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 â—bi aliquam fingit Haeresin ut recte â—b Ecclesia recessisse videatur Com. in Tit. c. 3. saith â—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 Vnity 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 Vnity 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 Vnity 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 Vnity 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 Vniversal 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 Vniversal 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 Vniversal 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 Vniversalis 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 Vnion and Communion of the Church Catholick and Vniversal 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 Vnity 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 CHAP. III. The Separation of the N. C. is not Schism Not voluntary Not from want of Charity Not from Pride and Contempt Not attended with Error No breach of Sacred Vnity Not for little or no Cause The Rites and Ceremonies for which they separate no little things as considered in themselves Of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism The Ceremonies as terms of Communion intrench on Christ's Kingly Office Invert the Gospel are against Christian Charity Liberty and Vnity The Pleas for Ceremonies not satisfactory Of Order and Decency Whether the Ceremonies are parts of Worship N. C. do not separate from the Catholick Church 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 quà m 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
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 Vnity 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 Vnity 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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