on the 14th day of the Moon For the Eastern Churches alledging the practice of S. John and Philip for the 14th day had a better ground for it than a Jewish custom namely that of Christian Charity and Baronius notes it as worthy of our observation that the Apostles had anciently appointed that though Easter were observed on the Lords day by the generality of Christians yet they should gently tolerate the Judaizing Converts which were of the circumcision and were in great numbers in the Eastern parts See Baronius's Annals ad Ann. 167. p. 168. Now the Western Churches pleaded for their practice which was the observation of the Sunday following the Authority of S. Peter and S. Paul who had fully convinced the Gentile converts that all Jewish rites were to be laid aside as having had their full completion in Christ but yet as in other like cases they were instructed to bear with the Jews as for some time they did for the first time that this controversie was agitated was between Anicetus Bishop of Rome and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who according to the custom of other Asian Churches celebrated Easter day on the 14th of the Moon For which practice Polycarp alledged the Authority of S. John And Irenaeus in an Epistle mentioned by Eusebius l. 5. c. 18. tells us that Polycarp came to Rome to discourse with Anicetus concerning this and other different observations between the Eastern and Western Churches and having after some conference amicably agreed other controversies they still differed about this observation but without any violation of the bond of Charity for they communicated together Anicetus giving leave to Polycarp to perform the offices of Divine Worship in his Church and it was then concluded That both Churches should be at liberty to observe the Ancient customes delivered to them from their Predecessors But about the year of Christ 198. Victor Bishop of Rome revives the controversie with Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus who was then 65 years old and came within a little time of S. John being cotemporary with Polycarp Victor pleads that the custom of his Church was derived from the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul and that all his Predecessors had celebrated Easter on the Lords day See Eusebius lib. 5. ch 21 22 23. And Nicephorus l. 4. c. 36. Polycrates in his Epistle mentioned by Eusebius l. 5. c. 24. replies That all the Provinces of Asia observed it according to an Ancient tradition received long before i. e. before the second Century from S. John and S. Philip from Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna from Thraseas Bishop of Eumenia Sagaris of Laodicea Papirius and Melito Bishops of Sardis who always practised according to the same Canon and all the Bishops of Asia then living consented to and subscribed his Epistle Upon this Victor beginneth to storm and threatneth to Excommunicate the Bishops of Asia as Heterodox and to that end he assembleth the Bishops under his Jurisdiction who with one consent declared for peace desiring his forbearance and disliking his too great severity The Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor on this occasion is yet extant in which he declares That although for his part he was resolved to observe the Feast of Easter on the Sunday according to the practice of the Western Church in which he lived yet he could not approve that the Eastern Church should be Excommunicated for observing an Ancient custom and mindeth Victor that the Bishops before him had never broken the Churches peace on this occasion But no mediation would prevail Victor was Victor still and proceeds to denounce an impotent sentence against the Asian Churches Baronius says something to excuse the severity of Victor viz. That as long as those Churches were Catholick and incorrupt they of Rome thought it expedient to tolerate that custom but when from that custom Schism and Heresie brake in upon the Asian Churches for Montanus having diffused his Heresie through Asia those Asians began to plead that they had received this Tradition from their Paraclete that the Pascha ought to be celebrated on the 14th of the Moon and on no other day and that all such as practised otherwise were in an error then Victor thought it his duty to restrain this error 2. This Opinion of keeping Easter after the Asian manner was taken up by many Hereticks and so spread it self that it invaded the very bosom of the Roman Church and pluckt thence one Blastus who in the face of that Church maintained the Asian against the Roman Custom Tertullian speaks of this Blastus in his book de Praescriptionibus c. 53. saying that he endeavoured to bring in Judaism affirming that the Christian Pascha was not to be kept otherwise than was prescribed by the Law of Moses And this opinion of Blastus drew away so many after him that Irenaeus wrote a book of Schism directed purposely against Blastus but could not recal him And now let the indifferent Reader judge whether the subject of this controversie were most unnecessary most vain as our Author declaims Victor indeed did prosecute it with too much heat insomuch that the Cardinal knows not what to say in his excuse An verò quod potestate jure faciebat recténe fecerit dubitatum est saith the Cardinal Doubtless the Asian Churches were sui juris not under the jurisdiction of Victor or if they had been yet was he not unblameable in Excommunicating all the Churches of Asia for the fault of some few that had crept in among them whom in due time they would have restrained by their own authority He was also too precipitate in not yielding to the mediation of his own Bishops in behalf of those Churches And lastly he was much more culpable for imposing this observation on the Asian Churches as a matter of Faith and judged them to be heterodox and excommunicate that would not submit Baronius his words ad annum Christi 198. p. 191. of the Antwerp edition are Totius Asia Ecclesias cum aliis finit imis tanquam alterius fidei opinionis à communi unitate Ecclesia amputare conatur Nor were the Asian Churches without fault for yielding so long to a Jewish Ceremony which might long ere that time have been decently buried as other Jewish customes had been And also for suffering some among them to teach a necessity of observing the Christian Pascha on the 14th day and no other So that to conclude though the Roman Church was in this particular stronger in the Faith yet as our Author saith they should have born with the imbecillity of their weaker Brethren a thing which he observes S. Paul would not refuse to do p. 218. To which I say that S. Paul did comply for a while with the Jewish Converts in the Case of Circumcision but when some of them pleaded for a necessity of Circumcision he thunders against that Opinion as loudly as Victor did against this saying That if they were Circumcised i. e. with an Opinion of the
necessity of it Christ should profit them nothing Gal. 5. 2. Now from this History as our Author had contrived it he drew several wilde inferences As first p. 203. In this fantastical Hurry I cannot see saith he but all the World were Schismaticks To which I reply That all the World were not concerned in it there being some Nations that differed from both these in the observation of Easter as Socrates l. 5. c. 21. hath observed for even among the Jewish Converts some that agreed on the 14th day differed in the Moon and Venerable Bede observes that our Nation which the Pope pretends to have been his Converts did in those primitive times observe their Easter on the 14th day which by the way is an argument that we at first received the Christian Faith not from the Church of Rome who exploded this custome but more Anciently from Joseph of Arimathea or from St. Philip who as many good Authors affirm planted the Christian Religion in our neighbour Nation of France and as the Asian Churches affirm was one of them that taught them this custom nor do we read that they were condemned for Hereticks for so doing Neither did those Eastern Churches who differed in the Moneth anathematize each other and Socrates ubi supra gives this reason for it They that agree in the same Faith may differ from each other in respect of Rites as the Reformed Churches do at this day And though the Roman Church did excommunicate the Asian yet were they never the more Schismaticks for that being they were sui Juris not under the Roman power And according to our Authors definition of schism they being never members of that Church from which they were excommunicate could not be guilty of schism notwithstanding Victors rigor We say therefore they were still members of the Catholick Church And as for the Roman Church what should make them Schismaticks For though Victor did arrogate too much as to the manner of his proceedings yet as to the matter his prosecution against a Jewish ceremony when it grew into an Opinion of being necessary to be observed was his duty and approved by the practice of St. Paul himself And while there was a controversie between their Governors the People and Clergy too of both Parties continued in due subjection to their Superiors and in mutual charity to one another So that the Separatists of our Age can have no excuse for their Schism from this instance But our Author infers Secondly that this fell out through the ignorance or which he mentioneth also the malice of their Governors and that through the just judgment of God on the People because through sloth and blind obedience they examined not the things which they were taught but like beasts of burthen patiently couched down and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiors laid upon them To which I Answer It doth not appear there was any charge of ignorance to be imputed to Victor or his People for the reasons above mentioned much less of malice Our present Sectaries do call their opposition to Ceremonies more innocent than that by the name of zeal and love to the cause of God Nor was there any thing imposed on the Churches of either side that concerned their Faith nor any custome or rite de novo but only the Asian Churches were desired to translate the custome of observing Easter from a day which gave offence not only to the Church of Rome but several other Churches Petavius says the difference was not de Catholico dogmate sed de Ritu seu Ritûs potiùs tempore And if the Superiors in the Asian Churches had thought the Alteration fit as shortly after they did it had doubtless been the Peoples duty to submit for every Church hath power in those things which are indifferent and much more in such things as give offence to other Churches to appoint and alter rites and ceremonies for the publick Worship of God and the People shew themselves not beasts of burthen but Christ's Free-men in submitting to their Governors as far as Christian liberty doth permit If Victor had imposed new Articles of Faith as Pius Quintus did in the Council of Trent doubtless those Primitive Christians would have resisted even to bloud of which they gave too many instances when they constantly endured all manner of torments rather than they would renounce the Faith once delivered to them Our Author therefore needed to ask pardon for wounding the reputation of these Ancient Worthies in cool bloud as well as for massacring at once the authority of all the Fathers in the heat of a temptation p. 204. where he says thus You may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity for resolution in controversies of Faith and how small relief we are to expect from thence for if the discretion of the chiefest Guides of the Church did in a point so trivial so inconsiderable so mainly fail them as not to see the truth in a subject wherein it is the greatest marvel how they could avoid the sight of it Can we without the imputation of extreme grossness and folly think so poor spirited persons competent Judges of the questions now on foot in the Churches Pardon me I know not what temptation drew that note from me To this I reply 1. Whoever he be that so contemptuously rejects the Authority and trampleth on the reputation of the Fathers hath sufficiently excused those that shall slight his own This is the Author 's own sense Golden Remains p. 260. 2. I refer it to the judgment of the Reader whether Victor Bishop of Rome condemning some of the Asian Churches for adhering too tenaciously to a Jewish ceremony which was of ill consequence to those and other neighbouring Churches were not more excusable than a private person living many hundred years after the fact and never rightly knowing or else wrongfully representing it insolently and causlesly condemning the Ancient Fathers not of one or two Ages or parts of the Church but all in general as if the failing of one man in a point so trivial and inconsiderable as our Author calls it were sufficient reason to condemn them all for indiscreet and poor spirited persons And to impute extreme grossness and folly to all that should think them competent Judges of our differences This is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beyond that of Abailardus who was wont to say that the Fathers for the most part did think this or that to be right but I think otherwise as if his single authority could out-weigh all theirs 3. He must pretend to have some new light for his guide and be either an Enthusiast or Socinian that can see any danger in appealing to Antiquity for resolution in controverted points of Faith For seeing there is scarce any point of Faith but some unhappy Wits have controverted it and in defence of their Opinions have put the Scriptures on the rack to make them speak their own sense how can
the Iconoclastae or adversaries to the worshipping of Images we may with more truth account them who were Iconolatrae worshippers of Images Hereticks if not Idolaters By the way let me observe that if it be my duty to withhold communion from such as set up a false way of worshipping God as this Council did it is my duty also to withdraw from the Communion of such as profess false opinions of the true God as the Arrians c. did to whose assemblies the Author sees no reason but we may joyn our selves p. 215. Though this be contrary to his own rule p. 218. It is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falshoods as to put in practice unlawful or suspected Actions I hope the Reader will not think his patience injured if on this occasion I give him a brief account how Images were first brought into the Church of God and what reception they found in the Primitive times of both which I shall speak briefly They were first brought in by lewd hereticks and simple Christians newly converted from Paganism the customs whereof they had not fully unlearned Bishop Usher in his Answer to Maloon p. 508. gives this particular that the Gnostick hereticks had some Images painted in colours others framed of gold silver and other matter which they said were the representations of Christ made while he was in the power of Pontius Pilate The Collyridians who at certain times offered Cakes to the Virgin Mary did also cause Images of her to be made Carpocrates and Marcellina his companion brought the Images of Jesus and Paul to Rome in the time of Anicetus and worshipped them But the more plentiful seeds of this Idolatrous worship were sown by the heathen converts as Epiphanius observes We have seen the pictures of Peter and Paul and of Christ himself saith he for that of old they have been wont by a heathenish custom thus to honour them whom they counted their benefactors or Saviours And the Arrians and Donatists having for a long time rent the Church of God and pulled down the Fences both of Church and State they made way for vast numbers of Infidels to enter among whom the Christians being mixed and living in subjection to them in divers places they learned this custom also of making and honouring the Images of those whom they accounted their Patrons and benefactors Men of heretical perswasions were the first that were tainted worshipping the Graves and Pictures of their Leaders then these painted toyes insnared the vulgar and at Rome under Gregory the Second the worship of them is first practised and defended but at the same time opposed by Leo Isauricus and his successors And in a Council at Constantinople 338 Bishops condemned it Anno 754. the primitive Fathers having before that time constantly disputed against the very making and painting of Images as well as worshipping them whose testimonies against Images it will be in vain to heap up here I think it enough to observe that since Bishop Jewel challenged the Church of Rome to shew but one authority out of the Ancients for setting up of Images in the Churches and worshipping them during the first 600 years there hath not yet been any tolerable reply made But in the year 787. Hadrian being Bishop of Rome and Tharasius of Constantinople like Herod and Pilate were reconciled in this mischievous design and having the opportunity of a female Governess for Dux foemina facti they prevailed with Irene the Mother of Constantine to assemble a Council at Nice which the Papists call the seventh Oecumenical Council but by the Ancients was condemned as a Pseudo-synod This Irene was a Pagan the daughter of a Tartarian King and an Imperious tyrannical woman who in despite to the Council of Constantinople that had decreed against Images summoned this Synod which she so far defended that she caused the eyes of her own son Constantine to be pulled out because he would not consent to the Idolatrous having of Images as Bp. Jewel observes in the Article of Images where you may see more of the ignorance and impiety of this Synod This was the woman that called this meeting of the Bishops and you may guess under what fears they were of the cruelty of that woman who was so unnatural to her Son He that will be satisfied more fully concerning the Ignorance of this Synod may read it in their Acts mentioned by Binius or Surius or in Bishop Jewel concerning the Worshipping of Images ubi suprá Mittens Irene convocavit omnes Episcopos saith Baronius ad annum 787. so that the Pope had not then the power of calling Councils by the Cardinals own confession There was great intercourse of Letters between Hadrian and Tharasius before this Council was assembled which was done at last by Tharasius perswading of Irene and then there met 350 Bishops who agreed in this base decree for the adoration of Images as Bishop Usher calls it In this Synod the question for admission of lapsed Bishops and Presbyters was first proposed and although the Bishops that were readmitted were tainted with Arrianism as appears by the Synods demand that they should in the first place make an acknowledgment of the blessed Trinity yet Baronius slightly passeth over that and makes mention only of their submission to that point which as well the Cardinal as that Synod chiefly designed to advance i.e. the worshipping of images Basilius of Ancyra Theodorus of Myrene and Theodosius Bishop of Amorium are first called and these three post confessionem Sanctissimae Trinitatis of which the Cardinal says nothing more make a large profession of their sorrow for having adhered so long to the Iconoclastae or oppugners of Image-worship and present a confession of the Orthodox Faith as he calls it in opposition to those errors and hereticks to which they had adhered Now what that Orthodox faith was appears by the Confessions mentioned by Baronius wherein they did Anathematize them that broke down the images as Calumniators of Christians and such as did assume the sentences that are in the Scriptures against Idols and apply them to the venerable Images with much more to the like purpose But concerning their reception into the Church the question is greatly agitated and the books being produced by which it did appear that Athanasius Cyril and other ancient Pillars of the Church had received notorious hereticks into the Church a Bishop of the Province of Sicilia objects that the Canons of the Fathers which had been produced were enacted against the Novatians Encratists and Arrians hujus autem haeresis magistros quo loco habebimus but in what rank saith he shall we place the Masters of this heresie To which it was replyed by a Deacon of the same Province that it should be considered Minórne est quae nunc novata est haeresis an major illis quae hactenus fuere whether this new-sprung heresie were greater or less than those that were before it This is
far as I understand the greatest part if not three for one of the English Ministers are of this mind That unordained Elders wanting power to preach or administer Sacraments are not Officers in the Church of God's appointment of this number I am one and Mr. Vines was another Of Bishops As for Bishops viz. a Diocesan ruling all the Presbyters but leaving the Presbyters to rule the People and consequently taking to himself the sole or chief power of Ordination but leaving censures and absolution to them except in case of Appeal to himself I must needs say that this sort of Episcopacy is very ancient and hath been for many Ages of very common reception through a great part of the Church And if I lived in a place where this government were established and managed for God I would submit thereto and live peaceably under it and do nothing to the disturbance disgrace or discouragement of it You may see how far Mr. Vines and Mr. Baxter did agree in the notion of a Bishop over many Presbyters Of which Grotius in his Commentary on the Acts and particularly chap. 17. saith that as in every particular Synagogue many of which were in some one City in Jerusalem 480. there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such was the Primitive Bishop And doubtless the first Bishops were over the community of Presbyters as Presbyters in joynt relation to one Church or region which region being upon the increase of believers divided into more Churches and in after-times those Churches assigned to particular men yet he the Bishop continued Bishop over them still For that you say he had a negative voice that is more than ever I saw proved or I think ever shall for the first 200. Years and yet I have laboured to enquire into it That makes him Angelus Princeps not Angelus Praeses as Dr. Reinolds saith Calvin denies that and makes him Consul in Senatu or as the Speaker in the House of Parliament which as I have heard that D. B. did say was but to make him foreman of the Jury As touching the introduction of ruling Elders such as are modelled out by Parliament my judgment is sufficiently known I am of your judgment in the point There should be such Elders as have power to preach as well as rule On this Mr. Baxter reflects p. 353. Though Mr. Vines here yield not the negative voice to have been de facto in the first or second age nor to be de Jure yet he without any question yielded to the stating of a President durante vitâ if he prove not unworthy which was one point that I propounded to him and I make no doubt but he would have yielded to a voluntary consent of Presbyters de facto not to ordain without the President And the difficulties that are before us de facto in setting up a Parochial Episcopacy which he mentioneth I have cleared already in these Papers shewing partly that the thing is already existent and partly how more fully to accomplish it The Instances which he gives are in the Episcopacy of the Protestant Churches in Poland from Adrian Regenvolscius Hist Eccles Sclavon l. 3. p. 424. N. B. Whereas from the first reformation of the Churches in the Province of the lesser Polonia it hath been received by use and custome that out of the Elders of all those Districtus Divisions which are 36. in Number one Primate or Chief in Order who is commonly called Superintendent of the Churches of lesser Poland and doth preside over the Provincial Synods be chosen by the Authority consent and suffrage of the Provincial Synod and that he be inaugurated and declared not by imposition of hands to avoid the suspicion of Primacy and the appearance of authority and power over the other Elders only by benediction and fraternal Prayers and by reading over the offices which concern this function and the prayers of the whole Synod for the sake of government and good order in the Church of God c. The other instance is of the Churches of the Bohemian Confession who have among the Pastors of the Churches their Conseniors and Seniors and one President over all related by the same Regenvolscius p. 315. The Elders or the Superintendents of the Bohemian and Moravian Churches c. are for the most part chosen out of their Fellow-Elders and are ordained and consecrated to the office of Seigniory by imposition of hands and publick inauguration c. Those that treated with the Bishops 1660. did yield to such an Episcopacy as the old Non-conformists would scarce generally have consented to i. e. to Bishop Usher's model Episcopacy is not such an upstart thing nor defended by such contemptible reasons as that the controversie is like to dye with this age undoubtedly there will be a godly and learned Party for it while the World endureth And it is a numerous party all the Greek Church the Armenian Syrian Abassine and all others but a few of the Reformed For Denmark Sweden part of Germany and Transylvania have a Superintendency as high as that I plead for p. 11. If you know no godly persons of the Episcopal way I do and as my acquaintance increaseth I know more and more and some I take to be much better than my self I will say a greater word that I know those of them whom I think as godly humble Ministers as most of the Non-conformists whom I know p. 12. and I believe there are many hundred godly Ministers in the Church of England and that their Churches are true Churches And I am confident most of the Ministers in England would be content to yield to such an Episcopacy as you may find in the published judgments of Bish Hall Usher Dr. Forbes Hodsworth and others Preface to the Five Disputations p. 9. Of Sacriledge Qu. 171. What is Sacriledge Ans It is a robbing God by the unjust alienation of Holy things As deposing Kings silencing true Ministers the unjust alienating of Temples Utensils Lands Days separated by God himself and justly consecrated by Man Mr. Vines his Letter to Mr. Baxter p. 35. of the 5. Disput concerning Sacriledge As for your Question about Sacriledge I am very near you in the present Opinion The point was never stated nor debated in the Isle of Wight I did for my part decline the dispute for I could not maintain the cause as on the Parliament side And because both I and others were unwilling it was never brought to open debate The Commissioners did argue it with the King but they went upon grounds of Law and Polity and it was only about Bishops Lands for they then averred the continuance of Dean and Chapter Lands to the use of the Church Some deny that there is any sin of Sacriledge under the Gospel and if there be any they agree not in the definition Some hold an Alienation of Church-goods in case of Necessity and then make the necessity what and as
the Scruples and suspicions of private Christians concerning the lawfulness of Actions required by their Superiors cannot warrant their separation Because their obedience to Superiors in things not unlawful is their duty and to omit a certain duty upon a bare suspicion is dangerous and sinful And for a full answer to this error I desire it may be considered what a scrupulous Conscience is which I take to be such an act of the practical understanding as resolves what is or what is not to be done but with some fear and anxiety lest its determination be amiss And it differs from a doubting Conscience which assents to neither part of the question but remains unresolved as doubting of the true sense of the rule in which case it is resolved that in all things doubtful we are to take the safest course And doubtless that wherein the generality of wise and good Men as well Ancient as Modern are agreed is much more safe than that in which a few less knowing prejudicated and guilty persons pretend to be doubtful But where there are only groundless fears and scruples concerning some circumstance annexed to a known duty it is the sense even of our Non-conformists That if we cannot upon serious endeavours get rid of our Scruples we ought to act against them And this is so lawful and necessary that we cannot otherwise have either grace or peace See more to this purpose in a Sermon at Cripplegate on Acts 24. 26. p. 18 19. And if scruple and suspicion were a just plea for Separation then every discontented Person that is resolved to contemn his Superiours every one that is affectedly ignorant and lazy or refractory to better information every one that hath melancholy humours and temptations or wants true Christian Humility or Charity may make separation and yet be guiltless So that this Opinion of our Author's would be an Apology for all Separatists which being allowed there neither was nor can be any such sin as Schism For I suppose it is sufficiently known that neither the Doctrine or Worship of any Church is so well constituted but some unquiet spirits have raised scruples and suspicions concerning them And unless the Church have power to command things lawful and no way repugnant to the Word of God though some giddy Persons may scruple at them it is impossible that it should preserve it self from confusion The Apostles I am sure did practise this in the Synod at Hierusalem Acts 15. And St. Paul silenceth the objections of contentious and scrupulous Persons with the Custome of the Churches of God 1 Corinth 11. 16. Every Congregation that pretends to have the face of a Church requires the obedience of its Members to all Orders for publick Worship as well as their consent to their Articles of Faith and without this it could not subsist I shall conclude this with Mr. Baxter's advice in his Dispute of Ceremonies Ch. 15. S. 3. That the Duty of obeying being certain and the sinfulness of the thing commanded being uncertain and only Suspected we must go on the surer side And the Author of the Sermon on Acts 24. 16. gives a good reason for it saying If a Christian should forbear praying or receiving the Sacrament every time his scrupulous conscience tells him he had better wholly omit the duty than perform it in such a manner he would soon find to his sorrow the mischief of his scruples And he adviseth In all known necessary duties always do what you can when you cannot do what you would Our Author p. 202. falls on an Ancient controversie concerning the observation of Easter of which he gives us this imperfect account That it being upon error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept and upon worse than Error if I may so speak for it was no less than a point of Judaism forced upon the Church thought further necessary that the ground for the keeping the time of that Feast must be the rule left by Moses to the Jews there arose a stout question whether we ought to Celebrate with the Jews on the 14th of the Moon or the Sunday following This matter though most unnecessary most vain yet caused as great a combustion as ever was in the Church the West separating from and refusing Communion with the East for many years together An impartial relation of the ground of this controversie as it lies in Church History will sufficiently discover how odiously it is represented First then whereas he says it was upon error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept I answer if it were an error the Church had it from the Apostles themselves for although the contending parties differed among themselves in the day yet both agreed on the necessity of observing Easter in Commemoration of our Saviour's Resurrection And the Controversie concerning the day puts it out of controversie that there ought to be a day observed Some learned men have thought the setting a-part of an Easter day to be grounded on 1 Cor. 5. 8. where S. Paul speaking of the Christian Passover says Let us keep the Feast and Grotius observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to abstain from all work for the offering up of holy things to God If the observation of any day be necessary unto Christians this of Easter is because it is the Mother and ground of our weekly Sabbath and is supposed to be the same which S. John calls the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. But we need not seek express authority from Scripture to make it necessary the practice of the Apostles testified by such early and authentick witnesses and the continued celebration of it in all the Churches of God do evince that it was not taken up on an Error no more than the observation of the Weekly Sabbath Mr. Hales says enough to resolve this objection in his Golden Remains set forth by Mr. Garthwait 1673. p. 260. on the question how we may know the Scriptures to be the word of God When saith he we appeal to the Churches testimony we content not our selves with any part of the Church actually existent but add unto it the perpetually successive testimony of the Church in all Ages since the Apostles times viz. since its first beginning and out of both these draw an argument in this question of that force as that from it not the subtilest Disputer can find an escape For who is it that can think to find acceptance and credit with reasonable men by opposing not only the present Church conversing in earth but the uniform consent of the Church in all ages So that the Church in all Ages agreeing that an Easter must be kept it was not taken up upon Error Nor secondly was it upon worse than error i. e. as our Author affirms a point of Judaism grounded on the Law of Moses to the Jews that the observation thereof was by some Churches solemnized
civilized or religious Nations As therefore it is said of the rise of Nile which in plentiful streams spreads it self over Egypt and yet the Origin of it cannot be found that it comes from Heaven so these solemnities of Assemblies and sacred Rites for the Worship of God being found to abound every where and no humane institution can be alledged as the rise of them we may conclude them to flow from Heaven into the Souls and Consciences of Men. But St. Chrysostome on Hebrews 10. asks how God came to command it and he answers by condescending only and submitting himself to humane infirmities which condescension Oecumenius thus expresseth Because men had a conceit that it was convenient to offer up some part of their substance unto God and they were so strongly possessed with this conceit that if they offered it not to him they would have offered it up to Idols God saith he rather than they should offer unto Idols required them to offer unto himself The third Proposition is That it is a result of the Law of Nature that such Societies should have a power to preserve themselves For seeing God nor Nature do any thing in vain and without this power all Societies will soon be dissolved and perish it follows that both by the Law of God and Nature those Societies that are assembled for the Worship of God should have a power to maintain and preserve themselves This Mr. Hales affirms There is a necessity of disproportion or inequality between Men for were all persons equal the World could not subsist Now this inequality and power implie a superiority in some and a subordination in others for par in parem non habet potestatem if every one were left at his own liberty as none could rule so none would obey That therefore there should be both sub and supra is of the same Law of Nature without which there could be no government or order at all either in Civil or Ecclesiastical Societies And seeing as Aristotle observed that the Paternal power was the Original of all Government Pol. l. 1. c. 2. every Father governing his Family both as a Prince and as a Priest in the most ancient times it is evident that both by Nature and Religion there ought to be a sub and supra and if so our Saviour never did nor intended to alter such Laws but to reinforce and to confirm them which that he did hath been already proved However whether this power shall be exercised by one or more Persons and be derived by Succession or applied by election this is to be regulated according to some positive determination either Divine or Humane And if the Law of God or where that is silent which I think it is not in the case of sub and supra in Ecclesiastical officers the Law of Man shall set up one or more Governors for the government of the Church the Persons advanced by such authority ought to have more than a Superiority of Reverence namely of obedience and a willing submission in all lawful and honest commands I conclude therefore with my Author p. 193. Communion is the strength and ground of all Society whether Sacred or Civil whoever therefore they be that offend against this common Society and Friendliness of men and cause separation and breach among them if it be in Civil occasions are guilty of Sedition or Rebellion if it be by Occasion of Ecclesiastical differences they are guilty of Schism And it shall alway be a part of my Litany From all sedition privy conspiracy and rebellion from all false Doctrine Heresie and Schism from hardness of heart and contempt of thy Word and Commandments good Lord deliver us I shall consider only one instance more of the Author 's too great indulgence to Schism and Heresie and then leave it to the Reader to judge Whether the opinion of the Ancients as it is generally received by our Modern Divines or the fond conceptions of the Author be more agreeable to the nature of the things or conducing to the peace and prosperity of the Church The instance is that of the second Council of Nice of which he says p. 211. That until that Rout did set up Image-worship there was not any remarkable Schism upon just occasion of fact To this our Author gives an Answer himself page 201. where he describes Schism on matter of fact to be such a separation as is occasioned by requiring something to be done by us which either we know or strongly suspect to be unlawful and concludes p. 202. that the first notable Schism of which we read in the Church viz. that concerning the observation of Easter did contain in it matter of fact Now how can these two assertions be reconciled That until the Schism occasioned by setting up Image-worship there was not any remarkable Schism upon just occasion of fact And that the first notable Schism that we read of in the Church viz. that about Easter did contain matter of fact and it was 600. Years before a Schism so notable as that our Author thinks p. 203. all the World were Schismaticks And if our Author be right the occasion of fact was just for he determines it to be so when something is required to be done by us which either we know or strongly suspect to be unlawful And the Asian Churches thought it unlawful for them to submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome who would impose on them a rite contrary to an ancient custome of theirs to be received as a matter of faith of which before Again he instanceth in the Schism of the Donatists which was a complete Schism by our Author 's own rules for they did not only erigere Altare contra Altare set up Bishop against Bishop to which our Author observes that St. Cyprian imputed the Original of all Church-disorders page 222. but they erected also new Churches and Oratories for the dividing Party to meet in publickly which serves to make a Schism complete p. 196. so that there were notable Schismes long before that occasioned by setting up Image-worship To that which follows in our Author p. 211. concerning Image-worship set up by the second Council of Nice I fully accord That in this the Schismatical party was the Synod it self and such as conspired with it For concerning the use of Images in Sacris first it is acknowledged by All That it is not a thing necessary 2. That it is by most suspected 3. It is by many held utterly unlawful and that the injoining of such a thing can be nothing but abuse And the refusal of communion here cannot be thought any other thing than duty All this is true but our Author speaks not the whole truth he calls that only schism which was heresie in a fundamental point concerning the Worship of God according to his express will in the second Commandment And when that Council had the confidence to condemn them as Hereticks that were