe these truths; it is easy to descend to many more particulars, which all Christians admit to be necessary, though not expressed in the Apostles Creed, as concerning the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Eucharist, etc. The Church hath therefore always from the beginning to this day believed, and practised this supreme obliging power in matters of faith and manners: and upon the same ground hath always esteemed such heretics, in a damnable condition, who have not as well believed or adhered to her proposals in faith in one subject as in another, and as well to the end of the world as in the primitive times  
But they say that the burden of Christian religion will be greater, then of the Jews, and intolerable, if all are obliged to every declared truth in the Church, which is contrary to Christ, who saith, Mat. 11. that his yoke is sweet, and his burden is light.  
This is easily answered, in order to the Community of Christians, whose implicit faith in the superstructures is sufficient, according to the generally taught and received doctrine of Doctors. Pastor's indeed and Doctors have higher obligations to be able to give an account of their faith, which obligation is much alleviated by the Synopses of Faith, which the Church clearly and yet very contractedly propounds to keep them principally from misunderstanding the holy mysteries of our faith. This is the weightiest objection which I find in Mr. Hobb's, besides those which I shall presently touch.  
St. chrysostom in his 10. homily upon St. Matthew in the person of Christ, complains of Mr. Hobbs, Nolite de difficultate conqueri, quesi qui doctrinam meam molestam esse dicatis: we must not say Christ's doctrine is troublesome, least with the Capharnaits, we be committed abire retro, to be put in the back side of Christ's book.  
Surely St. August. found Christian religion in another posture, than Mr. Hobbs would have it in his 5. Chapter to Volusian. Where he saith that Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarum, ut in eyes quotidie proficerem, si eas solas ab ineunte pueritia usque ad de erepitam senectutem, maximo otio, summa study, meliori ingenio, conarer addiscere, etc. He experienced the mysteries of Christianity, far to transcend the synagogue: he esteemed his whole life though it were employed in nothing else, not to suffice for a perfect understanding of Christian profundities; surely they were not so vulgar as Mr. Hebbs would have them.  
There was among the Jews a difference in points of faith, some were ut adirces as the foundation of the rest, the denying whereof would have destroyed the whole law: others as rami branches where the danger was not so considerable. These R. Menassieth in the beginning of his Treatise of the creation of the world declareth.  
So in Christian Religion some things are simply necessary, without which heaven is not to be gotten; as the faith of Christ, etc. which our schoolmen place sub necessitate medij, that is as absolutely necessary: of which sort there are not so many.  
Other things are necessary only ex suppositione, that is upon supposition that they are made known to us, or sufficiently declared: then there is necessitas praecepti, a command to embrace them, and surely this is no great burden.  
I will also touch that impertinent objection of the Socinians; that the Church of Christ is a congregation of all Christians, or of all who believe in Christ, and not of any select body of them, and consequently there are no heretics to be declared so by any sentence of the Church; but only those are heretics who by their own judgement are such as the Apostle speaketh. That is, such who against their own judgement do resist known truths, not such who by a council or body of men are declared such. This to believers is easily made evident to be impious.  
First, That Christ hath a Church, he hath said it, that he also hath instructed her with a regitive power he hath also said it, and said both together in these words, Dic Ecclesiae; and therefore addeth to such as obey not her decrees, si eam non audierit sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus et publicanus, we must complain to the Church for emergencies, and she hath power to excommunicate if we obey not.  
If this be true as it is in other crimes and causes, it will easily conclude in the chiefest crime of heresy, else we must blasphemously say that Christ hath made provision for the lesser difficulties, and not for greater, which is to condemn his omniscience or providence.  
Again, this regitive power is confirmed in the acts and attributes to the Holy Ghost, Spiritus Sanctus vos constituit Episcopes regere Ecclesiam Dei. Of this the new Testament in doctrine and practice is abundant.  
Further, that the Church hath power to declare heretics, is evident, besides the immediate consequence of it out of Christ's words related, out of the doctrine and practice of the Apostles.  
They did teach how, or did institute the manner, post secundam monitionem to declare and excommunicate for heresy, they also did declare the facto heretics, as is evident in almost all their Epistles and the Apocalipss, and did forbid all commerce with them, which is to excommunicate, which they did for their false and seditious tenants or innovations in faith, as is clear in the texts; whence it followeth first, that the Church hath this power, as first Simon Magus, for teaching it lawful to buy the Holy Ghost. Secondly, the Jewish Christians, who taught it lawful to use Sacramental circumcision under Christ, were excommunicated by St. John, etc.  
Whence it follows secondly; that the Church is not a body of all Christians, but of all who do join in the unity and integrity of faith; else if declared by the Church to be heretics, they are no longer of her, because by authority derived by Christ, they are cast out of her. Their own interior guilt will serve to accuse them in the Court of God in Heaven; but it is the judicatory act of the Church upon their pertinacy which condemneth them in Earth; and this sentence is confirmed in Heaven, Quaecunque alligaveritis etc.  
Mr. Hobbs in his 18. Chapter n. 2. requires two virtues necessary to Salvation; Faith, and Obedience. Faith hath no other latitude in her acts then to believe Jesus to be Christ, n. 5, 6. and so forward.  
Besides internal faith, he saith that there is necessarily required a profession of many other articles, which summarily are contracted & compacted into that we call the Creed. As he had touched before, Chap. 17. n. 21. and afterward more fully in his Annotations to the number 6. Yet he esteemed not Christians bound to believe, but to profess these if required. This seems a bull in Christianity to be bound to profess in matter of belief, what I am not bound to believe: yet this he asserts Chap. 18. n. 6. necessary to salvation out of title of obedience. That is, I am bound to profess, that I do believe, what I am not bound to believe; I propound this to Mr. Hobb's second thoughts, he boggles much upon it in his Annotations, utters evident contradictions, and yet he comes not off. Nay he saith ch. 18. n. 14. that it is enough if one endeavour to believe them, though he doth not, but he must profess them when he is required.  
Is not this to put a lie upon himself, for a man to profess to believe what he doth not believe? Nay, is not this to put a lie upon Christianity? He adds, that he cannot exclude such from heaven, who internally do not assent to articles declared by the Church, if they do not contradict, but being commanded, will grant them, (this last particle of external acknowledgement is more modest, than I have yet found in any of our Countrymen) though it cannot be digested by a reasonable man, that I may profess what I do not believe.  
The texts of Scripture whereby he proves the internal belief of Jesus to be Christ, sufficient to salvation, are very weak in principles of Christianity. For besides, whom I have named already, who were condemned by the Apostles for believing false doctrine: There were also the Nicolaitans in the Apocalypses, Chap. 2. Who following Nicolas one of the first seven Deacons, who believing in Christ, yet taught it lawful to commit fornication, and to eat meat offered to Idols, were heavily threatened from God by St. John; so also those heretics, whom St. John signifieth by Jesabel, who taught it lawful to do the same. Neither will it help Mr. Hobbs his Tenet. That Jesabel is said to teach, that is, not only believe eternally those errors; for those of the Church of Thyatira were threatened because they did believe those false doctrines, and the Apostle St. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy v. 3. useth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where he giveth to Timothy power to denounce to heretics not to teach otherwise then they had been taught, neither is his discourse of faith in Christ, but of superstructures, as the course of the text showeth, and in it he forbids any to believe them. In fine, it is clear in all Ecclesiastical monuments, as well Historical as Doctrinal; that from the Apostles to this day, not only such who denied Jesus to be Christ, who were properly Infidels or Apostates, but who believed not any other article propounded by the Church universal as necessary, were esteemed heretics, and in state of damnation.  
All the texts for the sufficiency to believe in Christ in order to salvation, except in cases afore mentioned, are understood of all things which belong to faith in him, in which is comprehended his Church instructing in all necessaries, or else the faith in Christ nakedly understood by Mr. Hobbs, would exclude all those benefits, which we believe to be obtained by him. It is true, that in particular cases (as I noted) an implicit faith of many of them might suffice, as in the Thief, where he had not time for other instruction or profession; yet, it is evident he believed in the whole, when he cried Memento Mei, etc. But these extraordinary cases are nothing to the ordinary course of God's providence, which we only touch: And thus the Church of God from, and with the Apostles always understood this matter, and accordingly in her Counsels squared her practice. But as I said before of the Thief, so of the Eunuch, and the two thousand converted by St. Peter; it is evident, that they believed in the substance of the whole Creed, for the very children of Jerusalem knew the main doctrines which Christ taught, as appeared in the public process against him cried up and down the streets; and therefore these believing in him, believed in all which he had taught; which will come home to the Creed at least.  
Mr. Hobbs will tell you in the upshot, that the points now in controversy, for the most part concern only contention for a worldly Kingdom, gain, or victory in point of wit, where he expounds them after his own gust and names, only such, which may more plausibly be thought to have such appearance, omitting the chiefest in agitation about the Sacraments, etc. Others which concern the principal end and effect of our redemption; as freewill, and justification, he rejects as Philosophical. Thus the high mysteries of Christian Faith, by a Christian are made subjects of division, or rather of delusion, or collusion. Herod was afraid of Christ, because he was jealous that his aim would be to get his Kingdom, this jealousy was the cause of much innocent bloodshed. I hope Mr. Hobbs hath no such design, in stirring up this old false plea against Christianity: for Christ hath assured all men that his Kingdom is not of this world.  
That there hath been always subordination in Church judicatures is evident by St. Paul to Timothy, and every where in holy Writ, which hath hitherto been continued, even in external government, as all Histories show, and yet not prejudicial but auxiliary to temporal power. But for any controversies is point of temporal power, challenged by the Church I know none forasmuch as toucheth faith. Yet Mr. Hobbs seems to desire, though with much violence, to draw even hearing confessions and interpreting scriptures to his new Utopia as belonging to civil Magistracy.  
There is yet another shift, wherein as the Holy Ghost saith, mentitur iniquitas sibi, they frame an imaginary pillar of security; saying, that though the first openers of this breach were Schismatics, yet they having been born in this Church, are not guilty of it. As when a Kingdom is unjustly obtained, yet it may be justly possessed by future heirs. This I have weighed and answered before: yet to the similitude I particularly answer; that there is no parity at all to plead prescription against God, because in some cases there may be among men; else all Heretics, and Turks, may more forcibly plead this right than they, if naked countenance of possession can give title. I might here question the supposition itself, for even in temporals, the civil and Canon law require more time for prescription in order to some persons, then to others: as for ordinary persons, ten years; in some forty, in some an hundred.  
Again, there is a difference, not only in persons, but the things possessed as Ecclesiastical, require more time then civil: and there is always required a quiet possession to begin the count of years, that there may be titulus probabilis. The reason is, because then the true lords are thought virtually, or implicitly to yield their right: And thence gins the title in the unjust possessors; namely, when the ancient lord, being able, ceaseth to challenge any right. But as I say, to let all this pass; the disparity from man to God is manifestly clear, and therefore admits of no consequence.   

CHAP. 8. Protestants have made the Schism without any cause or ground.  
THE often cited Protestant Doctor, in the Treatise of Schism writeth; that Schism doth not always make the lesser part culpable which recedeth, or is driven out from the rest of the commonweal, or body of the Church, but the compulsive cause is here chief to be looked upon, and not always the small number of the receding persons: therefore the Protestants say; it is true, that they made the division from the Catholic Church, but did it rightly and worthily, for the intolerable errors and damnable doctrines which then infected the whole Church: and therefore they followed the command of the voice of God, Apoc. 18. Go out of her my people, that ye be not made partakers of her sins.  
The damnable doctrines are by themselves reduced chiefly to Idolatry, the other differences they conceive may be more easily swallowed: and indeed this were a capital one, if true, and it were no less strange; that the Church of Rome which reduced this Island and most part of the two worlds from Idolatry, should itself knowingly teach or practise it, and no less strange, that these few men after so many years should see these gross abominations, which such an infinity of learned men in so long time, nor yet can find or judge to be so. Idolatry according to Divines is taken for a religions worship due to God, and given to any creature. In this all Christians agree.  
The Church of Rome in the holy Sacrament of Eucharist, giveth indeed Divine worship out of infallible supposition, that under those Elements, is the body and blood of Christ, accompanied with his Divinity: they do not give it to the accidents, no not to the body and blood of Christ properly, and precisely, but to the Divinity; so precise they are in the Divine worship; whence it is clear, that they do not direct their worship to a creature, but to God; and though they cannot but involve in their adoration his presence under the Accidents of bread and wine, yet do not formally terminate their act to this presentiallity of Christ in the Sacrament, which is but a relative, a very  accident, and consequently not capable to terminate a divine worship; whence we see the proper object is Christ, who certainly is existent; and therefore in this they are not mistaken, even in all sectaries opinions; and therefore there can be no Idolatry, even though Christ had not that new ubication under the Elements of bread and wine, that being the accessary, not the principal which they aim at, for they adaequately direct their action to Christ present, not to the presence itself abstracting from Christ, so that their mistake would be in a circumstance, not in a substance; and therefore even admitting that impossible supposition, yet there would be no Idolatry.  
The other particle is their worship of Images; which in no ways can be called Idolatry. First, because they do not at all teach Divine worship to be due to them, as is clear in the Council of Trent, and as all knowing Protestants will confess: Secondly, many great Schoolmen do not hold any worship at all to be precisely directed to them, it is suffient, reverently to retain them, and by them to be raised up in devotion to the thing represented by them; as by a picture of Christ to be called upon to remember Christ, etc. As they think it is deducible out of the Council of Trent: Out of which it is evident that the Church of Rome is injuriously defamed of Idoltary.  
And here I wonder much at Mr. Hobbs in his book De Cive, who otherwise singularly deserving in moral and socratical Philosophy, would so easily preoipitate his judgement in points of this nature.  
He saith in his Chapter 15. n. 18. That if the Commonwealth should command to worship God under a picture, that the people were-bound to do it: In his Annotations upon the same place, he calls himself in question for antilogies in this particular, for in n. 14. He had taught that to worship God by a picture, or any Image, were to limit God to a certain term, which were against the law of nature touching God's worship, which surely destroys the first position.  
To the answer of this, he saith, the offence would be in the commanders, not in the obeyers, by reason they worship him thus upon compulsion. He adds, that if God should specially forbid to be worshipped by the use of an image, that then such a command could not be obeyed, as it is in the decalogue, were expressly Idolatry is prohibited. Afterwards in the 16. Chapter n. 10. treating of the ten Commandments; he saith, that to worship God by an Image is against the law of nature, as he said in the 15. c. n. 14.  
These seem to be strangely inconsistent propositions. First, the power which he saith, n. 17. in the 5. Chap. To be transferred to Magistracy from the people in determining God's worship, he confesseth that it ought to be according to reason.  
He confesseth also in his Annotation cited; that to worship God under an Image were against reason, because Idolatry; not only because now God hath forbidden it (as he saith) but in itself, namely, because as he said before, it were to prescribe a term to his infinity, and consequently to make God to be finite.  
Whence it follows; first, that though Idolatry is against the light of reason, and therefore intrinsically wicked, yet knowingly I might do it, if commanded by a Magistrate, so that an inferior power, namely, a power derived from myself, can command me that which is absolutely prohibited by the highest power, as is that of nature, and I am bound to obey it with neglect of the other though supreme, yet the Magistrate cannot command it, but against reason; and therefore such a command cannot be obligatory, because in his 5. Chapter and n. 17. reason is the limit of that power. Are not these inconsistences?  
Again he saith, that moral compulsion (for a command is no more) would render an act of Idolatry lawful, because it would exempt it from Idolatry. This is destructive of all religion, and truly of reason, in all Schools of Philosophy. where Aristotle in his Ethics, and all others teach; that we must lose our lives for virtue itself.  
Again he saith, that if God make a positive law to the contrary, as he supposeth he hath, that then I may not obey the former command of a Magistrate, how this is reconcilable to his former tenet, that worshipping God by Images is against the law of nature, and yet only unlawful if commanded by Magistracy, because in the Decalogue or positive law it is again forbidden; I know not, for surely this law is inferior to that of nature, according to all men, and reason itself being the law of nature, is drawn from the very nature of the thing itself.  
That God hath forbidden Idolatry I doubt not in his first Commandment: but whether to worship God by the use of Images is there forbidden? Or whether it be Idolatry, would deserve Mr. Hobbs his greater diligence to prove it  
For surely to say that it were a confinement of his Infinity, would be as far from a proof as it is from truth, clear in the light of reason and evidently against Scripture: where we are taught to glorify God in and by his creatures, according to the 18. Psalm. Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei, etc. The heavens speak God's glory. How they do speak it? they can declare no more than they are, according to Mr. Hobbs; and therefore only things finite, which is to confine God against the drift of the Psalms: Philosophy, and Scriptures teach us to find God by his creatures, as St. Paul 1 Rom. 20. remits us to the creatures. Invisibilia à constitutione mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur, our understanding of God is from these visible things: nay, it is the only natural way we have, from the effect to find the first cause; and not from the first cause the effect, and all things without his confinement. So by pictures we ascend to what is represented, not tying ourselves to the manner in our worship of God under that representation: In the pursuit we relinquish the manner, and going forward with our discourse we find, and with our devotions follow the Infinity of God's goodness. All representatives are essentially inferior to the Prototypes by many degrees, yet safely conduct us to the knowledge of them without abasing their natures to the Images. So here and all acts of acknowledgement of God, in, and by his creatures; for we know the effect cannot equalise the first cause especially, neither in nature, nor in manner of existence; and therefore we conclude, God's supreme essence and goodness to transcend all we see; & in the like manner we easily ascend by the use of pictures, neither can we do otherwise if we use our reason; so that there is no danger of God's confinement, and therefore no Idolatry.  
I remember that Cassian in his Collations tells us of a poor ignorant Monk; who out of error, had framed to himself in his narrow imagination a conceit of Gods being corporal, and could very hardly be brought to entertain higher thoughts of God's spiritual essence, being unwillng to relinquish his Fantastically ill framed Image of God.  
We are much beholding to Mr. Hobbs, who is so tender of Christians dulness, that least by their Images, they should conceive God to be finite or corporal; with this poor Monk, he would remove all pictures, though God himself; not so careful as Mr. Hobbs, hath been pleased to talk and walk with Adam, which are acts of a corporal and finite creature, and othertimes to make resemblance, as if he had appeared in corporal shape, as to Moses, perchance to Jacob and others; nay, even the Son of God appearing in our poor nature, all which would draw us into errors, if God had not by his Prophets, Apostles, and daily by his Church, and even by reason taught us the right use of such passages, and to know, that those sensible representatives were only conductives to God himself, as we teach Students by emblems to conceive things more remote from their present capacity. All which will warrant our use of Images, yet without God's confinement and consequently without Idolatry.  
Neither would this, if true, any way excuse them from sacrilegious Schism, except all were compelled to Idolatry. St. Augustine saith, there can be no just necessity to cut off unity l. 2. Count Ep. Parm. c. 2. and as he elsewhere Ep. 166. Our Heavenly Master hath so much admonished us to take heed of this; That he would make the common people secure even of evil superiors, that not for them the chair of saving doctrine should be destroyed. Therefore the chair ought not to be forsaken, much less destroyed for the errors of the Precedents. O how St. Cyprian doth purge that poison of theirs to the quick! Epist. l. 3. Ep 2. If there be seen darnel to be in the Church, our faith and charity ought not to be hindered thereby, that because we see darnel to be in the Church, we therefore leave the Church, etc. The Apostle in the second Epist. to Timothy 2. saith: In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and certain indeed unto honour; but certain also unto contumely: but it is only lawful for God, who hath a rod of iron, to break the earthen vessels, etc. Let not any one assume to himself what the Father alone hath given to his Son, etc. It is (saith he) a proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, which wicked fury assumeth to itself. Let our Country men think sadly of this.  
It is objected to me, that the Church of Rome doth force her Proselytes to believe falsehoods, perniciously under Anathema in the Council of Trent.  
I answer; That if we should make an impossible supposition against all the promises of Christ, that the Church should in necessary points teach errors: yet even in that case, every child of the Church must exteriorly carry himself quiet, and not make commotions; for that were to seek a cure, worse than the disease, as in the like impossible supposition our Countryman Waldensis l. 2. c. 27. teaches. Non perperam insilire debet. He must not leap against the Church's face in rebellion: Neither is he bound to believe an untruth; nor yet is one in danger to incur the censure: For the Church cannot reach the mind; only God in a just sentence confirming her act reaches home, which cannot be in this case, for he should confirm an injustice. Whence it followeth, that no man is or can be compelled to believe untruths; but only not to make Schism: which by divine law is forbidden. And therefore St. Augustine's rule is still true: There cannot be no necessity of cutting off the Church unity, no not in supposition that she should command great errors.  
But you will not object, that if the articles commanded by the Church are in themselves true; yet if I cannot perceive their truth, after all diligence used to that end, it were hypocrisy in me; and therefore unlawful to adhere to that Church, I conceive though falsely, teacheth and commandeth false doctrines, and extraordinary practices upon those grounds.  
This truly is most seriously objected by some, but without all Solidity.  
For surely Christians are obliged by the law of God and reason to depose their own false judgements, in obedience to God & his Church, else this will open a gap to all itching ears (of whom we are premonished) to introduce each man his fancy, and prefer it before the wholesome doctrines of Christ delivered by his Church.  
Neither is it difficult for man, though learned to depose his own judgement, especially in order to external actions, for it is daily done by all sorts of timorate consciences, who do mangre their own reason, direct themselves by the authority of such, whom they know to be more learned than themselves.  
Mr. Hobbbs Chap. 15. and n. 13. saith, unusquisque rationem privatam, rationi totius civitatis submittere potest. Here he labours to lay the grounds of the derivation of power in the Commonwealth to determine what belongs to matters of religion, which he faith that the people have transferred to the Magistrate. He proves it as he faith evidently (I examine it not being pertinent to my design) His proof is, because every man in his private worship, before the City was made, was to be guided by his private reason, which therefore he might submit to the public reason of the Commonwealth. If this be true in point of reason, as Mr. Hobbs much contendeth in order to the civil Magistrate; how much more will this be concluded in respect of spiritual Magistracy, to whom this power is conveyed, not from the people, but from God, as Christianity teacheth. Mr. Hobbs goeth far beyond this, for he will have each one to be obedient to his Civil Church even in things clearly unlawful; as he tells us in his 15. Chap. num. 18. and elsewhere frequently. Thus they condemn Christian obedience in things most congtuous to Christian reason, and yet authorize their own tribunals contrary to faith and reason.  
Mr. Hobbs saith, n. 17. That except the power of determining God's worship, were in the law of nature translated to the City or Magistracy, that there would be infinite sects, divisions, and consequently confusions in it; and therefore he saith consequently enough, that every man must submit to it.  
The antecedent I understand not: for the law of nature is a law declared according even to him, n. 3. Pertacita rectae rationis dictamina, by the secret suggestions of right reason, in which he differs not from Cicero, Lex naturae est ipsa ratio summa, insita in natura quae jubét ea quae faeienda sunt prohibetque contraria, etc. It is not so much declared by reason, as it is reason itself in the highest acception seated in nature, and it is therefore called Lex naturae, because nature, signifieth a certain common virtue, which impels all men to a general prosecution of good, & avoidance of evil: whence they cannot will any thing under the pure notion of evil: In brief, the Law or light of nature radically is a power in the soul universally commanding the pursuit of good and declination of evil answerable to the first principles of reason: And therefore speaking rigidly, the soul in her creation is not so purely tabula rasa, a bare table; according to Aristotle and his followers, Plato and his whole school, she is enriched with universal principles, which are called primae Conceptiones unresistable principles, which have no other proofs than the true apprehension of the terms or extremes united: and therefore are primò verae, as Aristotle declares, these are the first truths in which men cannot differ in use of reason; for otherwise if they should fail in these, it were in vain to expect any subsequent discourses in superstructures, but as their discourses would enlarge, so would their errors: out of these, nature frames her commands universally, which is the Law of nature taken formally.  
Whence it follows, that in this matter of greatest concernment to humane nature: Namely, the worship of God; there needs no translation of power from each particular person to the City, or whole body of men, because it is as intimately connatural to each, as to all, to know what the law of nature dictates by the constant and secret suggestions of reason, what is to be done, and what is to be avoided, as Cicero tells us; whence principally comes, that we call Synderesis, or check of Conscience, else it is not a law of nature, but some superstructure, improperly called natures law, which inseparably is infused into the soul to all, who have a soul not hindered in her operations. But herein many err, who confound the hypotheses with the principles whence they are deducted; that is, remoter conclusions with the first, which are immediate, and serve as principles to all others.  
The Law, or light of natures therefore immediately dictates, that God is to be worshipped, and none can be ignorant of it, that know the signification of the terms: neither can they be ignorant, that God's worship must be performed in the best manner. Thus far Cicero his Summa ratio, pure reason convinceth, men cannot disagree in this; for as Cicoro notes, non opinione sed natura constitutum est jus. This depends not on opinion which is always ambiguous, but is a law as constant and evident as the law of nature.  
But because our natural knowledge of God is deducted only from his creatures, (for the objects of our understanding in this present condition of conjunction of the soul with the body, are only material or sensible natures deduced from our senses) hence our reason cannot reach to know the manner of God's worship, because that only is best which is pleasing to him, note converse, that is pleasing to him, which we judge to be the best; though out of this mistake each nation proceeding, or rather standing (as we say) in their own light, differed from each other, and every one from truth, in determining God's worship.  
To say therefore as Mr. Hobbs often inculcateth, that every particular man must submit to the whole body for determination of this, seems to be as impertinent a doctrine, as to oblige every blind man to have an inquest of blind men to determine what colour any things were of, to whose blind judgement every man should submit; though as Aristotle tells us, Caeaus non judicat de coloribus. The thing were wholly out of their Sphere.  
The determination therefore of the manner of divine worship, can only be had from God, because none can know his will but himself. For as Mr. Hobbs rightly teacheth, n. 14. c. 15. God's will is not to be thought similis nostrae, like to ours, but it is to be supposed to have only some Analogy with ours quod condipere non possumus, which our understand can not reach to. Which is also Aristotle's, Averro, and the best Philosophers doctrine.  
Whence it follows, that none can know what man nor of worship inmost agreeable, & consequently what is best. These wholly transcend our sphere, and therefore Christian Divivines most reasonably hold it necessary to have supernaturally revealed truths communicated to mankind to direct them in God's worship; and surely, it were as high and pecoaminous presumption in any, to offer to determinate this, as the building of Babel's Tower, of which nothing could be expected but eternal confusion. Whence it follows, that never any worship pleased God, which was not inspired by himself, no not in the state of nature.  
Mr. Hobbs must therefore retract his injuriously translated power to his Commonwealth, and teach his Disciples to seek this knowledge from God, even under the law of nature. As now Catholics observe in all worship exhibited to the Divinity, especially directed in all these supernaturals by the Church, from which they receive Gods orders.  
Aristotle indeed acknowledgeth the force of an argument drawn from authority to be very estimable, even in schools; and therefore we may adhere to so great authority, as the Church even in reason.  
But those, who cannot overcome their own tenuous reasons by overpoising them with so great authority, as the Church, certainly must either be mad, that is, hurt in their fancies, as I have observed some, though otherwise able to make unbroken discourses, in other matters of less concernment, which is easily possible, according to Philosophy, or else God for other sins blindeth their understandings, as he did Pharoah's; which obstacle they must labour to remove, that they may learn to obey God in his Church, else their condition will be every way most miserable, if they obey not for want of Christian humility they are in evident danger of hell, if they do obey they are in danger, because they do against Conscience; but the remedy of this is at hand, if they relinquish their own judgements, not by satisfying, which they pretend they cannot do, but by captivating to a sure Authority.  
Certainly, wicked fury hath made and increased this Schism: for granting, which is my second answer to the former objection; that when unity cannot be kept without detriment of eternal Salvation, it may, and aught to be broken without sin; but when by the conservation of unity no detriment of salvation is incurred, and that if this also may be obtained by persevering in unity, then at least there shall be no lawful cause to break unity, and those who break it, do incur certain damnation for sacrilegious Schism: But now Protestants remaining in union with the Church of Rome, should have suffered no detriment of their eternal Salvation, but had been in a certain way to arrive unto it. As we have showed before, by their own confession, that Catholics persevering in the same unity may attain unto salvation: wherefore it manifestly followeth that they without any cause went out of the Church (wherein they might have been saved) and cast themselves and their followers into the state of damnation: according to that of St. Augustine, De unit. Eccl. c. 19 None come unto Salvation and life everlasting except he hath Christ for his head; and none can have Christ for his head, except he he in his body, which is the Church.  
Again, which is chief to be pondered, and always to be repeated, those damnable doctrines (as they call them) taught in the Church of Rome, aught to have been declared by a general Council, and not by themselves, who are the least, if any part of the Church. Otherwise, if it should be lawful for every one to accuse the Church his mother of Heresy, and to leave her without any other discussing of the cause, a gate should be open to all Heresies; & the Church of God would be trodden under foot, yea all Christianity fall to ruin; this hath been the plea of all separatists, which they thought sufficiently proved, if only accusing of error be proving: as in the cause of England, D. Bilson and Covell, teach the necessities of Synods in these things, the first part p. 374. the other p. 110.  
And that which another replied, first that England might sufficiently judge of heresies, newly brought in, seeing it is matter of fact, to wit, whether this, or the other doctrine came down from our Father's Grandfathers, etc. or whether it were heard of but yesterday, or the day before? for this even children may perceive.  
The second point also, which he not only by mouth, but by pen (now frequent in other hands) so much urged, saying, that it is not needful to call a general Council, since by your confessions, as Cressy, fol. 443. seemeth to insinuate, that there is no infallible power in them: A doctrine which I was glad to find amongst you, yet I wondered at it, being already repugnant to what I had read in your former authors, as D. Stapleton, and D. Stratford of the Church, and of late in a book made by a Countryman of ours in Latin, called Systema Fidei: Cressie's words are these: No man will endeavour to oblige them further than &c. to believe an obliging authority in the Catholic Church, let is be limited and confined as straight, and with as many provises as any Catholic, or indeed any reasonable man shall think good. I say according to this power of defining, and establishing faith, it is to no purpose to call a general Council to declare heresies, when every ignorant fellow can do as much in order to the verity of declaring, though perhaps not in order to the coercive manner of declaring; yea, in the very power itself, for as much as according to this position of Cressy, the power of the Church in this particular may be restrained by any silly fellow, etc. Thus far this Author.  
To these I answer; For as much as concerneth matter of fact every nation may witness, what they have received, but they cannot make infallible discernment of matters of Faith without the supreme judgement of the whole Church, in whose only mouth there can be no errors: which is our principal question. Many things are conveyed to posterity, which are not matters of Faith, sometimes not of truth: this the Church only surly determines.  
To the second objection out of Gressy, I answer, that his words, though very harsh, yet in my judgement they may receive a more favourable gloss, upon connexion with the other parts of his discourse. He doth indeed to much even suspiciously savour of his old friendship, with that vertiginous and flashy Apostata Chillingworth, a man whom few examples have paralleled in often turning religion. But Cressy wrote this book in Neophitism, not being yet fully instructed in the mysteries of our holy faith, as St. Hierome noteth of Arnobius. which therefore is more excusable in him, though he should express his not throughly digested conceits, hardly endugh consistent with the verities of the Catholic faith. I do not believe that his intention was, so soon to play the master in teaching what he had not perfectly learned, which had been too preposterous, 〈◊〉 this whole books 〈◊〉 to give the History or gradation of his conversion, how he did reach from one degree to another and how he gathereth the sense of our doctrine, and Doctors, in his passage: wherein (as I said) it is no wonder, if being a Neophyte, he should boggle in his manner of explication, as his expression seemeth to do in this; but where he now is, he will better and more fully inform himself; and I doubt not but will rectify those passages which savour of mistakes.  
Neither doth it avail much, though many here stumble at these, and other of his passages; for St. Higher: saith, ep. 76. I think Origen to be read, So sometimes for application, as Tertullian, Novatus, Apollinaris, Cressy, and many more Ecclesiastical writers, both Greek and Latin, that we may choose what is good in them and avoid the contrary: There are some very good things in that book, though intermixed with other passages more harsh as he seems to express them, which a prudent reader may pick out and discern to his profit.  
It remaineth therefore firm and certain, that our Country men are bound under the pain of Schism and rebellion to reunite themselves unto the Church of Rome, their mother (as King James of famous Memory calls her, in his first speech to the Parliament) at least wise until a general Council he convocated, where their cause may be heard and decided, which indeed is virtually already done to their hands in the case of Germany: Wherein the proverb is true that one egg is not more like to another than these in the main point of Schism, though differing from themselves and others in points of Doctrine.  
From what is said we may conclude thus. Whosoever divide the unity of the Church without cause are in a damnable state, seeing (out of the third Chapter) Schism is an enormous crime; but Protestants do divide the unity of the Church (out of the 4 and 5 Chapters) and that without cause; (Chap. 6.) therefore Protestants are in a damnable state. Wherefore (as I said in the beginning) considering the danger of their souls they are bound to discuss the causes of their revolt; to weigh & ponder the reasons of the Catholics, that they may free themselves from such a miserable and dreadful state, return to the Church their mother, and so have God for their Father, love and maintain her unity, and so be made partakers of her charity.   

An Exhortation of the Author.  
I know that these sensible objects obvolved and ensnared in the delights of the flesh, strongly proposed either by actual possession or clear hopes of attaining, do so efficatiously move the powers of souls, drowned in sordid bodies; that poor man by the weak command of his will is hardly drawn from embracing them; therefore we must seek help otherwise, we must fly unto holy prayer, that we be not swallowed up in this gulf of mud; let more noble objects be proposed, it is not in our power not to be moved with those things we see; let us therefore look with the eyes of Faith upon the objects of eternal felicity promised to those who confess and follow Christ Jesus, certainly they will concern us, and by God's mercies through the trials of patience we shall at the length attain unto them.  
Let not therefore that be applied to us, which in times past Seneca. ep. 116. spoke of the adversaries of Stoic Philosophy: You promise too highthings, you command too hard things: we are poor creatures and we cannot deny all things to ourselves, lest we hear also his answer on the Stoics part: Our vices because we love them, we defend them, and we had rather excuse them then leave them: To be unwilling is the cause, not to be able is pretended. This consideration may easily imprint a serious reflection in the hearts of Schismatics  
To conclude all, let us hear the great Zealot of Peace thundering out to the Churches of Ephesus.  Ephes. 4. 
I therefore prisoner in our Lord beseech you, that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, with all humility and mildness; with patience supporting one another in charity, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: One body and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your vocation: One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, One God and Father of all, which is over all, and by all, and in us all. Amen.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 27. Line 11. Read Lions. P. 83. l. 17. read dissected. P. 87. l. 17. read prefects. P. 96. l. 14. read imposthume. P. 127. l. 10. read add faith. P. 136. l. ult. deal to. P. 138. l. 11. read these. P. 144. l. 12. read add not. P. 174. l. 7. read Epistles. P. 195. l. 15. read radices. P. 214. l. 13. read continuance. P. 239. l. 18. deal not. P. 242. l. 10. read not pertinent.