Of Schism in general, and the Application of it to the pre­sent separation.

We are to lay our foundation in the right notion of Schism: to that end, we shall shew you first the nature of schism in general; and then the nature of that schism of which the Co­rinthians were guilty: still making applicati­on. to the present Separation as we pass a­long.

For the first, that we may understand what Schism in general is, we must know that it is agreed by all that have formerly written about it, that the nature of it lies in practice; and not in opinion, farther than the opinion concerns the practice. Indeed the words, Heresie and Schism, sound the same Accommoda­tum est ad sig­nif. separatio­n [...]m qua quis separat ab ec­clesiâ. Isodor. 8. Etym. cap. 3. thing in the Text, and some other places of ho­ly Scripture; but after ages found reason to di­stinguish them; by confining Heresie to error in Faith, and schism to error in practice: and that practice peculiarly such, as is a breach of unity in the Church (as S. Austine and S. Hierom teach) what ever our opinions otherwise be.

Schisma, à Scissurâ vocatur, schism is a rent: therefore the Holy Scriptures express it, by caus­ing divisions; separating our selves; forsak­ing the Assemblies; heaping up teachers to our selves; and drawing Disciples after us, and the like.

Ignatius and S. Cyprian soon after define schism Cyprian Epist. ad Pupuen. Tertul. adv. Haer. lib. 1. c. 5. Irenae. lib. 4. c. 43. adv. Haer. Chrysost. in Ep. ad Eph. Hom. 2. by a renouncing, or not obeying or submitting to our lawful Guides, Bishops and Presbyters. And with Tertullian, S. Austin, S. Jerom, and the rest of the Fathers, schism is a breach of Ʋnity, by a Separation from the Church, and errecting Altar against Altar.

But when things of this nature had past a more through examination; it was at length concluded, that there might happen to be a just cause of separating from a true Church: and hence schism came to a more accurate and stated definition: and now it seems to be agreed on by all, at least Protestants, That Schism is an unlaw­ful Definition of schism. and unwarrantable or causeless rending or divi­ding the Church of God.

Schism is dividing the Church; therefore such as are said to be guilty of it, are supposed to be, or Ex communi sensu supponit, eum, qui sepa­ratur, fuisse unitum; ut Scissura, &c. Lud. d. la cand. in Tertul. bound to be members of the Church thus divided. Again 'tis an unlawful, unwarrantable and causless dividing; therefore it must be either without just ground; or, at least, without due counsel and advice, if the cause be just. According to Cameron and others; Schisma est secessio ab Ec­clesia, vel injusta vel temeraria: schism is ei­ther an unjust or a rash separation from the Church.

Once more; It is also generally agreed, That there can be no just cause of separation from a true Church, while we may lawfully Communi­cate with it; that is, while we may do so with­out sinning. So that schism is a refusing to com­municate with such a Church. It is as weakly, as needlesly said of some, that a not having [Page 7] actual communion with a particular Church is not schism. Who ever dream'd it was? yet a re­fusing to Communicate, or, as Ames saith well, a Schisma in tantum separa [...] ab Ecclesia in quantum re­nuntiat Com­munioni. Am. renouncing Communion with any Church, espe­cially our own, while we may continue it without sinning, this, I say, is schism; and indeed general­ly acknowledged to be so; in that all parties concern'd in the controversie, put it to this sole issue; whether the conditions of Commu­nion be lawful; that is, whether we may Com­municate without sin. And indeed as nothing is better than unity but duty; so nothing is worse than division or breach of unity, especi­ally in the Church of God, but sin.

Schism then is such unlawful breach of unity; and only a breach of charity as an effect of it. And all causeless separation is such unlawful breach both of unity and Charity: and such se­paration is causeless, when we may Communi­cate without sin: and consequently, is schism beyond all exception.

As there is little difference about the definiti­on Distinctions of schism. of schism; so less about the distinctions or modes of it. We every where find it said to be Partial, when we causelesly refuse to Communi­cate with a true Church in some ordinances on­ly: Total, when in all. It is negative, when we simply separate: positive and formal, when the separated gather new Churches, and set up Altar against Altar.

And now we have the foundation laid, not on the narrow principles of a party, but in its full latitude, according to the Scriptures and the Church of God. And I dare even challenge [Page 8] you to shew me one good Authour of any per­swasion, that hath written purposely of this point, that contradicts me in any one particular of the premises. I am sure, the worst of the separatists doe not: for that they generally excuse their se­paration, by this plea; that our Churches are null: or they cannot joyn with us without sin.

Of the Schism charged upon the Co­rinthians; particularly, in their preferring some Pastors to the sleighting of others.

YOu have heard what Schism, in general, is; and how notoriously the present Separation is guilty of it. Let us now consider the parti­cular Schisms in the Church of Corinth, and the agreeableness of ours with these.

The Corinthians seem to be charged with a threefold Schism. 1. In preferring some Teachers to the sleighting of others. 2. Refusing to ob­serve the lawful Customs of their own Church. 3. Dividing in the Communion of it.

The first we find, 1 Cor. 1. 10. Now I beseech you brethren, let there be no Divisions (or Schisms Gr.) among you; it hath been declared to me that there are contentions among you, vers. 11.

Now, what were these Schisms and Contenti­ons? Why, every one saith, I am of Paul, I of A­pollo, I of Cephas, and I of Christ; one not liking to hear any but solid Paul; another, any, but zealous Peter; a third, any, but eloquent Apol­los; and a fourth would hear none, but wait for the Inspirations of Christ himself.

Thus, we see we may be guilty of Schism, not [Page 15] only by refusing all Ministeries; but by having Itching ears, and heaping up Teachers to our selves; and by a partial preferring some kind of Teachers to the sleighting of others with pretenses of Edi­fying better by them.

This too palpably argues a renouncing and disobedience of our own Pastors, that notorious Donatist. In Causa Cecilia­ni Episcopi, cui crimina ob­jecerunt,—s [...] ab Ecclesiâ Catho­licâ diviserunt. Aug. To. 2. Ept. 50. Ecclesia propter quemlibet ho­minem relin­quere non deb [...] ­mus, ibid. Epis. ad Pup [...] anum: vid. et­jam Epi. 1. ad Cornelium. Schism branded by the most eminent Fathers in the Primitive Ages of the Church, as before was noted; and Mr. Hales tells us, that the peo­ples partial preference of some Bishops before o­thers, hath been the general cause of Schism in most Ages; yea, he adds, that he that reads St. Cyprian, would imagine that that Father thought, there was no other Schism but this.

Hear him in one place for the rest; unde enim Schismata, &c. whence do Schisms and Heresies arise? but when the Bishop who is one, and go­verns the Church, is contemn'd by the proud presumption of certain persons; and the Man that is honoured, Dignatione Dei, Indignis homi­nibus Judicatur, is judged by unworthy men.

Now, are not our New Churches Schismatical enough for this Cause also? Is it not respect of Per­sons that draws our people from us, to hear their New or Old Teachers?

The Preachers say, indeed, they must take care of their own old Flocks; and the people say, they must hear their old Ministers.

But, besides what we have said to this already, we must say, the cheat is too manifest: For, how few of their old Ministers are left, that will preach unto them? Many are dead; many con­form; and some are honest and modest, and like [Page 16] not to be Independents and gather Churches: And very few of these few, that are left, and do take this liberty, are to be found near their old places; except they are such, as were ejected out of the best of our Towns.

But the Non-Conformists are godly, zealous and painful Preachers: And what is this but to inti­mate that we are not so, though, thanks be to God, you cannot say it; especially in the Pari­shes, where your Godly Preachers would gather their Churches.

But, my brethren, is not this to say, I am of Paul, &c. Deceive not your selves, this is not your vertue, or your strength, or spiritualness above others; but indeed your Sin and Schism, your weakness, and your flesh.

The Apostle saw (though you cannot,) envy­ing, strife and faction in these, and such like pre­tences. I write unto you, saith he, not as unto spiritual, but as carnal and Babes; for ye are yet carnal: For whereas there is envying and strife and Divisions or Factions among you, are ye not carnal and walk as men? And all this he proves, after this manner; for while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are ye not carnal? 1 Cor. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Yet you may not escape thus: Your practice hath a double Aggravation, beyond theirs.

1. The Preachers in Corinth were all of one kind of Ordination, and Pastors of the same Church; and did not at all countenance this par­tial respect of their own gifts, but rather reprove it; as you have heard the Apostle, who was one of them: So that there was no Schism or diffe­rence [Page 17] among the Pastors; and St. Hierom's great In. cap. 3. ad Titum. Cause of Schism was wanting; who tells us, that it Separates from the Church propter Episcopalem dissensionem.

But you Separate from us, and adhere to such as are no allowed Pastors of our Church, either by Presentation, Institution, Induction, or, for the most part of them, Ordination it self; and we have cause to fear, that our Differences are made not only by the people, but chiefly by the Teachers.

Secondly, Paul, Apollo and Cephas, as they were Ministers of the same Church, and at unity among themselves, so they had all the same Mode of Worship, the same Government and Discipline, as well as Doctrine.

But now, as you forsake your true Pastors, so you make new Churches of another Ministry, Worship and Government, and quite of another Constitution; and where is your Sobriety to run thus upon a Total Separation from us? What think ye, are ye not carnal and walk as men in the Apostles Logick? Yea, I say, ye are children, and driven of the wind and tossed.

The Second Sort of Schism, viz. sleighting lawful Usages.

THese Corinthians were further blamed with a sleighting the Customs of the Church; for the Apostle, having in the beginning of this Chapter, minded them of the Decency of some [Page 18] particular Circumstances of Worship; he at length enforceth their observance by an Argu­ment from Custom in the Churches of God, v. 17.

But perhaps, though this be a fault, some may think it not always so great a fault, as to be call­ed Schism; especially when men keep their Church.

Yet it may not be amiss to observe that Beza placeth the nature of Schism in this very thing; a leaving the Church for the sake of some ex­ternal Rites.

And I see not how our new Churches can be excused in this point: For do they not take of­fence at our Rites and Ceremonies? Do they not plead this offence, and this only or chiefly, for their Separation? Though our Rites are not only Rites of Custom, but of positive Laws too: Though our Rites are such as the Communion of the people is little concerned in: Yea, though they are such also, as all former Non-Conformists stiffly contend, none ought to Separate from our Churches for; and much less to gather them­selves into new Churches; as it is at this day, when, you know, you are indulged to omit them without penalty or Separation.

The last Charge of Schism in Co­rinth, a dividing at the Commu­nion, in the Text.

LAstly, these Corinthians were guilty of Schism also by their Divisions in their Communions; reproved in the Text; explained in the Verse be­fore it; In eating, every one taketh before other his own Supper; and one is Hungry and another is Drunken, i. e. saith Calvin, they drank too freely and merrily at their feasts joyned with the Lords Supper; wherein, also, the Rich excluded the Poor, and Factiously denied them to Communi­cate with them; and after the Rich had done, the Poor were suffered to eat together, only of what the Rich had left: Thus, they Divided in their Love-feasts, as most consent; but Pareus thinks also, in the Lords-Supper it self.

Thus Ʋnity was broken; and that's Schism: Thus, saith Grotius, it happen'd in their Times, which is faln out much more in ours, that the thing instituted for the incorporating and unit­ing of Christians, in vexillum Schismatis vertitur; is made the occasion of Division and Schism.

This kind of Schism, is too easily applicable to our present Separation, which cannot escape alike, yea a far worse Accusation: For do not our brethren avoyd Communion with us especi­ally in the Eucharist? Hath not this Communi­on been the only matter of their Division, when they so long joyned with us in all things else? None can deny it.

But, their Schism is now commenced much higher, by the following Circumstances.

1. The Corinthians divided only in one Ordi­nance with partial Schism; our brethren, in all, with total Separation.

2. The Corinthians held their divided Com­munions in the same Publique Place; our brethren Ver. 18. & 20. leave our Publique Churches, and have Private Houses for Publique Worship.

3. Their divided Communions were successive; and not at the same time; but some before, some after other, v. 21. but our brethren set their new Verse 21. Altars directly against ours in point of time; in plain opposition.

4. The Corinthians communicated with the same Pastors, in the same Modes of Worship and Government; yet for dividing among themselves were Schismaticks; and who can excuse those that renounce their Pastors, and heap up new ones, of another Ordination, to serve another Al­tar, under another Mode of Worship, Govern­ment and Discipline?

The Sum is; the Corinthians were Schisma­ticks for dividing only in one point: But our bre­thren divide from us in all things; in our Pastors, Temples, Assemblies, Worship and Government: Yea, they have new Pastors, Places, Assemblies, and all things else, concurring both to Negative, and Positive, and Total Separation; and if this be not Schism, in the Rankest sence imaginable, say, what is.

Of the Contempt which falls upon Church, as a Publique Place of Worship, by Schism.

YOu have heard the first Evidence, viz. Schism; but because your patience would fail me to speak of the Second, viz. Prophaneness (though doubtless we have too much reason for that also) I shall employ the time remaining, in lamenting the Contempt, which necessarily falls upon the Church of God, by Schism and Sepa­ration; beseeching you, at last, for Pitie's sake, to have no hand in it.

Despise ye the Church of God? Whether we un­derstand the Locus or the Coetus, the Place or the Assembly, such as Separate shew plainly, that they despise the Church of God.

First, they despise the Publique Place of our God's usual Worship; as the Synogogue is pro­perly the Meeting of the People, and improper­ly the Place in which they meet; so the name Church, saith Grotius, hath both Significations; but here, as he conceives, and is plain enough in Vid. ver. 20. with 22. the Context, we are especially to understand the Place: For so early it seems the Church had Places peculiarly devoted to divine Service; and Eusebius observes, it was evidently so in Di­oclesians time.

These Churches or Temples, were then di­stinguisht from their Private Houses, by their pro­per uses; these were to eat and to drink in, [Have [Page 22] you not houses to eat and to drink in?] and for Civil Conversation; but the Church for divine things; Prayers, Doctrine, Sacraments, the Pub­lique Exercises of Piety and Religious Worship; therefore called, as in the Text, the Churches of God. Despise you the Church of God?

Not that divine Worship is to be wholly shut out of our Private Houses: Yet it ought to be such as agrees with the Nature of them, viz. Family-Worship. Publique Worship in Private Houses, when we may have Publique, hath been ever a Solecism in Religion: So we must also eat and drink in the Church; yet, in such wise, as a­grees with the Place; not after a common and carnal manner, as these Corinthians did; but in Christian Communion, after our Lords Institution, as the Apostle commands.

Now, by Schism, this Church or Publique Place of God's Worship was despised among them; thereby, they made it as their own hou­ses; they gave it nothing of its due Reverence; they despised the Worship of it, and the God of it, by turning it into a Den of Thieves, stealing from God and the Poor; and a Sty of Swine, by their Sensuality and Luxury; a House of Pride and Faction, of Envy and Division; which ought to have been a House of Prayer and Piety, a House of Purity and Unity, in the Communion of Saints.

Did they thus despise God's House, and do Applicat. not we, much more? P. Martyr complains of his Times; now the Temples lie open all the day long, for walking, news, and all sort of prophane business; [Page 23] and minds us of our Saviours whipping the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple; and it cannot but seem strange to us, that such, especially, as de­spise the Temple in its holy uses, should yet thus prophane it.

But, this is not the Contempt, I chiefly bewail; for while men forsake this Publique House, and build others for Divine Service; can they more shamefully despise it? While they forsake it, e­specially upon such Grounds, as they imagine should carry away all others, as well as them­selves; can they take a more effectual course to render it contemptible? If after these cross Ex­amples, others should be tempted to do so wick­edly, what would become of our Temples?

They may stand a while indeed as forlorn and neglected Monuments of our Irreligion and A­theism; but, at length, must fall, and the Magni­ficence of England fall with them, to the impa­rallel'd reproach of our Church and Nation; they may serve a while, for meaner Offices than our own Houses, as some of them lately did, but too soon we may have cause to lament with the Prophet,

Lift up thy feet to the perpetual desolations; even all that the Enemy hath done wickedly in the San­ctuary: they have defiled by casting down the Dwelling place of thy Name to the ground; they said in their hearts, let us destroy them together; they have burnt up all the Synagogues of God in the Land: O God, how long shall the Adversary re­proach? Psal. 74. 2. to 11.

Yea, it is not an Enemy that reproacheth us; then we could have born it. We took sweet counsel Psa. 55. 12. 14. [Page 24] together, and (lately) walked to the House of God in Company.

I know you will say, that our brethren intend no such thing; but this is, plainly, the intention of their Actions, if not of their minds, which ought chiefly to be observed, and without which the intention of their minds is insignificant.

The Contempt of the Assemblies by Separation.

SEcondly, suppose by the Church of God we understand the Coetus or Assembly of Chri­stians; how are these despised, while you treat them as unworthy of your Company? while you reject our Pastors, our Members, our Worship and Ordinances, as well as our Temples?

What can be the Intention of your Separati­on, but to reflect upon us as too too corrupt; and to censure us as Assemblies of Sinners and Publicans, though you heed not who are the Pha­risees; and plainly to expose our Bishops, Pastors, Government and Worship to Publique Scorn and highest Contempt; and the Church of England, and our Parochial Congregations, to the cer­tainest Method of Reproach and Ruine; should others be perswaded to deal so spitefully with us as your selves?

I say, this way of Separation, as it immediate­ly plucks up our Antient Land-marks, and dis­solves our Parochial Constitution; so, it leads directly to the tearing our Prayer-book again; [Page 25] the trampling, first, upon our Government, next upon our Governours; and, if wiser men than I am, have any skill at ghessing, a betraying our Church, and the Reformation of it to Forraign Invasion and Usurpation; the barbarous Capti­vity of spiritual Egypt and Sodom; which God avert.

If not, then this must be for a Lamentation: How doth the City sit solitary that was full of peo­ple? I am. 1. How is she become as a Widow? All her Friends have dealt treacherously with her; they are become her Enemies. Judah is gone into Cap­tivity. She dwelleth among the Heathen. The ways of Sion do mourn, because none come to her solemn feasts; all her Gates are desolate; her Priests sigh; her Virgins are afflicted, and she is in bitterness; her Adversaries are the chief; her E­nemies prosper; and from the Daughter of Sion all her beauty is departed.