14. yet there was no Schism Ambo in unitate Catholica constituti saith St. Austin both remained in Catholick unity There were differences between Chrysostom and Epiphanius between Jerom and Austin yet it would be hard to charge them with Schism The Lutherans differ from the other Reformed Churches in some lesser Truths but because they agree in fundamental Articles there is not properly a Schism the difference non impedit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hinders not the unity of the Faith saith Dr. Ward But then Differences amount to Schism when they break the unity of Faith Determ fol. 3. or the unanimous Communion in Ordinances Such were the Differences above-mentioned in Corinth there was no separation from the Church there yet because those Differences broke the unity of Ordinances they are called Schism A Schism from the Church stands in a criminous separation from it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it relates to the Church doth as I take it only denote in Scripture Divisions in a Church But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth seem to denote division from a Church Such a kind of dissention in which men separate one from another in body and place as well as mind Yet in that 1 Cor. 3.3 it seemeth to be no more than division in a Church However this be the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jud. 19. doth properly signify to separate or put ones self extra terminos Ecclesiae out of the bounds of the Church Now this Schism from a Church is either negative or positive Negative Schism is when men separate from a Church and go no further no new Church or Assembly is set up Positive Schism is when there is not only a simple Separation but a new Church or Assembly is instituted in which the Word and Sacraments are administred This is called struere Altare contra Altare A negative Secession may in some case be lawful as when one is unjustly ejected out of a Church he may recede from it Yet saith the Learned Camero a positive Secession in that case is not lawful De Eccles 325. he may not immediately set up a new Church at least not without some other Reasons or Circumstances Touching this Separating Schism it is first to be noted that there may be a Schism without a Separation and there may be a Separation without a Schism There may be a Schism without a Separation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Schism in the body 1 Cor. 12.25 when there is no schism from it There was not for ought I can see any Separation in the Church of Corinth Yet the Dissentions there making a breach upon the Communion in Ordinances did amount to Schism St. Cyprian saith De Unit. Eccl. That all believers are in one House The Church saith he is unanimit at is hospitium an House of amity and unanimity where they sweetly dwell together in the unanimous Worship and Service of God If a man do not go out of this House and leave the Unity of it yet if he make Dissentions there and disturb that Unity he is guilty of Schism 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 'T is 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 â—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
Books Published by Edward Polhill of Burwash in Sussex Esq And Sold by Thomas Cockerill at the Three Legs over-against the Stocks-Market PRecious Faith considered in its Nature Working and Growth In 8vo. Speculum Theologiae in Chricto Or a view of some Divine Truths which are either Practically exemplified in Jesus Christ set forth in the Gospel or may be reasonably deduced from thence In 4to. Christus in Corde Or the Mystical Union between Christ and Believers consider'd in its Resemblances Bonds Seals Privileges and Marks In 8vo. A Discourse of Schism A DISCOURSE OF SCHISM By that Learned Gentleman EDWARD POLHILL Esq Late of Burwash in Sussex LONDON Printed for Thomas Cockerill at the Three Legs over-against the Stocks-Market MDCXCIV TO THE READER 'T IS not the design of this Preface to commend the Author of the ensuing Treatise his own Works do that sufficiently He was a very Learned Gentleman and a Justice of the Peace of very great esteem among all men in his own Countrey where he lived in full and constant Communion with the Church of England And therefore being no Clergy-man either of one sort or t'other he is the more likely to write impartially about Schism and being no Frequenter of any of the Dissenters Meetings he cannot reasonably be supposed to be byass'd in their favour But yet on the other hand he was far enough from entertaining any of those Prejudices against their Persons or Assemblies which it hath been the great endeavour of some to infuse into the minds of all men but especially of the Magistracy and Gentry He was zealously concerned for Truth and Serious Religion not for a Party On all occasions he shew'd himself to be one of a truly Christian that is of a Catholick Temper and was a sincere lover of all good men of what Persuasion soever He was fully convinced and so wilt thou too if thou diligently perusest and readest the following Discourse that Bigotry is the dangerous Schism the guilt whereof a man is not necessarily involved in or secured from by the bare being of this or that Party among us CHAP. I. The Church-Catholick two-fold The very mystical Body of Christ or The totum integrale made up of all the Particular Churches The Vnity of the Church a Divine thing Doth not consist in Human Rites in a Liturgy Diocesan Episcopacy or the Civil Laws of Magistrates It s true Vnity in its internal Essence and external Communion A particular Church 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-Vnity 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 Vnity of it First Something must be spoken of the Church In the Old Testament we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word derived from Congregating in the New we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word derived from Evocating or calling out The Jewish Church being shut up in one Nation could meet all together in one place the Christian Church being spread over the World cannot indeed meet all together in one place but they are coetus evocatus a company called out of the World to the Worship of God The Church may be considered as Catholick or Particular The Catholick Church may be taken either as the very mystical Body of Christ or as a totum integrale to all the particular Churches on Earth As the mystical Body of Christ it is invisible made up only of real Saints all of them are internally united to Christ the Head all are animated by the Holy Spirit all have the Joints and Bands of Grace all have the effectual working in their hearts This is the Church-Catholick in the Creed this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Assembly of the first-born Hebr. 12.23 This is in Clemens Alexandrinus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Congregation of the Elect. Here are no damnata membra as St. Austin speaks As Christ's natural Body did consist all of pure Members so this mystical Body doth consist of true Believers As in every Member of the natural Body there is an Human Spirit so in every Member of the mystical Body there is the Spirit of Christ Such is the Catholick Church as it is the mystical Body of Christ But as it is a totum integrale made up of all the particular Churches on Earth so it is as its parts are visible and made up of good and 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 Vnity 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 Vnitas termini one Heaven that is hoped for by it Vnitas mediorum one Faith one Baptism to join men to Christ and the Church Vnitas Capitis one Lord Jesus who
is the vital Head of the Church Vnitas 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. Vnitas à Domino per Apostolos tradita An Vnity delivered from the Lord Christ and by the Apostles and by St. Austin Vnitas Christi the Vnity 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 Vbi 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 Spoasâ— Ecclesia summâ concordiâ tranquillissimâ pace intemeratâ veritate fruebatur cum simplicitatem puritatem Evangelicae Doctrinae maximi omnes faciebamus solis Sacris eloquiis contenti his inhaerentes his acquiescentes in unum ab his collecti ovile sub uno Pastore omnes agentes Crab. Conc. Florent Archbishop of Nice That then the Church had the highest concord peace and truth when it did adhere to the simplicity and purity of the Evangelical Doctrine contented with the Sacred Oracles inhereing and acquiescing in them only collected by them into one fold and living under one Pastor The only true Unity of the Church is that which is to be found in Scripture When men will have an Unity not of God's making but of their own it falls out as when a piece of new cloth is put to an old Garment there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rent made The Humane thing that did seem to fill up the Churches Unity doth make a breach in it Victor will have one Easter-day 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 'T is 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 Vnity 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 Vnity 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 â—n si confusissima Babylon Vnder the Pope is the pomp of external Vnity but within there is nothing but a most confused Babel It is certain Church-unity 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were not extant in the first Centuries There mention is made of Temples Altars Monasteries such things as the Primitive Church knew not Apol. 2. prope finem Tert. Ap. cap. 30. In Justin Martyr's time the Minister prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to his ability In Tertullian's he prayed Sine monitore quia de pectore without any Prompter but their own heart Epist 34. de Celer In St. Cyprian's time the Ecclesiastical Lector was to read praecepta Evangelium Domini not a Liturgy Euseb de Vit. Constant l. 4. c. 20. In Constantin's time had there been a Liturgy he had not needed to have composed a Prayer for his Army Soc. Eccles Hist l. 5. c. 21. In the time of Socrates among all Forms of Religion 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thess 5.12 The Presidency there was in many not in one The Bishops at Philippi Phil. 1.1 being more than one in one city were no other than Presbyters The Presbyters at Ephesus are in express terms called Bishops Acts 20.17 28. St. Peter exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acting as Bishops among them 1 Pet. 5.2 St. Paul would have Titus ordain 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Vnity 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
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 'T is a breach of the Sacred Vnity 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 Vnitatem Dei Who dares cut in pieces the Vnity 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 Vnitate 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 'T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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.
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 'T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Vmbra'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
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 'T is 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 'T is 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 'T is 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 't is 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 Vnity 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 Anâ—ient People the Jews the Karai adheâ—ed to the pure Scripture but the Talâ—udici brought in their Human Traditions and cried them up as Lux illa â—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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