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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is a word derived from Congregating; in the New we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Aſſembly of the firſt-born, Hebr. 12.23. This is in Clemens Alexandrinus called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , acting as Biſhops among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. St. Paul would have Titus ordain 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, a Biſhop above a Presbyter is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,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 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, 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.

Theſe things being ſo, I come to lay down the true Unity. The Church may be conſidered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in its internal Eſſence, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , concorporated and copartners of the promiſe, Eph. 3.6. No 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Schiſm in the Church; and the reaſon is, becauſe every one of them did break the Unity of the Church in Ordinances. When 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when it relates to the Church, doth, as I take it, only denote in Scripture, Diviſions in a Church. But the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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 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.

1ſt. Schiſmatical Separation is intentional, and perfectly voluntary. Thus the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

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, 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. 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 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 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 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 • 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 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 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.

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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 • 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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 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 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.

3dly. The Sign of the Croſs in our own Church, though it be no Idol, yet is an Image; it is not indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a graven Image, but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to evert, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , paululum quiddam, any little new thing into it; that is, if it be brought in as neceſſary 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.