the Primitive Pastours and Governours of the Church we readily comply with We believe all the Articles contained in those three ancient Creeds viz. that commonly called the Apostles the Nicene and the Athanasian We are willing to submit to all the Decisions and the Determinations of the four first General Councils and to any Council that is lawfully called and truly free and general We are ready to receive all Traditions that are truly Apostolical and we are willing to embrace any other truth as yet unknown to us whensoever or by whomsoever it shall be duly made out to be so And whilst we this doe we cannot truly be charged to have broken Communion with the Catholick Church nor justly reputed Schismaticks therefrom And as for the Church of Rome she being only a particular Church hath no jurisdiction at all over the Church of England and consequently no more power to censure us than we have to censure her for in this case the rule holds Par in parem non habet imperium Equals have no Authority over one another And therefore for her to impose her new Articles of Faith upon the Church of England and because she refuseth to receive them and joyn Communion with her upon those terms presently cry out Schism Schism is so idle so vain so unaccountable a Clamour as I am perswaded the Learned among them cannot but disapprove it For whilst we hold the Catholick Faith entire and maintain Communion with the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church therein though we differ from the Church of Rome or any other particular Church in some Doctrines Yet is it impossible that we should be guilty of a Schismatical Separation either from her or them SECT VII II. Of Worship as it is a Bond of Communion BY Worship here I mean Publick Worship and that considered only in its Substantials and Essentials not as it is clothed with particular Modes Rites and Ceremonies Otherwise it can be no Bond of Communion The substantial and essential Parts of Publick Worship I take to be these viz. Prayer reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the administration of the blessed Sacraments Now these in divers Churches may be performed in different Manners and with different Rites and Ceremonies and yet those Churches notwithstanding this may still hold Communion with the Catholick Church and consequently be guilty of no Schismatical Separation therefrom nor from one another But if we by Worship understand the established Publick Worship of a particular Church then are we to consider it not as abstracted from but clothed with such Modes Rites and Ceremonies as are thought convenient by that Church And if any one who is a Member of such a Church shall upon any pretended offence taken against any such Modes Rites and Ceremonies separate himself from the Publick Worship I do not see how he can be acquitted from the guilt of Schism And this I take to be the case not only of the Protestant Dissenters from the Church of England as they call themselves but of English Roman Catholicks too For that they did hold actual Communion with us many years together in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and neither then nor ever since did pretend to take any offence at the Substantials of our Worship is very plain and evident And that it was not we that separated from them but they that separated from us is as manifest and therefore it will concern them more than us to clear themselves from the sin of Schism And for this I know no other Plea they can make use of than their obedience to the Universal Pastour of God's Church which Plea is to be considered under the next great Bond of Communion viz. Government SECT VIII III. Of Government as it is a Bond of Communion THat our great and Universal Pastour the Lord Jesus Christ did found and constitute a Church and that he did not leave it without Laws and Rules to be governed by nor without proper Governours invested with Power and Authority to exert and execute those Laws we stedfastly believe But that he ever did delegate all his Power to any One or substitute any One Person to be the Universal Pastour of the Church after him we cannot believe because we have no ground for it either in Scripture or in any primitive and authentick Antiquity And indeed how should we for till the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople began to envy one another's Greatness and to strive for Supremacy which was about 600 years after Christ the Church was never acquainted with any such name or thing as is now claimed And no sooner did it adventure to peep abroad but warning was given against it as Antichristian and that by one of their Popes And when afterwards it was publickly usurped it was condemned by a General Council and they are not yet agreed among themselves where to fix it And therefore they cannot in reason expect that we should build our Faith upon such an uncertain Foundation or make that a Bond of Communion in the Church which the Church from 600 years and upwards knew nothing of That Government is a Bond of Communion in the Christian Church we acknowledge and that it was never lodged in the hands of any one Person since our Saviour I think is very plain and evident But where then doth it reside This will best be known by considering how it is derived That it was united in the Person of our Blessed Saviour will be acknowledged on all hands and where he left it there we are to look for it Now that he left it with his Apostles and made them equal sharers therein I think is very plain notwithstanding that pretence which is made by our Adversaries that it was lodged in Peter alone a pretence which hath been so often and so miserably baffled and which if it were true would doe them no service that I wonder they are not ashamed to bring it upon the stage any more And that from the Apostles it was derived to their Successours the Bishops and Pastours of God's Church is the received opinion of all Antiquity Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cypr. de Vnitate Ecclesiae Edit Oxon. p. 108. And that it now lies dispersed among all the Pastours and Bishops of particular Churches unless they be lawfully called and assembled in Synods or Councils under the Power Protection and Assistance of Civil Authority we verily believe This is the notion we have of the visible and external Government of the Catholick Church and as it hath been so if there were occasion for it may it still be made appear to have been the very notion that all the World except those who have submitted to the Usurpation of Rome ever had and still have of it to this day Now the Laws and Rules by which this Government is administred are to be found in the Holy Scriptures in the Usages and Customs of
sense is not Schism but Apostasie and it will be impossible for any man to find a sufficient reason for that But if it be considered as a separation from the communion of some particular Church then it is implied that possibly there may be such cause given as may justifie the Separation and if so then the guilt of Schism will lie at the door of that Church which gives such cause and not at his or theirs who separate therefrom Now I have already told you that I know no cause which can justifie such a Separation save onely this when a Church makes the terms of her Communion such as cannot be complied withall without sin And in this case methinks it is very plain That it cannot be sin to separate when it is sin to communicate for no Laws of Men can abrogate or dissolve the obligation of the express Laws of God. But if there be no such cause then to break communion with any Christian Church upon any other account will amount to a Causeless Separation and consequently incur the guilt of Schism If therefore the Church of England ever did or now doth forsake the communion of the One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church or if she ever did or now doth voluntarily and causelesly break communion with any particular Christian Church then may there be some colour to charge her with the sin of Schism but if none of all this can be made appear against her then ought she to be acquitted of that charge Now whether any such thing can be made out against her or whether the whole charge will not fall heavy upon the Church of Rome will appear in the sequel of this Discourse SECT XI V. Schism is a Separation from the Communion of that Church of which we are Members THis is the last part of our Definition and I add these words of which we are Members because Schism imports a Division of some united and well compacted Body or a making two of that which before was but one On this score is it that we cannot charge Turks Pagans and Jews with Schism because they never were of the Christian Church nor joyned with her in any Religious Society And here the Church will be at a great loss how to fix the guilt of Schism upon the Church of England for if we neither are nor ever of right ought to have been under the Government of that Church then hath she no Jurisdiction over us nor do we owe her any subjection and obedience and consequently cannot be guilty of Schism towards her nor hath she any power to censure us for it We own her to be a Sister-Church and a true though unsound Member of the Catholick Church and so far as she holds the Catholick Faith and Worship we are ready and willing to hold Communion with her But we cannot submit to her Usurpations nor communicate with her in those Errours Abuses Superstitions Additions Subtractions and Alterations by which she hath so grosly corrupted the pure and primitive Faith and Worship of God's Church SECT XII The Church of England acquitted from the Scandal of Schism IF this Definition of Schism be allowed as I see no cause why they should disown it and not applicable to the Church of England then is she unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism by the Church of Rome Now whether it be applicable to the Church of England will appear by taking a review of the several parts of it 1. Schism is a Separation i. e. a breach of Unity or a dividing of some well compacted Body And here we are charged for breaking the Unity and dividing the Body of the Roman Catholick Church as they call it To which I answer if that Church were truly Catholick either in respect of place or Doctrine this charge would lie heavy upon us but being neither we shall be able with less difficulty to answer this Objection It must be acknowledged that the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation and some long time before that had usurped a certain Power and Dominion over us and had exerted the same in such extravagant impositions as at last became too heavy for us to bear That Church had indeed by a long custome gained such an ascendent over our Fore fathers that she had enslaved their Judgments and obtruded what she pleased upon them she had unawares led them into many Errours in Doctrine many Superstitions in Worship and almost swallowed up their Liberty in Point of Government At length it pleased God to open the Eyes of our Fore-fathers to see the slavery and bondage they were in and how far they were gone from the Unity of the Catholick Church both in Faith in Worship and in Government To retrieve themselves many Efforts were made and great Endeavours used for a Reformation But none of those prevailing they at last bethought themselves of casting off the Roman yoke which by the assistance of the Civil Authority not in tumultuary but in a regular way was effected and when that was done then upon mature deliberation they reform those other abuses which were crept in among them Whether this broke Catholick Unity or no let the World judge If this be a Schism we must own our selves guilty of it but we see no reason to own it to be so yet for in all this we have done nothing but what we are able to justifie before all the World. For even our Adversaries themselves will not deny but that a National Church hath power in it self to reform abuses within it self But it may be they will tell us that we are not a Church but a faction or party made up of Schismaticks and Hereticks broke loose from the Church If this were true we should have little to say for our selves but a bare accusation is no proof They may do well therefore to recollect themselves and consider that before Austin the Monk set his Foot in England there was a Christian Church settled here under lawfull Governours which Church opposed the proceeding of that proud Monk and denyed obedience to the See of Rome for which they severely suffered If notwithstanding all this our Adversaries shall as they frequently do revive that old thred-bare question so often baffled Where was your Church before the Reformation Our answer is ready it was where it is the same for substance now that it was then It is indeed reformed and repaired but not made new There is not one stone of a new foundation laid by us the old Walls stand still only the overcasting of those ancient stones with the untempered Mortar of new inventions displeased us and that we washed off Durand Ration l. 1. What their own Durandus saith of material Churches is very applicable to the Spiritual If the wall be decayed not at once but successively it is judged still the same Church and upon reparation not to be reconsecrated but only reconciled If therefore our Church be the same for
as to deserve this title two things are to be supposed viz. Admonition and Conviction 1. That he hath been admonished and that more than once of the evil of his way of the danger of it and of the necessity of leaving it 2. That he is convinced in his own mind of all this These two are expresly contained in that direction and advice which St. Paul gives to his Son Titus A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Knowing that he that is such is subverted or perverted and sinneth being condemned of himself Tit. 3.10 11. Secing therefore these two are so necessary to complete the character of an Heretick it may not be amiss to take a view of them severally before we apply the Character SECT VIII Of Obstinacy in Errour against Admonition THAT men in Errour ought to be admonished will be own'd by all and that in case of Heresie the Admonition is to be repeated is plainly intimated by St. Paul in his advice to his Son Titus already quoted And in what manner and by whom this Admonition is to be given our Saviour's Rule in the case of trespasses and offences between brethren will very fully instruct us Matth. 18.15 16 17. which is this If thy brother trespass against thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him if he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother But if he hear thee not take with thee one or two that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be confirmed And if he refuse to hear them tell it unto the Church and if he refuse to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican Where we may observe that our Saviour speaks of a twofold Admonition viz. one that is to be given in private and in a brotherly and friendly manner and another that is to be given in publick by those who had jurisdiction over the offending person and are vested with power and authority to censure him Now let us apply this to the case in hand If thy Brother offend by embracing and tenaciously holding some fundamental errour in Religion and this come to thy knowledge it will be a charitable work in thee if in a brotherly and friendly manner thou dost privately admonish him between thee and him alone if thou beest successfull therein thou hast done a good work thou hast gained thy brother But if this will not doe thou must not leave it so but take others with thee and admonish him before them Thus far may a private person interess himself in admonishing another who is faln into or in danger of falling into Heresie and if the person admonished continue obstinate against such admonition he doth by that stubbornness very much add to his crime and incur the guilt of Heresie yet properly speaking he cannot truly be called an Heretick in the eye of the Church because she hath not yet taken cognizance thereof And therefore it follows if he refuse to hear them tell it to the Church i. e. bring the cause before them who have a jurisdiction over him and sufficient power and authority to censure and punish him And being once and again admonished by the Church if he still remain contumacious then let him be rejected saith St. Paul or as our Saviour here let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican i. e. let him by Excommunication be cast out of the Church and counted unworthy the society of Christian men This is the method in which we ought to proceed against Hereticks they must be admonished and that Admonition must be repeated and they must be obstinate against that Admonition before we ought to censure them But it is not a private but publick not only a friendly but authoritative Admonition and stubbornness against that which will truly denominate a man or any Society of men to be Hereticks For Heresie is an Opinion contrary to that of the Catholick Church Aug. cont Faustum saith St. Aug. And whosoever doth obstinately believe that which is contrary to the holy Catholick Faith is an Heretick In Enchirid c. 11. p. 141. n. 2. if he be baptized saith their Navar. Doctor And whosoever despising the authority of the Church doth obstinately defend wicked opinions Part. 1. in expos art 9. Symbol p. 76. n. 2. he is to be called an Heretick saith their Trent Catechism Now if the Church of Rome can prove that the Church of England hath espoused and publickly taught any fundamental Errour in Religion and hath been thus regularly dealt withall and duely admonished by those who had authority so to doe and yet continued obstinate in her errour against such Admonition then is she guilty otherwise not But this I shall have Occasion to consider more particularly hereafter and therefore at present I shall proceed SECT IX Of Obstinacy in Errour against Conviction AN Heretick is one that is not only subverted or perverted Tit. 3.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but self-condemned saith St. Paul i. e. One who having once received and owned the true Faith doth now oppose and condemn it as false saith their own Lyra in loc or one who commendeth Errour and reproacheth truth saith the Ord. Gl. Who like those who accused the Woman taken in Adultery before our Saviour John 8.9 is convicted by his own Conscience i. e. who is conscious to himself of the evil of his own doings Self-condemnation always supposeth conviction an Heretick therefore being one that is self-condemned must also be convinc'd of the errour of his way and one who notwithstanding that conviction still remains stubborn and obstinate therein i. e. who resists the repeated admonition of the Church For if a man labour under an invincible ignorance and be thereby betrayed into some dangerous errour or by the misfortune of an ill education have his judgment perverted and prepossessed with wrong notions and sentiments of things his case is truly pityable and it would be very hard and injurious to burden him with the guilt of Heresie But if such an one being admonished of the evil of his way shall happen to be convinc'd of his errour and yet after such admonition and conviction contumaciously continue therein he will have no plea left to excuse him from the guilt thereof By the old Law Numb 15.24 25 26 27 c. if a man sinned through ignorance there was an atonement provided for him but if he sinned presumptuously there was no atonement for him but he was to be cut off from among the people This was St. Paul's case in the time of the Gospel for he himself tells us That he was a blasphemer and a persecutor and an oppressor 1 Tim. 1.13 but he obtained mercy because he did it ignorantly through unbelief But if after he was converted he had been guilty of these crimes his plea of ignorance and unbelief would then have been out of doors and his case would