CHristians, as high motives as they have to Unity, are yet divided, not only by the existence of Schism, but about the notion of it. The Papist charges it on the Prote­stant; one Protestant charges it on another; and the Reason is, because they differ in their measures of Church-Ʋnity. Some require more to it than others; the Papist will have the Uni­ty of a Visible Head; some Protestants [Page 2]will have an Unity of Human Rites and Modes: Hence there comes a Schism about Schism. The very no­tion divides us. In this case it is worth the while to enquire into the true nature of Schism; in the doing of which two things must be premised. Something must be spoken of the Church; and something of the Ʋnity of it.

First, Something must be spoken of the Church. In the Old Testament we have [...] which is a word derived from Congregating; in the New we have [...], which is a word derived from Evocating, or calling out. The Jewish Church being shut up in one Nation could meet all together in one place; the Christian Church being spread over the World, cannot indeed meet all together in one place, but they are coetus evocatus, a company called out of the World to the Worship of God. The Church may be considered as Catholick, or Particular. The Ca­tholick Church may be taken, either as the very mystical Body of Christ, or [Page 3]as a totum integrale to all the parti­cular Churches on Earth. As the mystical Body of Christ it is invisible, made up only of real Saints; all of them are internally united to Christ the Head; all are animated by the Holy Spirit; all have the Joints and Bands of Grace; all have the effectual working in their hearts. This is the Church-Catholick in the Creed; this is the [...], the Assembly of the first-born, Hebr. 12.23. This is in Clemens Alexandrinus called [...], the Congregation of the Elect. Here are no damnata mem­bra, as St. Austin speaks. As Christ's natural Body did consist all of pure Members, so this mystical Body doth consist of true Believers. As in every Member of the natural Body there is an Human Spirit, so in every Mem­ber of the mystical Body there is the Spirit of Christ. Such is the Catho­lick Church, as it is the mystical Bo­dy of Christ. But as it is a totum inte­grale, made up of all the particular Churches on Earth; so it is, as its parts are, visible; and made up of good and [Page 4]bad. Some are living Members, Partakers of the Spirit of Christ; some are dead ones: Some are in internal conjunction with Christ, some are in external only: Some are in the Church really, and before God; some are in it only apparently, and before men. Thus the Church is a Field which hath Wheat and Tares; a Net, which hath good Fish and Bad; a Floor, which hath Corn and Chaff. In Isaac's Family there was an Esau; in the Colledge of Apostles, a Judas; in the visible Church there are foolish Virgins as well as wise; some have only the Lamps of Profession, whilst others have the Oyl of Grace. This may serve for the Church-Catholick. Now particular Churches are but partes similares Ecclesiae Catholicae, si­milar parts of the Catholick Church visible. The Catholick Church is as the whole Tree, Particular Churches are but Branches. That is the main Ocean; these are but Arms, and Creeks of it. To that (as Mr. Hud­son observes) the Promises and Pri­vileges [Page 5]primarily belong; to these they belong in a secondary way. That is the first receptacle of Ordi­nances, these derive them from that. In every particular Church there is (as St. Cyprian speaks) Plebs Pastori adunata, a People joined to a Pastor for the performance of Divine Wor­ship. Here the Word is preached, the Sacraments are administred.

2dly, Something must be spoken of the Ʋnity of the Church. The Unity of the Church is that where­by the Church is one. There are many Members, but one Body; ma­ny Sheep, but one Fold; many Stones, but one Building. The Apostle reckons up many Unities appertaining to the Church. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all. Here is unit as principii, one God that calls the Church: Ʋnitas termini, one Hea­ven that is hoped for by it: Ʋnitas mediorum, one Faith, one Baptism, [Page 6]to join men to Christ, and the Church: Ʋnitas Capitis, one Lord Jesus, who is the vital Head of the Church: Ʋnitas Corporis, one Body, in which the Members do all adhere one to another, and to the Head: And unitas Spiritûs, one Holy Spirit to animate and actuate the whole Body.

The Unity of the Church is not an Human thing, but Divine. The Unity is as the Church is, built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Eph. 2.20. All the Joints and Bands which tie the Church to­gether, are from Christ the Head. As under the Old Testament, God or­dained the Loops and the Taches, that coupled the Curtains together, to make one Tabernacle, Exod. 26.6. So under the New, Christ hath or­dained the Bands and Ligatures, that couple Believers together, to make one Church: Hence this Unity is stiled by St. Cyprian, Epist. ad Cornel. Ʋnitas à Domi­no, & per Apostolos tradita: An Ʋni­ty delivered from the Lord Christ, and by the Apostles; and by St. Austin, [Page 7] Ʋnitas Christi, the Ʋnity of Christ. Contra Cresc. l. 2. c. 31. l. 4. c. 21. St. Jerom, speaking of the Church of Christ as joined together in the unity of the Spirit, hath this notable Pas­sage. Ecclesia habet urbes legis, Com. in Mich. c. 1. Pro­phetarum, Evangelii, Apostoloram: Non est egressa de finibus suis, id est, de Scripturis Sanctis. The Church hath its Cities, the Law the Prophets, the Gospel, the Apostles, it goeth not out of its bounds the Holy Scriptures. That only is Unity which is found there. When the question was between the Catholicks and Donatists, Ʋbi sit Ec­clesia? Where is the Church; the Co­lumba unica, the Dove that is but one? St. Austin tells them,De Unit. Eccl. c. 2, & 3. that it was to be sought, Non in verbis nostris, sed in verbis Capitis; Not in our words, but in the words of the Head. Jesus Christ the Head knew his own Body: And again, Sunt certe libri Dominici, ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam: There are the Lord's Books, there let us seek the Church: And again, Nolo Humanis Documentis, sed Divinis Oraculis San­ctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. I will not have the Holy Church demonstrated by [Page 8]Human Documents, but by Divine Oracles. It was the notable Obser­vation of Bessarion, Fuit aliquando tem­pus quo immaculata Dei Spoas [...] Ecclesia summâ concordiâ tranquillissi­mâ pace, & intemera­tâ veritate fruebatur, cum simplicitatem, & puritatem Evangelicae Doctrinae maximi om­nes faciebamus, solis Sa­cris eloquiis contenti, his inhaerentes, his ac­quiescentes, in unum ab his collecti ovile sub u­no Pastore omnes agen­tes. Crab. Conc. Florent. Arch­bishop of Nice, That then the Church had the highest concord, peace and truth, when it did adhere to the simplicity and purity of the Evangelical Doctrine, contented with the Sacred Oracles, inhereing and ac­quiescing in them only, collected by them into one fold, and living under one Pastor. The only true Unity of the Church is that which is to be found in Scripture. When men will have an Unity not of God's making, but of their own, it falls out as when a piece of new cloth is put to an old Garment, there is a [...], a rent made. The Humane thing that did seem to fill up the Churches Unity, doth make a breach in it. Victor will have one Easter­day, and this little thing rents off the Eastern Churches from the Western. The Unity of a visible Head in the [Page 9]Church is very plausible, yet this is but a piece of Donatism to have the Church only in parte Papae. 'Tis (as Gregory said against John of Constan­tinople) Titulus in discissionem Ecclesiae, a Title to rent the Church in pieces. Nay, the very Roman Church (where it was hatched) is rent by it. Part would have a Council a­bove the Pope: Part would have the Pope above a Council. The Coun­cils of Constance and Basil call the Popes Schismaticks, and the Popes have cast off and reprobated those Councils. Thus those Human things in the Church, which are set up for Unity, turn to Ataxie; and like the Egyptian Reed, pierce and rent that hand that leans on them.

These things being so, it appears that the Unity of the Church doth not consist in any Human thing. But to instance in some particulars.

1st. It doth not stand in Human Rites and Observations. In the first Golden Age (in which, as Egesippus saith the Church continued a pure [Page 10]Virgin) there was little or nothing of Ceremony, but much of Unity. Christians were then of one heart, and of one soul, Acts 4.32. In after Ages Human Observations creeping into the Church, they were observed va­riè & pro arbitrio. Euseb. l. 5. cap. 23. Christians varied in the observation of Easter; some kept Easter on one day, some on another. They varied in their observation of Lent. Some fasted one day, some two, some more, some forty. They varied not only in the number of the days, but in their abstinence. Some eat Fowl with their Fish;Socrat. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. some were contented with dry bread only. They varied also in many other Human Observations, as may be seen in Ec­clesiastical Story. In all these there was no unity, Soz. Hist. l. 7. c. 19. yet the true Ʋnity was not wanting. They did not put uni­ty in such things, no; the Rule was, Differentia rituum commendat unitatem fidei, The non-unity in Rites commended the Ʋnity of the Faith. The Christians were wont to fast,Tert. con­tra Psych. ex arbitrio, non ex imperio; out of choice, not out of com­mand. St. Austin, Epist. 118. speaking of the [Page 11]various Customs in the Church, saith, that in such kind of things there was libera observatio; indifferent things re­mained indifferent; one did not impose them upon another; so there was no breach of Unity. When the question was, whether there should be in Bap­tism trina or simplex mersio; St. Gre­gory answered,Conc. To­let. 4. Can. 5. In unâ Fide nihil officit diversa consuetudo; In one Faith a di verse Custom hurts not. In the Coun­cil of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third, Can. 9. it is ordained, That where in one City, or Diocess, Crab. Conc. Tom. 2. there were people of divers Tongues and Rites, sub unâ Fide, there the Divine Offices should be performed, secundum diversitates Rituum & Linguarum Luther, speaking of the Popish Ce­remonies, saith truly, Sub Papâ est pompa externae unitatis, sed intus non [...]n si confusissima Babylon. Ʋnder the Pope is the pomp of external Ʋnity, but within there is nothing but a most confused Babel. It is certain Church­unity doth not consist in Rites; let men fancy what they will, there is but one healing Rule to be found, In [Page 12]necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque charitas.

2dly. It doth not stand in a Liturgy, or prescribed Form of Prayer. The Church for some Centuries was with­out a Liturgy, but never without Unity. The Liturgies ascribed to St. Peter, St. James, St. Mark, are plainly spurious; there are to be found the words [...] & [...], which were not extant in the first Centuries. There mention is made of Temples, Altars, Monasteries, such things as the Primitive Church knew not.Apol. 2. prope fi­nem. Tert. Ap. cap. 30. In Justin Martyr's time the Minister prayed [...], according to his ability. In Tertullian's he prayed, Sine monitore quia de pe­ctore, without any Prompter but their own heart. Epist 34. de Celer. In St. Cyprian's time the Ecclesiastical Lector was to read prae­cepta & Evangelium Domini, not a Liturgy.Euseb. de Vit. Con­stant. l. 4. c. 20. In Constantin's time, had there been a Liturgy, he had not needed to have composed a Prayer for his Army.Soc. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. In the time of Socra­tes, among all Forms of Religion, [Page 13]there were not two that consented together in precandi more. Set-forms of Prayer were not introduced into the Church, till the Arian and Pela­gian Heresies invaded it, and then to prevent the diffusion of Heretical Poyson, Set-forms came in. In the Council of Laodicea, holden about the Year 368. Can. 18. it was or­dained, that there should be caedem preces: But this was a Form of the Minister's own composing, as appears by the 23d Canon of the Third Council of Carthage, holden about the Year 399. which appointed that none should use a Form, unless he did first conferre cum fratribus instru­ctioribus. After which, in the Mile­vitan Concil, holden about the Year 416. Can. 12. it was ordained, that the Form used should be approved of in a Synod: Still this was a Form of the Minister's own making. It was many years after this before a Liturgy was absolutely imposed on Ministers, that they might not pray by their own Gifts only, but by the pre­scribed Forms of others. About the [Page 14]Year 800. Charles the Great being Emperor, Pope Adrian moved him to establish a Liturgy by a Civil Edict, and obtained it: And this is said to be Gregory's Liturgy. Thus the Church was much longer without a Liturgy than it can be imagined to have been without Unity. There­fore Unity doth not consist in it.

3dly. It doth not stand (as I take it) in a Diocesan Episcopacy. There are Bishops in Scripture, but no Dio­cesan ones. There are Presbyters or­dained in every City, but no Bishops ordained to be over them. In Thessa­lonica there were not one, but many [...]. 1 Thess. 5.12. The Pre­sidency there was in many, not in one. The Bishops at Philippi, Phil. 1.1. being more than one in one city, were no other than Presbyters. The Pres­byters at Ephesus are in express terms called Bishops, Acts 20.17, & 28. St. Peter exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock of God, [...], acting as Bishops among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. St. Paul would have Titus ordain [Page 15] Presbyters in every City, for a Bishop must be so and so. Tit. 1.5, 7. If the Bishop and Presbyter were not here the same, the reason, which must not be imagined, would be inconsequen­tial. There are the qualifying Chara­cters of a Bishop set down in 1 Tim. 3. and in Titus 1.7. but there is not one of them but is requisite in a Presbyter, not one of them peculiar to a Diocesan Bishop. The Scripture Evidence is very clear, that a Bishop and a Pres­byter are all one. When Aerius brought some of these Scriptures to prove it, Epiphanius, who calls him Heretick, gives only this poor Answer, That in many Churches there were no Presbyters; but who can believe that at that time there were more Bishops than Presby­ters; that, when there were more Bi­shops in one City, there should be no Presbyters at all there. It is a thing altogether incredible. Clemens, Salm. in App. ad Primat. fol. 50, 54. in his Epistle to the Corinthians, makes Bi­shops and Presbyters all one. Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, men­tions only Presbyters and Deacons. In the Epistle ascribed to Ignatius ad Mag­nesios, [Page 16]a Bishop above a Presbyter is called [...],Salm. in App. fol. 57. Com. in 1 Tim. 3. a novel Instituti­on. St. Ambrose saith, Episcopi & Pres­byteri una ordinatio est, there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter. St. Jerome saith,Epist. ad Ocean. & ad Evagr. Apud veteres iidem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuerunt. Ancient­ly Bishops and Presbyters were the same. Again,Com. in Epist. Tit. That the Bishop was greater than the Presbyter, consuetudine magis quam Dominicae dispositionis veritate, rather by custom, than by any true di­spensation from the Lord: And again, that before, Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. The Churches were ruled by the Common Council of Presbyters. St. Austin saith, that Episcopacy is greater than Pres­bytery, Secundum honorum vocabula, Epist. 19. quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, accord­ing to the Titles of Honour which are now used in the Church. Thus it ap­pears that a Diocesan Episcopacy is but Humane, and by consequence Church-unity doth not stand in it. The Reformed Churches which are without Episcopacy, are not without Unity. I conclude this with the Judg­ment [Page 17]of the Learned Dr. Ward, Determ. 109. who (speaking of the difference in Ecclesi­astical Government which is between our Church and those beyond Sea) saith, that it may, and ought to be tolerated, absque fraternae unitatis lae­sione, without any breach of Brotherly unity.

4thly. It doth not stand in the Civil Laws of Princes. When Magistrates were Pagans, there was yet a Church, and an Unity in it. When they became Christians, the Unity was the same, the Joints and the Bands were as be­fore, sacred, not civil; from Christ the Head, not from the Magistrate. It's true, the Church hath an external help and guard from good Laws, but its Unity doth not consist in them. Neque quia regna dividuntur, De Unitate Eccles. c. 12. ideo & Christiana unitas dividitur, cum in utraque parte inveniatur Catholica Ec­clesia, saith St. Austin, Kingdoms may be divided, but Christian Ʋnity is not; in both parts the Catholick Church is found. Should the Unity of the Church consist in the Laws of Magistrates, [Page 18]then the Laws being dissolved, there would be no Unity; the Laws being altered, the Unity must vary, and turn about to every point, as the Laws do. That which now is Unity, under a contrary Law must be Schism; that which now is a Schism, under a con­trary Law may be Unity. Under the Emperor Valentinian, the Orthodox may be the Church; under Valens, the Arrians may be it. Nay, as the Magistrate may be, you shall not know by him where the Church or the Truth is. In that great Schism, when the Bishops of the East and West fell out about the Council of Chalcedon, some would not part with a syllable of it, some utterly rejected it: The Emperor Anastasius, Magd. Cent. 6. cap. 8. Evagr. l. 3. c. 30. Aulicâ Sapientiâ usus, banished some of both Parties, aequale praemium veritas & mendacium tulêre, Truth and Falsehood were alike rewarded. Hence it appears, that the Unity of the Church doth not stand in Humane Laws, the true Unity is founded only in Scripture.

[Page 19] These things being so, I come to lay down the true Unity. The Church may be considered, [...] in its inter­nal Essence, or [...] in its external Communion. In the first consideration it hath invisible Bands to make it one; in the second it hath visible ones. The soul of the Church is, (as St. Austin speaks) internal Grace, the Body of it is external Profession and Commu­nion.

Take the Church in its internal Essence, so its Unity stands in the Holy Spirit, and the Graces of it. There is one body, and one spirit, Eph. 4.4. There are many Members in the Mystical Body of Christ, but they are all but one Body; and why so? They are distant in place and time, yet they are but one Body; distinct Bodies have distinct Spirits, but they have but one Holy Spirit, which unites them not only to Christ the Head, but one to another; so they must be but one Bo­dy, because they have but one Spirit to actuate them. Hence St. Austin saith, Non potest vivere Corpus Christi nisi de Spiritu Christi, In Joh. Tract. 26. The Body of Christ can­not [Page 20]live but by the Spirit of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that makes them one living Body.

Under the Spirit there are three Uniting Graces which make the My­stical Church but one; they are Faith, Hope, Enarr. in Psal. 37. and Charity. Hence that of St. Austin, Si Fides nostra sincera sit, & Spes certa, & Charitas accensa, sumus in Corpore Christi. If our Faith be sin­cere, our Hope certain, our Charity kind­led, then are we in the Body of Christ. Hence St. Bernard observes a triple Vertue in the Primitive Church,De ascensi Domini, Serm. 5. Magnanimity, Longanimity, and Ʋna­nimity; the first was from Faith, the second from Hope, the third from Cha­rity. Faith unites all the Members in the Mystical Body to Christ the Head, and so they are one in Capite. Love unites them not only to the Head, but one to another, and so they are one in Corpore. Hope unites them to one cen­ter in Heaven, and so they are one in Termino. In these things stands the Unity of the Church in its internal Essence.

[Page 21] Take the Church in its External Communion, so its Unity stands in the Holy Ordinances. They continued sted­fastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fel­lowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, Acts 2.42. These are the golden Bands that tie the Church to­gether. As the Church mystical is made one by Graces, so the Church visible is made one by Ordinances: As the same Graces are all over the one, so the same Ordinances are all over the other.

The same pure word is preached.Com. in Psal. 133. The Church (saith St. Jerome) Non in parietibus sed in dogmatum veritate consistit, It doth not stand in Walls, but in True Doctrines. The Hereticks, as the same Father goes on, may have the Walls, but the Church is where the Truth is. The Arians boasted of their Unity,Contra Auxent. but as St. Hilary tells them, it was but Ʋnit as Impiet at is, an Ʋnity of Impiety. The Unity of Truth is in the Church only; there all have one Law, one Charter; all are [...], concorporated and copart­ners of the promise, Eph. 3.6. No [Page 22]body of men hath such a Law or Char­ter as the Church hath.

The same Sacraments are admini­stred. These are Seals of the Churches Charter, and Symbols of that Com­munion which we have with Christ as Head, and one with another as Fellow-members. In Baptism we enter into the Holy Society; in the Lord's Sup­per we are Fellow-commoners, and eat together as Members of the same Family.Contra Faust. Ma­nich. l. 19. cap. 11. St. Austin saith, That in every Religion men are joined together, aliquo signaculorum consortio, by a fellowship in some Seals. No Society of men hath such Seals as the Church hath.

The same Prayers in substance are made; tho in the Primitive times there was no Common Prayer, or Liturgy in the Church,Ignatius, Epist. ad Magn. yet there was ever [...], a Common, that is, a Publick Prayer, which in the mouth of the Minister is as it were breathed out by all the people, that the Divine Bles­sing may come down upon the Word and Sacraments.

I shall here add nothing touching Ecclesiastical Discipline, because the [Page 23]particular mode of it is not so essential to a Church as the other are.

To conclude, Where there are law­ful Pastors dispensing Holy Ordinances, and a People meeting, and unanimously joining in the use of them, there is a True Church; Hic est fons Veritatis, hoc Templum Dei, hoc domicilium Fidei, as Lactantius speaks, There is the Fountain of Truth, the Temple of God, the Dwelling-place of Faith.

These things being premised touching the Church, and its Unity; I come now to enquire into the Na­ture of Schism.

SChism is the Scissure of the Church visible, a breach of the sacred Ʋnity of it without cause. 'Tis a Scissure of the Church, De Unitat. Eccles. a renting, vestem Christi inconsutilem, the seamless Coat of Christ, as St. Cyprian speaks. It was (as St. Au­stin speaks) signified by the breaking of the net, Luke 5.6. The net at Sea brake, Ibi Ecclesia in hocse­culo, hic in fine seculi figurata est Austin in Joh. Tract. 122. propter significanda Schismata, to note out the Schisms of the Church on Earth; but the Net drawn to the Shore brake not, John 21.11. to note out, that the Saints in Heaven are, in summâ pace, [Page 25]in the highest unity. No Schisms are in that blessed Region.

'Tis a Scissure of the Church Visible. In the Church Mystical there are no Schisms. It's true, the Flesh (which in the Saints warreth against the Spirit) is a Schismatick, and makes such rents in their Souls, that they are in a sort divided from themselves. It is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me, saith Saint Paul, Rom. 7.20. He distinguisheth his corrupt Self from his renewed Self. But yet that Flesh cannot, shall not totally, finally rent them off from the Mystical Body. They may fall into sins, yet those Principles which tie them to the Mystical Body, are not extinct; the Spirit of Grace will not leave them, but raise them up out of their Falls. Hence St. Austin saith,In Psal. 88. Si in aeternum caput, in aeternum & mem­bra, If Christ the head be for ever, so are the Members. Schism then is not in the Church Mystical, but in the Church Visible.

'Tis a breach of the Sacred Ʋnity in the Church, I mean of an Unity found­ed in Scripture; every breach of that [Page 26]Unity is Schism; but a breach of an Human Canon or Law is not Schism. St. Cyprian (shewing the madness of Schismaticks) saith,De Unit. Eccl. Quis audeat scin­dere Ʋnitatem Dei? Who dares cut in pieces the Ʋnity of God? So he calls the Churches Unity, because it is not Humane.Contra Cresc. l. 5. c. 21. St. Austin saith, It is a great evil to make a Schism, ab Ʋnitate Chri­sti, not from man's Unity, but from Christ's; and the same Author calls Schism in divers places,Contr. Lit. Pet. l. 2. c. 30, 81. Sacrilegium Schismatis, the Sacriledge of Schism, because the Unity is not Human, but Divine. When the Papists charge Schism upon us, as casting off the Pope the Head of Unity, the Learned Dr. Hammond answers,Tract of Schism, 157. He was never appointed by Christ to be Head; and the Answer is sound, No such Unity was appointed in Scripture.

Again, 'Tis a breach of the Sacred Unity without Cause. When the Orthodox Christians separated from Arian Bishops, who subverted the Faith of Christ, it was no Schism at all. When the Protestants came out of Idolatrous Rome, it was no Schism, [Page 27]but a Duty. Causa (say the Canonists) non secessio facit Schismaticum, it is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schismatick.

Schism is either seminal or actual. Seminal Schism stands in the carnal and corrupt Lusts of the Heart; these are the bitter Roots and Springs of Division. Whence come wars and fight­ings among you? come they not of your lusts that war in your members? James 4.1. Were there no warring Lusts within, there would be no jarring Discords without. The Apostle, speaking of the Divisions in Corinth, saith, Are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Cor. 3.3. Divisions come from the Carnal part in Christians, not from the Spiritual. St. Austin, speaking of Abraham's dividing the Beasts, but not the Birds, saith by way of allusion,De Civ. lib. 16. cap. 24. Carnales inter se dividun­tur, Spirituales nullo modo, Carnal men are divided one from another, but not spiritual. The Lusts of men are the great Make-bates. But to instance in some particulars. Pride is an horrible Schismatick; by swelling it breaks in­to [Page 28]a rupture; by lifting up a man above himself, it divides him from his Brother. The greatest instance of Pride in the World is the Bishop of Rome; he sits, as he pretends, in the Infallible Chair; he hath all Laws in scrinio pectoris; he claims all Power, Sacerdotal and Regal; he stiles him­self the Head of the whole Church; he is called a God on Earth; his Title is, Dominus Deus noster Papa; and after all this state, he is no less an Instance of Schism than of Pride. He rents himself off from the Church Univer­sal; he will not be a Member in it, but an Head, a Universal Lord over it. The Church must be only in parte Papae, and no-where else. All the Protestant Churches in the World must be cast off as Schismaticks, and this abominable Schism must be stiled Unity. Again, Self-love is a great Schismatick; it so appropriates all to it self, that it leaves nothing in com­mon; it is such an inordinate uniting of a man to himself, that he cannot be joined to others. That little word (Ego) is a strange divider of all Socie­ty. [Page 29]When Novatus fell off from the Church, and became the Head of the Cathari, there was somewhat of self in it.Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 42. The denial of an Episcopal Pre­ferment made him set up a Church for himself; and in that Church, be­fore he gave the Eucharist, he made the Communicants swear by the Body and Blood of Christ not to forsake him. To name but one thing more, Hatred is also an inward Schismatick; it dissolves what Love unites, and sets a man against his Brother, to whom he should be joined in amity.De Bapt. l. 1. c. 11. Origo Schismatis est odium fraternum, saith St. Austin, The hatred of a Brother is the origin of Schism. In the Council at Ephesus, called Concilium praedato­rium, the Eutychian hatred broke out sadly against the Orthodox. The Bi­shops that favoured that Heresy, car­ried the matter by mere force and violence, crying out, Qui dicit duas Naturas, in duo dividit. He that con­fesseth two Natures in Christ, divides him into two. Such a desperate thing is Hatred, that it prompts men to di­vide even unto blood. Such Lusts as [Page 30]these are the roots of gall and worm­wood, which bear the bitter fruits of Schism and Division.

Actual Schism is either a Schism in the Church, or a Schsm from it.

A Schism in the Church stands in the Differences and Dissentions of the Members in it. We have in the Church of Corinth three instances of it. They differed about the Excellen­cies of their Teachers. Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apol­los, and I of Cephas, 1 Cor. 1.12. They differed about the manner and time of the Holy Eucharist. They did not wait one for another, the rich contemned the poor, 1 Cor. 11.21, 22. They differ­ed about the variety of Gifts among them; the inferior in gifts envied the superior, and the superior in gifts de­spised the inferior; the feet envied the hand, and the head undervalued the feet; 1 Cor. 12.15, & 21. And every one of these differences is in these Texts called [...], a Schism in the Church; and the reason is, because every one of them did break the Unity of the Church in Ordinances. When [Page 31]they lookt more on the Teacher, than on the Truth, there could not be an intire communion in hearing the pure word, they heard it but partially in the gifts of one, rather than of ano­ther. When at the Lord's Supper they did not wait for, but contemn one another, there could not be an unanimous conjunction in that Ordi­dance. The Eucharist, the Seal and Bond of Union, was as it were rent and torn in pieces. When the inferior in gifts envied, and the superior de­spised, they could not worship and serve God like those, Acts 2.1. [...], with one accord. Those Dif­ferences did make a breach upon that Worship that should have been intire. Now here it is to be noted, that every difference among Christians doth not amount to Schism. There was a Pa­roxism, a hot fit between Paul and Barnabas, yet no Schism, Acts 15.39. In the Church of Corinth, Brother went to law with Brother, 1 Cor. 6.6. The Apostle blames the difference, but calls it not Schism. Stephen, Bishop of Rome, was against Rebaptization; [Page 32] Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was for it;De unico Bapt. c. 14. yet there was no Schism; Ambo in unitate Catholica constituti, saith St. Austin, both remained in Catholick unity. There were differences be­tween Chrysostom and Epiphanius, be­tween Jerom and Austin, yet it would be hard to charge them with Schism. The Lutherans differ from the other Reformed Churches in some lesser Truths; but because they agree in fundamental Articles, there is not pro­perly a Schism; the difference, non impedit, [...], hinders not the unity of the Faith, saith Dr. Ward. But then Differences amount to Schism when they break the unity of Faith, Determ. fol. 3. or the unanimous Communion in Ordinances. Such were the Differences above-mentioned in Corinth; there was no separation from the Church there; yet because those Differences broke the unity of Ordinances, they are called Schism.

A Schism from the Church stands in a criminous separation from it. The word [...], when it relates to the Church, doth, as I take it, only de­note [Page 33]in Scripture, Divisions in a Church. But the word [...], doth seem to denote division from a Church. Such a kind of dissention, in which men separate one from another in bo­dy and place, as well as mind. Yet in that, 1 Cor. 3.3. it seemeth to be no more than division in a Church. However this be, the word [...], Jud. 19. doth properly signify to se­parate, or put ones self extra terminos Ecclesiae, out of the bounds of the Church. Now this Schism from a Church is either negative or positive. Negative Schism is, when men separate from a Church, and go no further; no new Church or Assembly is set up. Posi­tive Schism is, when there is not only a simple Separation, but a new Church or Assembly is instituted, in which the Word and Sacraments are admini­stred. This is called struere Altare contra Altare. A negative Secession may in some case be lawful, as when one is unjustly ejected out of a Church he may recede from it. Yet (saith the Learned Camero) a positive Secession in that case is not lawful,De Eccles. 325. he may not [Page 34]immediately set up a new Church, at least not without some other Reasons or Circumstances.

Touching this Separating Schism, it is first to be noted, that there may be a Schism without a Separation, and there may be a Separation without a Schism.

There may be a Schism without a Separation, [...], a Schism in the body, 1 Cor. 12.25. when there is no schism from it. There was not (for ought I can see) any Se­paration in the Church of Corinth. Yet the Dissentions there making a breach upon the Communion in Or­dinances, did amount to Schism. St. Cyprian saith,De Unit. Eccl. That all believers are in one House, The Church, saith he, is unanimit at is hospitium, an House of ami­ty and unanimity, where they sweetly dwell together in the unanimous Wor­ship and Service of God. If a man do not go out of this House, and leave the Unity of it; yet if he make Dis­sentions there, and disturb that Unity he is guilty of Schism.

[Page 35] Again, There may be a Separation without a Schism. In many Cases one part of a Congregation may depart from the other, and become a Church of it self, and yet there may be no Schism at all. What if it be done in a Congregation too great to meet toge­ther, for convenience, and by com­mon consent? This will be no Schism at all. 'Tis but as when Abraham and Lot parted asunder, because the Land was not able to bear them: Or, as when the Hive being too little for the Bees, one part goes away, and dwells by it self in a new Family. What if there be a Law or Canon made to allow such a Separation? It will hardly be called Schism; and yet Church-unity doth not vary as Human Laws and Canons do, for then it might be some­thing or nothing, as men please. If in a Church the foundations of the holy Faith be destroyed, what can the Righteous do? Join they cannot, se­parate they must. When Eunomius the Arian was made a Bishop,Theod. l. 4. c. 14. not one of his Flock, rich or poor, young or old, man or woman, would commu­nicate [Page 36]with him in the Service of God, but left him to officiate alone. When Nestorius did first publish his Heresy in the Church, the people made a noise,Evagr. l. 3. cap. 5. and ran out of the Assembly. When under the Emperor Basiliscus five hundred Bishops condemned the Council of Chalcedon, it was hard for Christians to join with them. The Church is where the Truth is, and no where else. What if the terms of Communion be sinful? we are rather to break with all Churches, than to com­mit one sin against God. The break­ing off from him is more than break­ing off from all men. Thus in some cases there may be a Separation with­out Schism. Indeed Schism is not a mere local defection, but a moral one. Non [...]liscessies corporalibus motibus, De Bap. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 1. sed spirit alibus est metiendus, saith St. Au­stin, The departure is not to be measured by corporal motions, but by spiritual: but enough of this.

In the next place, I shall endeavour to lay down some Characters whereby it may be known when Separation is Schismatical.

[Page 37] 1st. Schismatical Separation is in­tentional, and perfectly voluntary. Thus the [...], those that se­parate themselves, Jud. 19. do by their own voluntary act put themselves out of the bounds of the Church. Thus they that went out of the Apostolical Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. did it intentio­nally and freely. It is the observation of Aquinas, That as in natural things,2, 2ae. quaest. 39. Art. 1. c. that which is by accident doth not con­stitute the Species: So in moral, not that which is besides the intention, for that is accidental; hence he infers, Peccatum Schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum, ex eo quod intendit se ab uni­tate separare quam charit as facit. Pro­prie Schismatici dicuntur, qui propria sponte & intentione se ab unitate Eccle­siae separant. The sin of Schism is a spe­cial sin, in that it intends to separate from that unity which charity makes. Schismaticks are properly those, who of their own accord and intention do sepa­rate themselves from the unity of the Church. It's true, every Schismatick doth not say as Marcion did, Ego sin­dam Ecclesiam, I will cleave the Church [Page 38]in two; yet this is that which he means in his Separation. As in our Com­mon-Law, when we would know whether an entry amount to a dis­seisin, we enquire,Cro. lib. 3. Blunden. quo animo fecerit, with what mind it was done. So in Theo­logy, if we would know whether a Separation amount unto Schism, we must enquire with what mind it was done. Schism, saith Dr. Hammond, is a voluntary dividing. The Schisma­tick is he that divides himself from the Church; not he that is cut off from it, but he that goes out, and re­cedes of his own accord. He condemns himself, being out of the Church, not by Censure, but suo arbitrio, by his own free Choice. The Donatists were in their minds and wills so set upon their own way,Aust. Epist. 162. that after a long se­ries of Debates and Hearings, they were still the same as before. A right Schismatick makes it his business to divide;Cypr. de Unit. Eccl. A Matre Filios segregat, Oves à Pastores solicitat; He severs the Sons from the Mother, he entices the Sheep from the Pastor. This is the first Cha­racter.

[Page 39] 2dly. Schismatical Separation pro­ceeds from Hatred, or at least from a want of charity. In Asc. B. Mar. Serm. 5. Quisque (saith St. Ber­nard) sibi unus debet esse per integri­tatem virtutis, & unum cum proximis per vinculum dilectionis. Every one ought to be one with himself by the inte­grity of Vertue, and one with his Neigh­bour by the bond of Charity. De Bapt. con Don. l. 1. c. 11. Love u­nites, but hatred divides, and breaks out into Schism. Nulli (saith St. Au­stin) Schisma facerent, si fraterno odio non excaecarentur. None would make Schisms, unless they were blinded with the hatred of their Brethren. This Cha­racter was evident in the Donatists; Contra Cresc. l. 2. c. 10. hence the same Father tells them, Sa­cramenta habetis, charitatem non habet is, Sacraments you have, but Charity you have not. And withal, he tells them, that though they had, multa & magna, De Bapt. cont. Don. l 1. c. 8, 9. many and great things, yet all was no­thing, si unum defuerit, if that one thing Charity were wanting; and what Charity they could have who allowed no Church but their own, I know not. When there are no just Scruples, no reasonable Causes of Separation, [Page 40]surely the departure must be for want of Charity.

3dly. Schismatical Separation issues out of Pride and Contempt. When they went out from the Apostolical Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. there was some­what of Antichristian Pride and Con­tempt in it; for in the verse precedent, Antichrists are said to be then in be­ing. Those that separated themselves Jud. 19. did it, as a Learned man saith, cum contemptu aliorum, as if they had some peculiar Doctrine or Sanctity. This Character may be seen in the Novatians and Donatists. No­vatus is said to be Superbiâ inflatus, puft up with pride, when he set up his Separate Church, that he might be head of those who called themselves pure.Euseb. l 6. cap 42. The Roman Synod takes notice of this, and decreed, That he, cum simul elatis, with his proud companions, should be esteemed as Aliens to that Church. St. Austin saith of the Dona­tists, that Superbi ruperunt rete & fecere altare contra altare. Proud men broke the net, and set up Altar against Altar. [Page 41]It was indeed horrible pride in them to say, that the Church was only in parte Donati; and it is no less in the Papists to say, that it is only in parte Papae. For any one Party to boast, as if the Church were with them on­ly, and not elsewhere, is Schismatical Pride, or proud Schism. Then is Se­paration a Schism, when it is done in pride and contempt.

4thly. Schismatical Separation is ordinarily, if not always, attended with some error or other, It is a very are thing to see a mere simple Schism, sine ullâ depravatâ Doctrinâ, without some mixture of depraved Doctrine. Every Zimri hath its Cosby; every Divider hath some lie or other to which he is joined. Neque Schisma feri potest, nisi diversum aliquid se­quantur qui faciunt, saith St. Austin. Cont. Cres. l 2. c. 7. Neither can there be a Schism made, unless they that make it follow some dif­ferent Doctrine. Nullum Schisma non [...]bi aliquam fingit Haeresin ut recte [...]b Ecclesia recessisse videatur,Com. in Tit. c. 3. saith [...]t. Jerome; There is no Schism but it [Page 42]frames to it self some Heresy, that it may seem to have rightly departed from the Church. Novatus did not only se­parate from the Church, but set up his own Error, That the lapsed were not to be received in the Church, no, not upon their repentance, no more than dead men. Donatus did not merely separate, but advanced his un­charitable Error, That the Church was only in parte Donati; De Unit. Eccl. c. 11. upon which account St. Austin tells him, that he did, aliud Evangelizare, preach ano­ther Gospel. Theod. Hist. l. 3, 5. Neither did the Luciferi­ani only separate, but they had their propria Dogmata, their proper Errors. Thus the Learned Whitaker, De Notis Eccl. Q. 5. Non est Schisma nisi cum Errore aliquo conjun­ctum fuerit. There is no Schism, but it is in conjunction with some Error. The Schismatick ever hath some peculiar Opinion to promote in the world, and upon that account he separates from the Church, and sets up for himself.

5thly. Schismatical Separation is a breach of some Sacred Ʋnity. The Schismatick doth indeed adhere to the [Page 43]Church in part, but with all he breaks in part. There is some breach of Uni­ty. He adheres to the Church in part, but not in all. St. Austin saith of the Donatists, In multis erant mecum, Enarr. in Psal. 54. in Schismate non mecum. In many things they are with me, but in their Schism they are not with me. And in another place he saith, That they were with the Church in Sacraments, but not in vinculo pacis, in the bond of peace. Thus the Schismatick adheres in part, but then he breaks in part: There is some breach of sacred Ʋnity, I mean of that Unity that is founded in Scrip­ture. Hence St.De Unit. Eccl. Cyprian expostulates with the Schismaticks, Quis audeat scindere unitatem Dei, vestem Domini, Ecclesiam Christi? Who dares break the Ʋnity of God, the seamless Coat of the Lord, the Church of Christ? Contra. Parm. l. 2. c. 1, 11. Hence St. Austin tells them, Non est quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis; There is nothing more grievous than the Sacri­ledge of Schism. Were there no breach of Unity, it would not be Schism; were not the Unity sacred, it would not be Sacriledge. Then is Separation [Page 44]Schism when there is a breach of some sacred Ʋnity.

6thly, Schismatical Separation is a breach of Sacred Unity, for little or no cause at all. The memorable Mr.Tract of Schism. Hale's speaking about the Schism touching the keeping of Easter, saith, This matter tho most unnecessary, most vain, yet caused as great a Combustion, as ever was in the Church; the West separating and refusing Communion with the East for many years together. In this fantastical Hurry, I cannot see but all the World were Schismaticks, neither can any thing excuse them from that imputation, excepting only this that we charitably suppose all Partie out of Conscience did what they did. Thus he. This great Schism was for just little or nothing, and so is every Schism, that is properly so called The Separation is as the cause is When the cause is weighty and just the Separation is innocent. When the Cause is light and inconsiderable the Separation is Schism. Schisma­ticks are but tanquam paleae, as chaff [...] [Page 45]and as St. Austin speaks,Expos. in Epist. Joh. Occasione ven­ti volant foras: A little Wind drives them out of doors.

7thly, Schismatical Separation is not only from a particular Church, but from the Catholick one. As by a just Excommunication a Man is cast out from the Church Catholick, so by an unjust Separation a man casts out himself from the same. The Re­verend Primate Bramhall in his Vin­dication of the Church of England, lays down two things; the one is this, If one Part of the Ʋniversal Church separate it self from another, not absolutely, or in essentials, but re­spectively in Abuses and Innovations; not as it is a part of the Ʋniversal Church, but only so far as it is corrupt­ed and degenerated, it doth still retain a Communion not only with the Catho­lick Church, but even with that cor­rupted Church from which it is separa­ted, except only in Corruptions. The other is this, Whosoever separates himself from any part of the Catholick Church, as it is a part of the Catholick [Page 46]Church, doth separate himself from every part of the Catholick Church, and consequently from the Ʋniversal Church, which hath no Existence but in its Parts. Thus that Learned Man. It is one thing to separate from a Particular Church as it is corrupted and dege­nerated; another thing to separate from a Particular Church, as it is a part of the Catholick Church. The Learned Dr. Prideaux saith,De Visib. Eccles. Non ha­bendus est Schismaticus, qui Romam aut aliam quamvis deserit particularem Ecclesiam, ob additamenta non serenda; sed qui aversatur Communionem & u­nitatem Ecclesiae Ʋniversalis & Catho­licae. He is not to be esteemed a Schis­matick, who forsakes Rome, or any other Particular Church, because of some Additions not to be born; but he that turns away from the Ʋnion and Communion of the Church Catholick and Ʋniversal. Epist. ad Cornel. l. 2. Ep. 11. St. Cypriam charges it up­on the Novatians, that they did, Ca­tholicae Ecclesiae corpus unum scindere: Cut in pieces that one Body of the Church Catholick. De Unit. Eccl. c. 17. St. Austin charges it upon the Donatists, A Christianâ [Page 47]unitate, quae toto orbe diffunditur, sacri­lego schismate separatos esse: That they were by a Sacrilegious Schism separated from that Christian Ʋnity, which is diffused over the whole world. Separa­tion is then Schism, when it is from a particular Church, as it is a part of the Church Catholick; for then it is from every part of the Catholick Church, and by consequence from the whole Church.

These Characters may suffice to shew what Separation amounts to Schism.

I Now go on to consider the Sepa­ration of the Nonconformists, Ministers and People, whether that be Schism or not; in the doing of which I shall review the former Cha­racters with respect to them.

[Page 49] 1st. Schismatical Separation is in­tentional and perfectly voluntary; but quo animo, do the Dissenters separate? In our Law an entry shall not be cal­led a disseisin, partibus invitis, against the will of the Agents. Neither should a Separation in such a Case be in The­ology called a Schism. Is it imagina­ble that the intention or option of the Nonconformists should be to be out of the Church, rather than in it? It is easy to judge who they be that most intend and love Church-unity; those who would have the terms of it easy, plain and unquestionable, or those who would have them clogg'd with Scru­ples. The Nonconformists separate; but their parting from the Church, like the Merchant's parting with his Goods in a Storm, is not purely volun­tary, but a mixt Action, done with an unwilling will, not out of love to Separation, but to salve Conscience. When the Papists charge Schism upon our Church, what saith Bishop Bram­hall? Reply to the Bishop of Chalced. fol. 55. Schism is a voluntary Separa­tion; To be separated might be our Con­sequent will, because we could not help [Page 50]it: but it was far enough from our An­tecedent will, or that we did desire it. And a little after. If they did impose upon us a necessity of doing sinful things, and offending God, and wounding our Consciences, then we did not leave them, but they did drive us from them. And what saith Dr. Prideaux, Fugati po­tius quam fugientes, non tam à Roma ut est secessimus, quàm ad Roman ut erat, regressi sumus, We were rather dri­ven away, than voluntarily flying; we are not so much departed from Rome as it is, as we are returned to Rome as it was. In like manner, the Noncon­formists being charged with Schism, may say, To separate is not their An­tecedent will, but Consequent; they depart from the Church, but it is by a kind of constraint; they had much rather be in the Church; they wish for it, pray for it, and salvâ conscientiâ, would do any thing for it, but there are some things which they cannot join in: Such a departure should not be called Schism.

[Page 51] 2dly. Schismatical Separation pro­ceeds from hatred, Schismatici discessio­nibus iniquis à fraternâ Charitate dissiliunt. Aug. de Fide, & Symbol. cap. 10. or at least from a want of Chari­ty; but do the Noncon­formists thus separate? What is done out of Con­science to God, cannot be fairly in­terpreted hatred to our Brother. It is love to God that causes men to walk according to Conscience; but it is want of love to him that makes them hate their Brother. These two can­not stand together. If we call that hatred which indeed is Conscience, we forfeit our own Charity by mis­construing the Charity of others. It is the desire of the Nonconformists to live in charity with the Conforming Brethren. In the Council of Carthage St. Cyprian and his Fellow-Bishops, in the point of rebaptizing those that were baptized by Hereticks, plainly erred and dissented from the rest of the Church; yet they were never charged with Schism for it, and why? Because they did it neminem judicantes, neo à jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes: Judging none, [Page 52]removing none, that thought otherwise, from the right of Communion. That Error of Rebaptization,De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. ult. which in the Donatists was, as St. Austin speaks, Fuligo in tartareâ faeditate, the smoak of their hellish filthiness, was in St. Cypri­an but, naevus in candore sanctae Animae, a freckle in the candor of an holy Soul; and the reason was, because St. Cypri­an had what they had not, Charitatis ubera, the breasts of Charity to cover his Defects. In respect of this Charity Bishop Davenant saith,Sentent. de Pace 112. Melius de Ec­clesiâ meruit errans Cyprianus, quam Stephanus Romanus recte sentiens, & Ecclesias quantum in se fuit, Schismatico Spiritu dilacerans. Cyprian, erring, deserved better of the Church, than Stephen, Bishop of Rome, rightly thinking, but by a Schismatical Spirit, as much as he could renting the Churches. Charity is a great thing, and I hope it may be found among the Nonconformists; they leave the Church, neminem judicantes, judging none of their Conforming Brethren the breasts of their Charity may cover some defects. I hope therefore Schism [Page 53]in this respect cannot be charged upon them. I am sure Charity is in all good men, Conforming or Noncon­forming; but if we compare Parties together, that Party which binds bur­thens on Conscience, and leaves them there, seems to me to have less of Charity, than that which shrinks and withdraws the Shoulder from them.

3dly. Schismatical Separation issues out of pride and contempt. The Do­natists thought themselves the only men; they boasted as if their Communion were the only Commu­nion,Si nostra communio est Ecclesia, vestra non est. Aug. de Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 11. as if their Baptism were the only Baptism.Vos dicitis in nobis Baptismum non esse. Aust. contr. Cresc. l. 4. cap. 62. But do the Nonconfor­mists separate thus? Do they say that they only are the Church, or that they only have the Ordinances? Do they despise their Conforming Brethren, or lift up them­selves above them? No surely, they desire to be but as Brethren, and that one Brother might not Lord it over another. When our Divines charge [Page 54]the Monasteries as Schismatical, be­cause they have separate Meetings and Ordinances, Bellarmin answers thus.De Not. Eccl. l. 4. c. 10. Soli Schismatici sunt qui ita erigunt altare proprium, ut altare alio­rum prophanum censeant. They only are Schismaticks, who so set up their own Al­tar, that they esteem the Altar of others prophane. It is indeed one thing to have distinct Meetings for Worship, and another to have opposite ones. The Nonconformists have Meetings of their own, but without the contempt of others. The Jews say, he that contemns the Solemn Assemblies of the Church, hath no part in Seculo futuro. But where the distinct Meet­ings are without contempt, there, I sup­pose it is not to be called Schism. Here that may take place; he that is not against the Church, is for it. A candid Charity interprets all to the best.

4thly. Schismatical Separation is ordinarily, if not always, attended with some Error or other. Schisma in Haere­sim eru­ctat. The No­vatians, Donatists, Luciferians, had their propria Dogmata, their proper [Page 55]Errors. Their Separations were to set up their Errors; their Errors un­der pretence of Truth, were to justify their Separations. Hence St. Cyprian saith, that the Schismaticks are,De Unit. Eccl. Pestes & lues Fidei, corrumpendae veritatis artifices, the Pests and Plagues of the Faith, the Artists in corrupting Truth. But as for the Nonconformists, what new Doctrine do they bring? what Error do they propagate? what deadly poison is under their Lips? Do they not fully and firmly ad­here to the Church (as Optatus speaks) in una Fide, in one Faith? Whit. de Not Eccl. cap. 8. are they not joined together, ut in manu digiti, as the fingers in the hand pointing out the same pure Doctrine? Bishop Abbot, in his Book De gratiâ & perseverantiâ, tells us of some Cor­rupters,Prasat. ad Lect. Qui veteres haereses denuo in Scenam producunt, & Pelagianâ lue correpti Gratiae Divinae vim nervosque succidunt, Who bring up the old Here­sies upon the stage, and having caught the Pelagian Pestilence, cut asunder the strength and nerves of Divine Grace. Not only some of our men, but Fo­reigners [Page 56]too, have taken notice that the Plague of Socinianism hath been creeping in among us.Upon the 8th Arti­cle. Mr. Rogers upon the Articles of our Church tells us, that he heard a great Learned man speaking of Zanchy's Book, De tri­bus Elohim, call him a Fool and an Ass. Arnoldus, in his Book against the Racovian Catechism, Praef. ad Lect. takes notice of the Socinian Heresy creeping up among us. But do the Nonconformists propagate these Errors? Do they spread abroad the poison? Do they not steddily stick to the true pure Doctrine of our Church? And is not conformity in Doctrine much more than conformity in Ceremonies? Surely it is. It seems therefore hard to charge Schism upon them. He indeed goes out of the Church, who goes out, not in Body, but in Faith. Hence it was the judgment of Gersom, Ger. de Eccles. cap. 6. sect. 3. That in a simple Schism, without any depraved Doctrine added to it, when it is doubtful by whom the Schism is made, till it be lawfully determined, those that are Followers in it do be­long to the Church.

[Page 57] 5thly. Schismatical Separation is a breach of some Sacred Ʋnity. The Schismatick adheres to the Church in part, but withal he breaks in part. He adheres in part, De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 1. or else he would be an Apostate. Thus St. Austin saith of the Donatists, In quo nobiscum sen­tiunt, in co nobiscum sunt, In what they think with us, in that they are with us. Thus when the Donatists asked whe­ther their Baptism did generate Sons to God; If it did not generate, why doth not the Catholick Church rebaptize them; but if it do generate, then ours (say the Donatists) is the Church. St. Austin makes this answer,De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 10. That the Church of the Donatists doth generate, Ʋnde conjuncta est, non unde Separata est. Separata est à vinculo, Charitatis, sed adjuncta est in uno Bap­tismate. It generates as it is joined to the Church Catholick, not as it is sepa­rated from it. It is separated from the bond of Charity, but it is joined in one Baptism. Thus the Donatists were [...]oined to the Church in part. Again, The Schismatick, though he adhere to the Church in part, yet withal [Page 58] he breaks in part, or else he could be no Schismatick. Thus St. Austin saith of the Donatists, De Bapt. contr. Don. l. 1. c. 1. In eo à nobis recesserunt, in quo à nobis dissentiunt, In that they are departed from us in which they dissent from us. When Cresconius urged for the Donatists, that there was, una Religio, eadem Sacra­menta, nihil in Christianâ observatione diversum; Contra Cresc. l. 2. cap. 3. That on both sides there was the same Religion, the same Sacraments, nothing in Christian observation diverse. (Which Plea by the way, had it been true, would have been good, there being no Schism where there is no breach of Unity.) St. Austin utterly denies it, and asks them, Quare re­baptizatis? Why do you rebaptize those that were baptized in the Catholick Church? Indeed they thought them­selves the only Church, and so broke themselves off from the Church Ca­tholick. Thus the Schismatick is partly in conjunction with the Church, and partly in separation from it; he adheres in one thing, and breaks off in another. But is it thus with the Nonconformists? Are not [Page 59]they joined to the Church in all that which is truly Ʋnity? Have not they in their Meetings the unity of Ordi­nances, the same pure Word preached, the same holy Sacraments administred, and this by true Ministers of Christ? And what other Unity is there in Visible Churches? Or what of true Unity is there between two Para­rochial Churches, which is not be­tween their Meetings and Parochial Churches? Abate but Humane things, in which Church unity stands not, and they are not partially, but totally in conjunction with the Church of England; and if so, there is no breach of Unity, and by consequence no Schism in them.De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 1. St. Austin lays down a notable Rule; That he that acts, Sicut in unitate agitur, as it is done in the unity; in eo manet atque conjungitur, in that he abides, and is joined, in all those things wherein Ʋnity stands. The Nonconformists act as the Church doth, therefore they are in conjun­ction with it. St. Austin tells us,Contra Cresc. l. 2. c. 10. That the Church doth in the Donatists ac­knowledge, Omnia quae sua sunt, all [Page 60]things that are its own. Let the Con­forming Ministers acknowledge all that of true Unity which is in the Dissenters Meetings, and they may perceive that their Brethren are in conjunction with them. Where there is a total conjunction, there is no breach of true Unity; and where there is no such breach, there is no Schism. But you will say, their de­parture from the Congregations in publick, is a Schism. I answer, Eve­ry local Separation is not a Schism there is more in Schism than so. Eve­ry departure is not Schism. It is hardly to be called such, when those that depart do yet remain in conjun­ction with them from whom they depart. And this I think is the Case of those that are Nonconformists.

6thly. Schismatical Separation is a breach of sacred Unity for little or no cause at all. Hence Irenaeus saith o [...] the Schismaticks, That propter modi­cas & quaslibet causas, magnum & glo­riosum Corpus Christi conscindunt, for little and inconsiderable Causes they cu [...] [Page 61]in pieces the great and glorious Body of Christ. The Professors of Leyden say,Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 40. That a Schismatical Church is that, quae propter externos aliquos ritus, [...], Communionem Christianam ab­rumpit, which for some external indiffe­rent Rites breaks Christian Communion. This Character seems prima facie to press upon the Separation of the Nonconformists. They separate for Rites and Ceremonies, which seem to be but minute and inconsiderable things; this therefore must be duly considered.

The Ceremonies of our Church may be considered under a double notion; either as they are in them­selves, or else as they are terms of Communion.

The Ceremonies, as considered in themselves, however innocent they seem to be to the Conformists, they are not so to the Nonconformists. To instance but in one of them. The Cross in Baptism is lookt upon as a thing unlawful, or at least as a thing very ill-coloured, and suspected to be unlawful. To explain this I shall lay down some few things.

[Page 62] 1st. The Sign of the Cross was in­deed used among the Ancient Fathers, but not without a mixture of Supersti­tion. De Cor. Mil. Tertullian will have Signaculum Crucis to be necessary in every part of our life. Lib. 2. adv. Judaeos. St. Cyprian saith, That in hoc Signo Crucis salus sit omnibus qui in frontibus notentur, in this Sign of the Cross there is Salvation to all who have this mark in their Foreheads. Origen saith,In Exod. cap. 15. That fear and trembling falls up­on the Devils, cum Signum Crucis in nobis viderint, when they see the Sign of the Cross in us. St. Ambrose saith,Ser. 43. That all prosperity is in uno Signo Chri­sti, in that one sign of Christ; he that sows in it, shall have a Crop of Eternal Life; he that jour mes in it, shall arrive at Heaven it self. St. Athanasius saith, That Signo [...] racis omnia magica com­pescuntur,De Incar. verbi. all Conjurations are repressed by the Sign of the Cross. In Matt. Homil. 55. St. Chrysostom saith, That all Sacraments are perfected Signo Crucis, with the Sign of the Cross. St. Austin saith,In Joh. Tract. 118. That unless the Sign of the Cross be applied to the Forehead of the Believers, or to the Water of Rege­neration, or to the Oyl with which they [Page 63]are anointed, or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished, nihil eorum rite perficitur, none of these things are rightly performed. Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. c. 29. Such a use of the Cross as this is, Protestants cannot allow of. Only the Papists, who would have Humane Inventions do great things, make use of such Say­ings in the Fathers.

2dly. The Sign of the Cross is an abominable Idol in the Popish Church. Bellarmine (who doth distinguish the Cross into three parts, the True Cross, the Image of the Cross, and the Sign of the Cross) lays down this general Doctrine. Omnes Cruces adoramus, Bell. l. 2. c. 30. de Imag. We worship all Crosses: And particu­larly of the Sign of the Cross he saith, That it is, Signum sacrum & venera­bile, a sacred and venerable Sign. Aquinas saith,Pars 3. Q. 25. Art. 4. That the Image of Christ is to be adored, cultu latriae, the Sign is to have the same adoration as the thing it self. And how? which way is it that such an horrible Idol should be retained in a Church Prote­stant, and pure from Idolatry? The [Page 64]Brazen Serpent was ordained by God himself, and yet when it was abused to Idolatry, Hezekiah broke it to pieces, and called it Nehushtan, a piece of brass, 2 Kings 18.4. It was a singular Fi­gure of Christ. The lifting of it up upon a pole for corporal Cures, did by Divine Ordination type out the lifting up of him upon the Cross for spiritual; yet becoming an Idol, it was no more to be endured: And why should the Cross, a mere Human Invention, being once so abused, ever be tolerated? The Children of Israel, Hos. 2.16, 17. were not to mention the names of Idols, that is, honoris gratiâ, in any way for their honour. Crab. Conc. Tom. 1. The Fifth Council of Carthage, Can. 15. would have all Idolatrous Reliques utterly extinguished. Constantine the Great would not suffer the least Rag or Memorial of Pagan Idolatry to re­main: And it is very strange,Euseb. Vit. Con­stant. l. 3.47, & 52. that such an Idold as the Cross should be retained in a Church free from Idolatry.

[Page 65] 3dly. The Sign of the Cross in our own Church, though it be no Idol, yet is an Image; it is not indeed [...] a graven Image, but it is [...] a similitude of Christ crucified. Repre­sentation is the very essence of an Image; and the Sign of the Cross is intended to resemble Christ crucified.Aquin. Pars 3. Q. 83. Art. 1. As the Sacraments are by God's In­stitution representative Images of Christ's Passion, so is the Cross by Man's; and what doth an Image do in Divine Worship? The Second Commandment shuts out all Images from it; nay, under that notion, it would shut out the very Sacraments, were they not of Divine Ordination. Anciently the Christians would not suffer Images to be in their Churches.Ael. Lam­prid. in vita Alex­andri. When the Emperor Adrian com­manded Temples to be made without Images, it was presently conceived hat he did prepare them for Chri­tians. Conc. El. Can. 36. Epiph. Epist. ad Joh. Hie­rosol. The Eliberine Council would not admit that Pictures should be in Churches. Epiphanius rent the Vail that hung in the Church of Anablatha, because it had the Image of Christ, or [Page 66]some Saint in it. Serenus Bishop of Marsiles, brake down the Images in his Church. The Emperor Theodosius and Valentinian removed, quodcunque Sig­num Salvatoris, every Sign of a Sa­viour out of the way. Thus Images have not been admitted into Churches; and how then should they be brought into Ordinances, which are much more sacred than Places? The Image of the Cross should not appear in Divine Worship, in which no other Image is to be admitted, but that,Aust. Epist. 119. cap. 2. quae ho [...] est quod Deus est, which is that which God is; that is, Jesus Christ the Image of the Invisible God.

4thly. The Sign of the Cross is an addition to Baptism, and so utterly unwarrantable. Under the Old Te­stament it was unlawful to add to the Ceremonial Law of God, Deut. 4.2. And how should it be lawful under the New to add to the Ceremonial Law of Christ? Christ was as faithful in the House of God as Moses; his provision was as perfect for Rituals, as that [...] Moses was. Nay, the Worship under [Page 67]the Old Testament being more Sha­dowy and Ritual, and that under the New more pure and simple; an ad­dition to this is less tolerable than to that, because the purer the Worship is, the more impure is the addition. The Prophet Ezekiel, speaking of the Glory of the Evangelical Church, that it was the place of God's Throne, and of the soles of his feet; adds this, That they should no more set their thresholds by God's, or their posts by his, Ezek. 43.7, & 8. they should not add their own Inventions to God's Pre­cepts. When the Corinthians joined, [...], their own supper to the Lord's, it was unjustifiable; and the Apostle expostulates about it, Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or de­spise ye the Church of God? 1 Cor. 11.22. Are there not distinct Houses, and distinct Suppers? why do you join the Civil Supper to the Sacred? The Apostle against such mixtures alledgeth that Institution,Parker of the Crols. 102. I have re­ceived of the Lord that which I deliver­ed unto you, v. 23. Man may not add to what is from God. When the [Page 68] Armenians added sod meat to the Lord's Supper, it was condemned by a General Council. When the Artoty­ritae brought in their bread and cheese into it,Epiph. Heres. 49. it was abominable; when they brought in their mulsum or melli­tum into it,Concil Al­tissidor. Can. 8. the Church calls it, aliud poculum, another cup; and that, ad grande peccatum & reatum pertinet, it amounts to a great sin and guilt, as being an addition to Christ's Institution. It's true, the Fathers in this Council did through infirmity admit, Vinum cum aquâ mixtum, a mixture of Water with Wine; but another Council will not admit, no not of a little water mixt with the Wine, and adds this reason for it;Crab. Tom. 2. Aurelia. 4. Can. 4. Quia Sacrilegium judicatur aliud offerri, quam quod in Mandatis Sacra­tissimis Salvator instituit. Because it is judged Sacriledge to offer any thing be­sides that which our Saviour instituted in his Sacred Commands. When Du­raeus cites many Fathers for the many Ceremonies added to Baptism, the Answer of the Learned Whitaker is very excellent.Whit. Tom. 1. 191, 192. Meâ non interest qui [...] Clemens, quid Leo, quid Damasus [Page 69] quid quisquam alius Pontifex ad Baptis­mi Sacramentum adjecerit; Christus Ec­clesiae nihil de istis Ceremoniarum nugis mandavit. I am not concerned what Clemens, Leo, Damasus, or any other Pope hath added to the Sacrament of Baptism; Christ left to his Church no­thing in command touching such trifling Ceremonies. Sadeel. Art. 12. fol. 492. Sadeel against the Monks of Burdeaux, speaking touching their many Ceremonies added to Baptism as an ornament to it, makes this An­swer. Num igitur sunt prudentiores Jesu Christo, qui instituit Baptismum tantâ cum simplicitate & puritate, qui­que melius novit, quam omnes simul ho­mines, quae illi conveniant ornamenta? Hominis licet pactionem (inquit Paulus) autoritate confirmatam nemo abrogat, aut quid ei super addit. Quae est ista arro­gantia adjicere institutioni Jesu Christi? Are they wiser than Jesus Christ, who instituted Baptism with so great simpli­city and purity, and who knows much better than all men put together what Or­naments are proper for it? Though it be but a man's Covenant (saith St. Paul) yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth [Page 70]or addeth thereunto. What arrogance then is it to add to the Institutions of Jesus Christ? This is charged upon the Cross, it is an addition to Bap­tism; a Sign of Man's added to the Sign of Christ.

5thly. The Sign of the Cross is not merely an addition to Baptism, but it is a mystical Teacher, and looks very like a Sacrament. It is a mysti­cal Teacher; as the Sacraments teach Christ crucified by God's Ordination, so doth the Cross by Man's. But is not the Scripture sufficient, and Christ the great Prophet? And may Man invent new ways of teaching; or if he do, may any one look for the illu­minating Spirit in such ways? Christ is the one Master, the one Teacher by way of excellency; all other Teachers that teach truly, do but teach ministe­rially under him;Christus habet cla­vem ex­cellentiae, Alii tan­tum cla­vem Mi­nisterii. he hath ordained the perfect means of teaching the Church, and all other means are as none at all. The Cross not teaching under him, teacheth not truly; and being none of his means, hath none [Page 71]of his blessing. If the Cross might be a true Teacher, then the standing Images of Christ might be so too, which though called by the Papists Lay-mens Books, do yet but make men forget God. Again, the Sign of the Cross looks very like a Sacrament. Baptism is a Symbol of our Christian Profession, so is the Cross. Baptism hath a word annexed to it; I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So hath the Cross, We sign this Child with the Sign of the Cross, in token that he shall not be asha­med to confess the faith of Christ cruci­fied. Baptism points out Christ cruci­fied, so doth the Cross. Baptism enters the baptized into the Church, so doth the Cross. We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's flock, and sign him with the sign of the Cross. As Baptism admits into the Church Catho­lick, so the Cross admits into a parti­cular Church. Baptism dedicates the Infant unto Christ, so the Cross dedi­cates him to the service of him that died on the Cross.Can. 30. And what now is wanting to make it a Sacrament? It [Page 72]is not vehicalum gratiae; It's very true, it is not: Neither can any Human In­vention be such. It therefore looks as like a Sacrament as any Human thing can do, no such thing being capable of conveying Grace unto men.

In the next place the Ceremonies of our Church may be considered as terms of Communion with it: That is, there must be a Surplice, or no preach­ing; a Cross, or no baptizing; a kneeling posture, or no Lord's Sup­per. These things, though they are very light to the Conformists, are not so to the Nonconformists. I shall therefore consider them in some par­ticulars.

1st. The Ceremonies thus taken do seem to intrench upon the Kingly Office of Christ. He is the one Lord and Lawgiver of his Church. 'Tis his Royal Prerogative to institute Sacra­ments. This is confessed by the Papists themselves.Pars 3. Q. 72. Art. 1. Aquinas (relating that some held their Sacrament of Confir­mation was instituted in some Coun­cil, [Page 73]and that others held it was insti­tuted by the Apostles) saith, this can­not be, because to institute a new Sa­crament, pertinet ad potestatem ex­cellentiae, appertains to the power of excellency, which is in Christ alone.De Sac. l. 1. c. 23. Bellarmin proves that Christ is the on­ly Author of Sacraments. It is a flower of his Crown to institute Ordinances, no man may take this glory from him. The Apostles, the highest Officers in the Church, were not Lords of it, but Ministers and Stewards under Christ, 1 Cor. 4.1. to do his plea­sure. They taught only what he com­manded them, Matt. 28.20. St. Paul preached [...], nothing without Scripture, Act. 26.22. He would not go beyond his Commission.Tom. 2. fol. 722. Non debent Episcopi (saith the Excellent Whitaker) suas traditiones aut leges, aut contra, aut extra, aut praeter Evan­gelium obtrudere. The Bishops ought not to obtrude their Traditions or Laws, either against, or without, or besides the Gospel. That Gospel which is the Law of Christ, is the Canon that must rule all their Canons. Christ hath the full Royal [Page 74]Power, the Church hath only a limited Power from him. Christ may make Laws of Institution, the Church can only make Laws of Execution, or Disposition, such as tend to the right and orderly disposing of those. Ordinances which were institu­ted by Christ. In legibus Ecclesia­sticis, [...], tantum spectatur. Whit. Tom. 2.721. The Apostles did not institute any thing of Worship or Or­dinances: But they did take care that the Ordinances should be used in a way suitable to their dignity. These things being so, the only Question is, Whether the Church hath any Patent or Commission from Christ to institute or impose mystical Ceremonies as terms of Communion? In answer to this, I take it, the Church hath no such Power or Commission. The Pattern of Christ and the Apostles is more to me than all the Human Wis­dom in the world. It is the observa­tion of St. Austin, That Chrst's. Yoke being easy,Aust. Epist. 118. he did, Sacramentis nu­mero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis societatem novi populi colligare, Tie together the Society of a new People with Sacraments few in number, easy in observation, and [Page 75]excellent in signification: And who would depart from this simplicity? I am sure the Apostles did not. They delivered only that which they received of the Lord, 1 Cor 11.23.De Or. Err. lib. 2. c. 5. Hoc fidei illorum er at, & officii, saith Bullinger. This was their faith and duty. They did believe. (saith the same Author) that Christ was the wisdom of God, ne in mentem ipsorum venit, it came not into their minds to add Ceremonies to Christ's Institutions. The Primitive Christians continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayer, Acts 2.42. There was nothing but the pure Institutions of Christ, not an additio­nal Ceremony to be seen among them. Nay, in Justin Martyr's time,Apol. 2. we find the Lord's Supper used in pure simpli­city; and why should we make our additions to the Sacraments? St. Cy­prian contra Aquarios, Epist. 63. expresses him­self notably touching the Lord's Sup­per. Ab Evangelicis Praeceptis omnino recedendum non est. We must not depart from the Evangelical Precepts. And a little after, Non nisi Christus sequendus [Page 76]est, solus Christus audiendus est. Christ only is to be followed, Christ alone to be heard. Again, Human Ceremonies are not congruous to the pure light of the Gospel. Tom. 7. fol. 727. Num Divinae Figurae sublatae sunt, ut Humanae succederent? saith Learned Whitaker, Were the Divine Figures taken away, that Human might succeed? If the Divine Shadows under the Law did all vanish before the Sun, the pure and Evangelical Light; may Humane Ʋmbra's come and overcloud it? Surely it cannot be. It was the saying of a great Doctor once in the Church of England, That in the morn­ing of the Law the shadows were larger than the body; and it will be a sign of the evening and sun-set of Religion, if these shadows shall be stretcht out again, and outreach the body. If the Church may institute or impose two or three Ceremonies, it may do more and more; till men under the pressure cry out,Epist. 119. as St. Austin did, Tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum, The condition of the Jews would be more tolerable than that of Christians. Moreover, none but God alone can institute a Ceremony to [Page 77]signify a mystery in Religion; he only hath authority over Religion, he only can bind the Conscience, he only can illustrate the mind, he only can give a blessing to such a Sign. Aquinas, speaking of the Sacra­ments, saith,Determinare quo Sig­no sit utendum pertinet ad significantem, Deus autem est qui nobis sig­nificat Spiritualia per res sensibiles in Sacramen­tis, & per verba simili­tudinaria in Scripturis, Aquin. part. 3. Qu. 60. Art. 5. That the Signifier should determine the Sign; and God is the Signifier, who signifies spi­ritual things to us by sen­sible things to us by sen­sible things, in Sacraments, and by similitudinary words in Scripture. If God be the great Signifier of Holy Mysteries, it is his right to determine the Signs of them. By these things it appears that the Church hath no power to im­pose Mystical Ceremonies; and by consequence in so doing she in­croaches upon the Royal Prerogative of Christ.Wals. Hist. 70. Edward the Second granted to the Nobles a power of making some Laws; but if they under colour of that had made other, they had in­vaded his Prerogative. The Lord Christ hath given the Church power to make Laws of Execution; but if [Page 78]she go beyond her Line, and make Laws of Institution, she seems to en­croach upon his Royalty.

2dly. The Ceremonies thus taken do seem to invert the Gospel. The Apostle tells the Galatians that they were removed to another Gospel, which was not another; but there were some that troubled them, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ, Gal. 1.6, 7. The word in the Original is not [...], to evert, but [...], to invert the Gospel. They did not deny the Gospel, but they added the Jewish Ceremonies to it, and so inverted it, and made it to be another Gospel; a Gospel mixed with Jewish Ceremonies, being not the same with it self in its purity. And as those Jewish Ce­remonies did invert the Gospel, so do ours, tho upon a different reason, in­vert it also. Theirs did invert it, as being made necessary to Salvation; ours do it, as being made terms of Commu­nion. In the pure Gospel Heaven and Ordinanees do both stand open unto men in the Church. The Gospel is [Page 79]inverted not only when men are bar­red out from Heaven, by making other necessaries to Salvation than are requi­red therein, but also when men are bar­red out from Ordinances by making other terms of Communion than are commanded therein. This latter is that which I shall explain by Humane In­stances. If a Prince grants a Charter of Franchises to a person, and, as it passes the Great Seal, the Chancellor of his own head adds a Condition to the Grant, the Charter is hereby in­verted.Wals. Hist. fol. 44. When King Edward the First confirmed the English Charters with this addition, Salvo jure coronae nostrae, the Nobles were displeased, and would not be content, till their Char­ters were confirmed as they were at first granted, in an absolute manner. They were sensible that a new modus might make their Charters look like another thing than indeed they were. If a man covenant or article with ano­ther, that he shall enjoy such a thing, and without orders a Condition be superadded, the Covenant is inverted. When the Emperor Charles the Fifth [Page 80]made an Agreement with the Duke of Saxony, Thuan. Hist. l. 5. fol. 106. and superadded a Condition that the Duke should be of his Religi­on, the Duke utterly refused it; the addition made the Covenant another thing. If a man make his Will, and the Scribe of his own head add a Con­dition to a Legacy, the Will is invert­ed; hence in the Civil Law the Falsarius is greatly punished.Qui Testamentum, amoverit, deleverit, in­terleverit, falsum scrip­serit, legis Corneliae poe­nâ damnatur. Corp. Jur. Civ. If a Law of Grace be made, and the Judge will by his interpretation put a Con­dition of his own upon it, the Law is inverted. Magna Charta gives unto the Church omnia sua jura integra, & libertates illaesas. Should a Judge tell Ecclesiastical Persons, that they should have all their Rights and Liberties, but upon a Condition of his own devising; who would not conclude that the great Charter was inverted? In all these Instances it is not material, whe­ther the Condition be added to the thing in writing, and so imbodied with it, or whether it be added to it by practical use; in both cases it inverts [Page 81]the thing to which it is added. Now the Gospel is the Grant, Covenant, Testament, Law of our Lord Jesus Christ: In and by it he makes over Ordinances freely, absolutely, to all that will come to them. If men put in their own Conditions, and say, you shall have Sacraments, but upon these or those terms, which are unnecessary and unrequired by Christ, the Gospel is inverted, and made another thing than it was; an absolute free gift is one thing, and a limited conditional one is another. The first is the Gospel in its purity, as it comes from the hands of Christ; the last is the Go­spel with a mixture, as it is inverted by men. Neither is it material, whe­ther that which is added be a great thing, or a little; a little thing, if added as a Condition, inverts it; be­cause it turns an absolute free disposi­tion into a conditional one. I conclude with that of St. Chrysostom upon that Text, Gal. 1.7.Comment. in Gal. They subvert the Go­spel who bring in, [...], paululum quiddam, any little new thing into it; that is, if it be brought in as necessary [Page 82]to Salvation, or as a Condition to any Ordinance of the Gospel.

3dly. The Ceremonies thus taken do seem to be against Christian Liber­ty, Charity and Ʋnity. They seem to be against Christian Liberty. The Liberty which we have in Christ is a real one. Omnia (saith Tertullian) imaginaria in seculo; All things, even Liberty it self, are imaginary in the world; but the Liberty which we have in Christ is true. Our Christian Li­berty stands in a spiritual manumissi­on, not only from Sin, Satan, Death, but also from the Yoke of Ceremonies. In the Gospel we have a double Door open to us, one into Heaven, another into Ordinances, to fit us for that Blessed Region; both these open Doors were purchased by the precious Blood of Christ, neither of them may be shut by man. The Jewish Cere­monies, as made necessary to Salvation, did shut the first Door, because there more things were made necessary to Salvation than the Gospel made. Our Ceremonies, as made terms of Commu­nion, seem to shut the second Door, [Page 83]because thereby other Conditions of participation in Ordinances are put upon men than are to be found in the Gospel. A free access unto the Sacra­ments was not only purchased by Christ's precious Blood for us, but granted by his Evangelical Charter to us; and a choice, a rare Liberty it is; but if men may bar up, or conditio­nate this access, where is our Christian Liberty? How can we come to Ordi­nances, [...], as the Freemen of Christ? The Human Yoke of Cere­monies is upon us; and I wonder that it can enter into rational minds, that God should break off the Yoke of his own Ceremonies, as unsuitable to the Evangelical Liberty, and yet that a Yoke of Human Ceremonies should be put on as congruous to it. If Human Ceremonies may succeed in the room of Divine, then the Yoke is not re­moved, but changed, and that as much for the worse, as Human Ceremonies weigh heavier than Divine. Were it put to the option of any intelligent man, whether he would have a Ritual Burthen of God's binding laid upon [Page 84]him, or one of Man's: He would cer­tainly chuse to have it done rather by the God of Wisdom and Mercy, than by any Creature. We see clearly that God hath no where in the New Testa­ment laid any such burthens, or set any such conditional bars to Ordinances; and how, or why should man do it? Or if he do it, how or which way is the Christian Franchise preserved? The Church's Power is but subordinate, and subalternate to Christ, and how can it put bars or conditions to that Priviledge which he hath granted to Christians? When a Church useth its Power according to the line and level of Scripture, then all is well; but when it overflows, and exceeds its Commission, then Christian Liberty goes to wreck.

Again, They seem to be against Christian Charity, as being stumbling-blocks to doubting Souls, occasioning their fall into sin. Our Dear Lord Jesus left us the Sacraments pure, Divine, altogether free from any scruple. But now the mystical Ceremonies are so interwoven and coupled in use with [Page 85]them, that Scrupulous Christians, in partaking of that which Christ insti­tutes, run into that which Conscience scruples; and in following that which is lifted up in the Example of Pious and Learned Church-men, fall and wound their Souls. The law of Cha­rity puts a restraint upon indifferent things in the case of Scandal. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do any thing whereby thy brother stum­bleth, or is offended, or is made weak, saith the Apostle, Rom. 14.21. Indiffe­rent things are in charity to be abstain­ed from in case of scandal. The Apo­stle presseth this by very weighty Ar­guments. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, v. 17. Religion doth not stand in such things. We must not in such things grieve or destroy our bro­ther, v. 15. We must not for them de­stroy the work of God, v. 20. that is, our Brother's Soul, which is his work by way of eminency. We must not destroy him for whom Christ died, v. 15. Scandal in indifferent things is not a wounding only, but a killing of our Brother, a kind of Soul-murther. Now if indif­ferent [Page 86]things, in case of scandal, are not to be admitted in common use, much less are those things (which have speci­em mali, an appearance of evil) in such case to be admitted into holy Sacra­ments; thither we come by Christ's ap­pointment, not to grieve and wound, but comfort and heal our Souls. Cha­rity should not suffer any Stumbling-block or Scandal to be seen there, every thing there should minister comfort and edification. I know many Answers are given to this, but scarce any satisfa­ctory ones. 'Tis said, that in case of scandal we must abstain from indiffe­rent things, whilst they remain indiffe­rent, but not after they are determined by Authority. But to me it sounds ex­ceeding harsh, to say, that in case the Magistrate commands it, we may wound or destroy our Brother. A Scandal in its nature is spiritual Mur­ther, which no Command of Man can make tolerable. Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of Charity, which no Command of Man can dispence with. 'Tis said, that in conforming to the Ce­remonies, there can be only a scandal to a [Page 87]brother, but in nonconforming there is scandal to the Magistrate; and this in­deed (if it be a Scandal of the same kind, is greater than the other. But (as Learn­ed Mr. Jeans doth distinguish.)Schol. & Pract Di­vin. par 2. fol. 127. There is a two-fold acception of Scandal, prima­ry and secundary; primary scandal is the occasioning the fall of another into sin. Secondary is the angring and displeasing of another. Conformity to the Ceremo­nies occasions our Brother to fall into sin, Nonconformity only occasions the displeasure of the Magistrate. Now to displease the Magistrate is surely more tolerable, than to occasion the poorest man to fall into sin. This is clear, be­cause it is more dangerous to displease God than Man. 'Tis said further, Debts of Justice are to be paid before debts of Charity: Obedience to Superiors is a debt of Justice, a matter of right; but the not giving of offence is a debt of Charity, a matter of courtesy. But as Mr. Jeans hath fully answered, The Rule must be understood, caeteris paribus, when the terms of comparison are equal; and equal they are not, when the Minims of Ju­stice are put into the Ballance with the [Page 88] weightiest duties of Charity; and so 'tis in the present comparison. Of what im­portance is the practise of a Ceremo­ny, in comparison of not scandalizing our Brother? Who can imagine that the command of a Ceremony can bear proportion with the command of not destroying a Brother? The Commands of God touching the externals of Wor­ship, are to give way to Mercy. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, saith God, Hos. 6.6. much more must the Com­mands of Men do so. Besides, the care of not giving offence, tho to my Brother, it be but a debt of Charity, yet in regard of God, it is a debt of Justice; and woe to him through whom the offence cometh. Moreover, it is said, that the offence by the Ceremonies is only Scanda­lum acceptum, non datum, a Scanal taken, not given. But the Ceremo­nies being not merely things indiffe­rent but having at least an appearance of evil, the Scandal is not taken only, but given. It is certainly our duty to abstain from all appearance of evil. The Nazarite was to abstain from the very Husk of the Grape. The Young [Page 89]man was not to come nigh the door of the strange Woman. Secundus will not deliver a little useless stuff to save his life, lest he should seem to be a Tra­ditor. Valentinian would not endure a little drop of Paganish Holy water. We must not dwell in the confines or neighbourhood of Sin. We should put away every shadow of Will-worship, every semblance of an addition to the holy Ordinances, every thing that looks like a conformity to the Romish Church; this were the way to be pure from giving offence to our Brethren.

Moreover, they seem to be against Christian Ʋnity. The first step to that first sin which brought in enmity into the World, was an addition to God's Word. Ye shall not touch it, Gen. 3.3. This was that that divided God's An­ [...]ient People the Jews, the Karai adhe­ [...]ed to the pure Scripture, but the Tal­ [...]udici brought in their Human Tradi­tions, and cried them up as Lux illa [...]agna, the great Light. The Pharisees would have above the Law their own Ceremonies and Traditions, and so they came to separate and divide [Page 90]themselves from others, calling the common people populum terrae, the peo­ple of the earth; and saying to Sinners, ne attingas me, touch me not. The Jewish Ceremonies troubled the Galatians, Gal. 1.7. Circumcision ceasing to be Divine any longer, became Concision, renting the Church; and the Doctors that mixed it with the Gospel, were as Dogs, tearing asunder the unity of it. When Victor urged a necessity of conformity in the observation of Easter-day, Irenaeus reproves him for this, tanquam pacis perturbatorem, as [...] troubler of the Churches peace; and in­deed there was a horrible breach be­tween the Eastern and Western Churches about it. When Images, a mere Human Invention, were brought into the Church, what fierce Conten­tions were there about it? The Green Emperors, Leo Isaurus, Constantinu [...] and others, opposing them in the East. And on the other side, the Bi­shops of Rome, Gregory the Second Gregory the Third, and others stish upholding them in the West. In the Council at Constantinople they were so­lemnly [Page 91]condemned;Spond. Ann, Anno Dom. 754. Crab. Conc. Tom. 2. and the people cried out, hodie salus mundo. In the Council of Nice they were advanced again even to veneration; and Euse­bius, for speaking against them, is said to be delivered over to a reprobate mind, and his Books are anathemati­zed. What an [...], a vehement Contention was there between the Greek and Latin Churches about le­vened and unlevened bread in the Eu­charist; the Greeks calling the Latins Azymitae, and the Latins the Greeks, Fermentarii. Ceremonies and Human Inventions in Worship, however they may be intended for Unity, are the occasions of Contention. Hence Me­lancton, tho he conformed to the Rites and Ceremonies in the Interim, yet wished with tears that they were re­moved, because as long as they re­mained there would be contention in the Church; and the reason of this is evident, The minds of men are not all alike, or of an equal temper. Some Pious and Learned Men allow of Ce­remonies, other Pious and Learned Men cannot receive them: In such a [Page 92]case as this,Anselm. ad querelas Vaeler auni, fol. 149. the urging of Uniformity is the loss of Unity. Anselm enquiring whence the various Customs in the Church arose, gives this Answer. Ni­hil aliud intelligo quam humanorum sen­suum diversitates. I know nothing but this, that men have different sentiments of things; that which one man thinks very apt in the Worship of God, that another thinks is not so. When such a necessary thing as Unity is placed in unnecessaries, it is lost; but when it is placed in things like it self, I mean in necessary things, then it is preser­ved. The Apostles (who as well un­derstood, and as much desired Unity in the Church as any) would lay no other burthen on Christians than ne­cessary things, Act. 15.28. St. Paul lays down a great many Unities, One body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all. Eph. 4.4, 5, 6. but there is not a word of one Ceremony. Those Bishops took the right course for Unity, who being met together in Council, made a Ca­non which they called Adiaphoron, Socrat. Hist. lib. 5. c. 20. be­cause they left the observation of [Page 93] Easter-day indifferent, as men would themselves. Were indifferent things left in their indifferency, the Unity of the Church would be much greater than it is.

Thus much may suffice touch­ing the Ceremonies; only because there are two Pleas for their innocen­cy, I must consider them.

The one is this; The Ceremonies are only for decency and order, and so within that Apostolical Precept, Let all things be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40.

I answer, Were the Ceremonies within that Precept, I should beg my pardon, and pronounce them innocent; but I take it they are not within it, and to clear this, I offer these things.

The Evangelical Sacraments, which are God's own Ceremonies, are in themselves, and without any Human dress, worthy of all re­verence,Nostra Sacramenta tam praeclara sunt, ut etiamsi nuda & nullis Sacra­mentalibus suffulta pro­ponerentur, omni essent veneratione digna. Me­dina in Aquin. 1, 2. Q. 108. Art. 2. the Institution hath put a glory upon them. Human Ceremo­nies, which are as much below them, as a Cloud is [Page 94]below the Sun, are more apt to darken than illustrate them. When Sacra­ments are in their pure simplicity, then the splendour of the Holy Signs shines forth; but when they are muffled up in Human Rites, then the Divine Beauty is obscured. And if Divine Ce­remonies need Human to put a deco­rum upon them, much more do Hu­man Ceremonies need an addition of further Ceremonies for that end, and so there may be Ceremonies upon Ce­remonies in infinitum.

Our Lord Christ, who knew better than all men what Decency is, never instituted any such Ceremonies. The Apostles, who gave the Rule of Decen­cy, never used them. They did admini­ster Ordinances decently, but without them. Hence it appears that their Pre­cept never extended to them; for had it done so, they would not have omit­ted them, but had practised that Pre­cept which they had given. The Wor­ship of the Apostles, which was with­out Ceremonies, was either decent, or undecent, (for Decency and Undecen­cy are privatively opposite, and between [Page 95]privative opposites there is no medium of abnegation in subjecto capaci.) If the Apostles Worship, void of all Ceremo­nies, be decent, then Decency doth not consist in Ceremonies; if undecent, they did not (which cannot be imagi­ned) observe their own Rule of De­cency, and act as they taught.

Order and Decency in the Worship of God are things necessary, not mere­ly by a positive Law, but by a natural. Not only the Apostolical Precept, but the very dictate of Nature is, that the Service of God should be performed in an orderly and decent manner. The Heathen Oracle could say, That in the Worship of God men should follow, morem optimum, the best manner. Nat. Quaest. l. 7. c. 30. Se­neca out of Aristotle tells us, That when men have to do with the Gods, they should be, verecundiores & compositi, modest and composed in their demeanour. The Light of Nature teacheth us, that we should serve God in a way suitable and congruous to his Divine Majesty. Thus Order and Decency are necessa­ry, but so are not Ceremonies. Hence it appears, that the difference between [Page 96]them is as great, as between necessary and unnecessary.

Order is nothing but a right dispo­sition of things, Decency is nothing but the seemliness of Order. Order and De­cency require not,Vide Ames Medul. l. 2. c. 13. that some Holy things should be newly ordained; but that those which are ordained by God, should be used in a way congruous to their dignity. The Ceremonies, which are new Appointments, appertain not to Order and Decency. The instituti­on of somewhat new is one thing; and the right and seemly disposition of that which is instituted, is another.

The other Plea is this. The Cere­monies are not made by our Church any parts of Worship, and therefore there is no offence in them.

I answer, The Ceremonies seem to be parts of Worship feveral ways. They seem to be parts of Worship in themselves, as being an honouring of God, at least in some respect. It's true they are not parts of Worship, ratione principii, because they are not parts of Divine Institution: But they seem to be parts of Worship, ratione termini [Page 97]as being an honour done to God. There may be a double honour done to God. There is an honour done to him as the Supream Being, by subjection and re­signation: And there is an honour done to him as the Fountain of Grace, by dependance upon him for some Spiritual Gift. Both these seem to be in the use of the Ceremonies. In the use of the Cross, the Infant is resigned to God, dedicated to him that died on the Cross, and this looks like Worship. Again, the Ceremonies are Mystical Teachers; not Supream Teachers, for that were to turn them into Idols; but Ʋnder Teachers; and therefore in the regular use of them we must depend upon the great Teacher for illumina­tion; and this also seems to be an act of Worship.

They seem to be parts of Worship relatively, as they are in conjunction with the holy things of God. The Cross is so interwoven with Baptism in the administration of it, that it looks like a part of it. Before Baptism the Minister prays for those that are dedi­cated to God; and that dedication is, as [Page 98]the Canon tells us, by the Cross. After Baptism, thanks are given that the Child is received into the Congrega­tion, and this is done by the Cross also: For upon making the Cross, the Mini­ster saith, We receive this Child into the Congregation. Parker Of the Cross fol. 115. Thus, as Mr. Parker hath noted, the Cross is incorporated into Baptism in the administration of it. They are knit together, à priori & à posteriori, by the precedent and subse­quent Prayers.

Moreover, they seem to be parts of Worship reputatively, as they are high­ly valued. Our Saviour charges the Pharisees, that they preferred their Traditions above the Commands of God, Matt. 15.3, 6, 9. Their Corban swallowed up their duty to Parents. The Jews say, that there is more in the words of the Scribes, than in the words of the Law; and that it were better to die, than to violate a Tradition. Our Divines charge the very same thing upon the Papists. Whitaker tells Duraeus, That it was a greater Offence,Tom 1.206. Quadragesi­mam violare quam Dei verbum contem­nere, to break Lent, than to despise the [Page 99]Word of God. Gregorius Hemburgius, Melch. Adam. de vitis Jure­consulto­rum. Doctor of Law, was wont to say, That for many years men might speak more freely, de potestate Dei quàm Papae, of the Power of God, than of the Pope. And what is the value that is now upon Ceremonies among our selves? Hath there not been too high a rate set upon them? May we not com­plain in the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 75. ad Pomp. Di­vina praecepta solvit, & praeterit humana traditio. Human Tradition dissolves and passes over Divine Precepts? It is appa­rent, that if Learning and Piety could have outweighed a Ceremony, many Worthy and Excellent Persons had been now in the Church, who are at this time out of it. I may add, it is also clear, that if that Heat and Zeal which hath run out against Non­conformity, could have been turned a­gainst Impiety and Profaneness, we had now been a much more excellent Peo­ple than at this time we are. It was often the complaint of Erasmus, Whit. Tom. 2. fol. 726. Divi­na contemni, Humana urgeri. That Di­vine things were contemned, and Human urged. If this should be our case, it [Page 100]would be no wonder at all for men to say, that the Ceremonies are made parts of Worship.

Thus much touching the Ceremo­nies: And if what hath been alledged against them be true, the Separation of the Nonconformists can hardly be imagined to be without cause. But be­cause not only the Ceremonies, but some other terms lay as blocks in their way; I shall add one short word more. They were by an Act of Ʋniformity deprived of their People, and their People of them. They could not come up to the terms of a publick Ministry, neither would their People come to the publick Ordinances; in this, which I take it, was their case, it is extream hard to charge criminous Schism up­on them. When the Emperor put Chrysostom out of his Church,Socrat. l. 6. c. 16. the Jo­annites separated from the Publick, and those not only People, but Bishops and Presbyters; yet I do not know that they were charged with the crime of Schism for it.Theod. l 1. cap. 21. When Eustathius Bi­shop of Antioch was banished, many people and Ministers left the Publick [Page 101]Assemblies. Yet I find not that these Separations were charged with the crime of Schism. The Nonconformists being in the same, or a very like case, Charity would make the same con­struction of them. Thus much touch­ing the sixth Character. Now I pro­ceed to the last.

7thly. Schismatical Separation is not only from a particular Church, but from the Catholick one. It is a memorable Passage of the Reverend Ʋsher, whose words I shall transcribe. Neither particular Persons, In a Ser­mon be­fore the King. 1624. nor particu­lar Churches, are to work as several di­vided Bodies by themselves (which is the ground of all Schism) but are to teach, and to be taught, and to do all other Christian Duties, as parts conjoin­ed to the whole, and Members of the same Commonwealth or Corporation. The Ex­cellent Davenant, Boroughs in his Ireni­cum. fol. 67. in his Rules for Peace, saith, Proscindi nec debent nec possunt à communione particularium Ec­clesiarum, quae manent conjunctae cum Ecclesiâ Catholicâ; Those may not be cut off from communion with particular Churches, who remain joined to the Ca­tholick [Page 102]Church. I may add, Those may not be esteemed Schismaticks by any particular Church, who are in conjun­ction with the Universal. Schismatical Separation is not only from a particu­lar Church, but from the Universal. And is it thus with the Nonconfor­mists? Do they separate from the Church-Catholick? I take it they do not; and for this I shall lay down two or three things.

A Particular Church may be consi­dered two ways, either in that which it hath in common with other particular Churches, now, or heretofore in being; or in that which it hath particular to it self. A particular Church in the first respect acts as a part of the Church-Catholick; but in the second respect it acts by it self. A Separation from a par­ticular Church, considered in the first respect, is a separation from the Church Catholick; but a separation from it, considered in the second respect, is not so. The Nonconformists differ from our Church, not in that which it hath in common with other Churches, but in that which it hath in peculiar. They differ [Page 103]from it in Episcopacy, so do the Foreign Churches; they differ from its Liturgy, so do the Foreign Churches, at least in part. Their Congregations are distinct, and distant from the Parochial Churches, so is one Parochial Church from ano­ther. If the Foreign Churches, notwith­standing such differences, are in unity with our Church, so are the Noncon­formists. If the Nonconformists, by rea­son of such differences are Schisma­ticks, what are the Foreign Churches which have the same? You will say the case is diferent. Those of Foreign Churches never did, as our Noncon­formists do, go out from our Parochial Churches. Very true, but every local separation doth not amount to Schism; neither have others the same occasion of separation from our Churches as the Nonconformists have.

When a Law or Canon made by those who have particular jurisdiction in a Nation or Church, will justify Separa­tion, and make it no Schism, then the Separation is not from the Church-Ca­tholick. But such is the case of the Non­conformists. Should there be such a [Page 104] Law or Canon made among us, it would justify their Separation, and make it no Schism; therefore their Separation is not from the Church Catholick.

When men separate from a Church in pride, and contempt, as if they only were the Church, then the Separation is from the Church Catholick. Thus the Novatians thought that the pure Church was with them only. Thus the Donatists said, that the Church was only in parte Donati. Thus the Papists say, that the Church is only in parte Papae: but the Nonconformists do not do so. They acknowledge our Church to be a true Church, they are joined to it in all that which is true unity. They would further bear a part in it, if some Stumbling blocks were out of the way. By these things it may appear, that they still remain in conjunction with the Church-Catholick.

Thus I have gone over the Chara­cters of Schismatical Separation; and in so doing have briefly examined the Case of the Nonconformists.