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.
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
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-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 Vnity 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 Vnde 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 â—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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a graven Image but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a similitude of Christ crucified Representation is the very essence of an Image and the Sign of the Cross is intended to resemble Christ crucified Aquin. Pars 3. Q. 83. Art 1. As the Sacraments are by God's Institution representative Images of Christ's Passion so is the Cross by Man's and what doth an Image do in Divine Worship The Second Commandment shuts out all Images from it nay under that notion it would shut out the very Sacraments were they not of Divine Ordination Anciently the Christians would not suffer Images to be in their Churches Ael Lamprid in vita Alexandri When the Emperor Adrian commanded Temples to be made without Images it was presently conceived hat he did prepare them for Chritians Conc. El. Can. 36. Epiph. Epist ad Joh. Hierosol The Eliberine Council would not admit that Pictures should be in Churches Epiphanius rent the Vail that hung in the Church of Anablatha because it had the Image of Christ or 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 '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