Independency a Great Schism, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Cauſeleſs Separation from a true Church, is Schiſm.
§ 1 HE now fearing this or the like Objection, (as obvious to be made by every man) That if Schiſm be on…y amongſt the members of one Church,pag. 72. then the ſeparation of any man or men, from a true Church, or one Church from another, is not Schiſm; which is contrary to the judgement of moſt Christians, Divines, and Churches; he hopes to help himſelf by his old definition of Schiſm, in the Scripture preciſe deſcription of it, as he limited above: And peremptorily denies, that in that ſenſe, there is any relinquiſhment, departure,pag. 73. or ſeparation from any Church, or Churches, mentioned or intimated in the Scripture, which is, or is called Schiſm, or agreeth with the deſcription by them given us, of that term. But to this, I have many things to ſay. 1. That preciſe ſignification of the word, and deſcription of the thing is before diſproved. The word properly ſignifies a ſeparation of a Body into parts, and is applyed both to political and Eccleſiaſtical Bodies in the Scripture; as was proved above. 2. Suppoſing that to be the onelyonly ſenſe mentioned in the caſe of the Corinthians (which is denyed and diſproved) yet may another ſenſe be intimated in Scripture, and deduced by regular and rationall conſequence. The word ſignifying indefinitely ſeperation, either in opinion, or parts, is it not a faire conſequence? If ſeperation in judgement in a Church, be a Schiſm, much more upon that difference, to ſeparate from a Church, into another againſt the Church. 3. St. John blames ſome for ſeparating from the Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. they went out from us, &c: as is the manner of Schiſmaticall and Hereticall Spirits: being obſtinate in their opinions, and oppoſed by the Church, they ſtay not, till they are caſt out, but go out, and become the head of a faction, againſt the Church: as hiſtories do abundantly manifeſt. 4. His own places brought for inſtances of blameable ſeparation from a Church do all or ſome minde the nature of Schiſm, as precedaneous to that ſeparation, therefore this ſenſe is intimated in the Scripture, we ſhall conſider them in order.
§. 2 1. The firſt produced, is Heb. 10.25. not forſaking the Aſſembling of our ſelves together, as ſome do: He renders the words (for his own advantage) not wholly deſerting the Aſſembling of our ſelves, &c: and makes it to be Apoſtacie from the faith,p. 74. and thereupon upon forſaking the Aſſemblies: would any man call theſe Schiſmaticks, ſayes hee?
He formerly gloſſed this text, of neglecting the publick Aſſemblyes onelyonly: ſee Appendix. §. 14.He makes the context to be with the 26. v. that ſo he may draw it to Apoſtacie, they departed to Judaiſm; but it rather looks back to the 24. v. Let us conſider one another to provoke unto love & good works, which is the fruit of brotherly watchfullneſſe in members of a Congregation: Mat. 18.15. foreign, not forſaking the aſſembling, &c: but forſaking another, q. d. If we, forſake the aſſemblyes of the Church, we ſhall quickly neglect that brotherly mutuall care and inſpection of one another, and ſo fall into ſeparation or Apoſtacie. And the 26 v. rather referres to the latter end of the 25. v. but exhorting one another ſo much the rather, as you ſee the day approaching: For if we ſinne willingly, &c: If we forſake the aſſemblyes, neglecting brotherly inſpection, and ſo fall into Schiſm, or Apoſtacie, (from one to the other) the end will be dreadfull.
But firſt,Eſtius in loc. the Latine Interpreters expound it, of forſaking the Aſſemblyes, either by Schiſm or Apoſtacie. 2. Apoſtacie is graduall, either partiall in ſome point of Faith; or totall in all; the firſt may proceed to a Schiſm in the Church; the ſecond to a ſeparation from the Church. As thoſe, Act. 15. that in part forſook the way of the Goſpell, and joyned Moſes with Christ, circumciſion with baptiſm, are ſaid to go out from the Apoſtles, v. 24. Certaine, that went out from us, have troubled you with words: Theſe were Schiſmaticks in the one, and Apoſtates, or Separatiſts in the other. An Heretick or an Apoſtate may be a Schiſmatick, and ſomething more; as a Schiſmatick too often proves an Heretick. For when ſeducers have firſt raiſed diviſions in a Church, they either voluntarily forſake it, or are juſtly ejected by the Church, and then gather their Diſciples into diſtinct bodyes; in oppoſition to the Church as I ſaid above. The Apoſtle deſcribes them thus, Act. 20.30. Of your own ſelves ſhall men ariſe, ſpeaking perverſe things to draw away diſciples after them. Theſe are grievous Wolves, v. 23. ſo farre from taking care of the flock, that they rent and teare it, not ſparing the flock. And therefore the Apoſtle joynes theſe together, 1 Cor. 13.25. That there ſhould be no Schiſm in the body, but that the members ſhould have the ſame care one for another: Implying that where there is a Schiſm, in the Church, the members neglect the care one of another; and when the members neglect the care one of another, there's a Schiſm in the Church. But if they ſo farre neglect the care of one another, as to ſeperate from the Church, that's an higher degree of Schiſm, even a double Schiſm. As in the body naturall; if it be a Schiſm, for one member to rent and teare another, in the body, much more to rend and divide themſelves from the body, when they cannot have any care one of another. Wee ſee this exemplifyed at this day. When men have firſt raiſed diviſions in the Church, they ſeperate from the Church, and gather themſelves into diſtinct bodies, having no care for the body from whence they ſeperated, ſcarce owning them for Churches, but rather account them no true Churches, reproaching and reviling them; Are not theſe Schiſmaticks.
§. 3 2. The ſecond place, for blameable ſeparation, is of ſome, who withdraw themſelves from Church-communion,p. 75. at leaſt for a ſeaſon by their diſorderly and irregular walking. 1 Theſ. 5.14. foreign, and foreign, 2 Theſ. 3.2.6. Such there were in the primitive times, and in our dayes, whom we charge not with Schiſm, but vanity, folly, and diſobedience to the precepts of Chriſt, in generall. No mervail theſe are not charged with Schiſm; for they neither raiſed diviſions in the Church, nor ſeparated from the Church but were diſorderly and irregular out of the Church, in neglect of their callings; So the Apoſtle expreſly inſtances, 2 Theſ. 3.11. wee heare that there are ſome which walk among you diſorderly, not working at all, but are buſybodies. They did not ſeparate from the Church, but rather (…s ſome now do) made their frequenting of publick meetings and exerciſes, the Cloake for their idleneſſe; thinking the Church was bound to maintaine them. They were ſo farre from ſeparating from the Church, that ſome (who bring, v. 14. for excommunication) think, the Apoſtle commands the Church to ſeparate them, (i… they upon warning, mend not this fault) from the Societie. Others think that he commands them onelyonly to withdraw from them, in civill reſpects, and if they will not labour, let them ſtarve, v. 10. As for thoſe foreign, in the 2d verſe, which he calls perſons that abide quietly in no place, or ſtation; it is ſuppoſed they were not the ſame men but perſecutors of the Apoſtle, moſt abſurdly and unreaſonably: He knows foreign is a Logicall terme; ſignifying abſurd men, that know not the Topicks, or heads of reaſoning; and theſe are joyned with wicked and faithleſſe men. However, the Apoſtle commanding them to warne thoſe diſorderly men as brothers, by no meanes can be ſuſpected, to charge them for ſeparation. Yet if he will needs underſtand it of their ſeparation from Church communion, we ſhall charge them, not only with vanity, folly, diſobedience, but alſo with Sch…ſm. For they might ſtirre up diſſenſions in the Church, by defence of their idleneſſe (which himſelf calls Schiſm) and then ſeparate from the Church: but enough of that.
§. 4 3. Men alſo ſeparated themſelves, upon ſenſualitie, that they might freely indulge to their luſts,p. 76. and live in all manner of pleaſure all their dayes, Jude 19. v. Theſe are they that ſeperate themſelves, &c: That ſome men do ſeperate from the Church, upon doctrines of Libertie and licentiouſneſſe, is too evident, as in the old Gnoſticks, ſo in the late Ranters, and Family of Love; but no doubt theſe men maintained their opinions and practiſes in the Church, ſo long as they could, which cauſed diviſions in the Church, and ſo were Schiſmaticks: and after ſeparated into their own abominable meetings, as the world knows. That the Apoſtle ſpake of the ſame men in the 4, 7, 8, 10, verſes, and in the 19. verſe, is not probable, for thoſe former did not ſeparate from the Church, (or were nor then ſeparated) for he ſpeaks of them as frequenters of the Aſſemblyes, v. 12. Theſe are ſpots in your feaſts of charitie, when they feaſt with you; feeding themſelves without feare. Theſe Agapae, Love feaſts, were kept in their Church-meetings, at the Sacrament; therefore they were not ſeparated. And as for the 19. verſe, its the judgment of learned Divines, it imports juſt the nature of ſeducers, who draw diſciples after them, out of the Church. The word uſed to denote this ſeparation is foreign, which, Oecumenius ſayes, comes from foreign and ſignifies, extra terminos eccleſiae quempiam educere, elicere, to lead, or draw men out of the Church: and ſo implyes, they did not onelyonly ſeparate themſelves, but drew others alſo into ſeperation. And Clem. Alexandr. interprets it, ſegregantes fideles àfidel. bus, id eſt, alios ab aliis: Seperating the faithfull from the faithfull that is, ſome members of the Church from other: In a word, others underſtand it of both kinds of ſeparation, tam in doctrina quam in coetibus; in opinions and parties, or aſſemblyes. And both theſe being cauſeleſſe diviſions, are by all accounted Schiſm. p. 27.Now the reverend Doctor, to avoid this, calls theſe Abominations, and not Schiſm,As Anabaptiſts, Quakers, &c: do not ceaſe to be Independents, but a e that, and ſome thing more. and askes, whether the men of theſe abominations are to be accounted Schiſmaticks, or their crime, in ſeparating, Schiſm? But this is but a d…ſguiſe of the buſineſſe; For there may be Schiſm in this (and the other two afore) and ſomething more. He that raiſes diſſentions in a Church, and then ſeparates from it; either by Apoſtacie, Idleneſſe, or ſenſualitie, carryes his brand of a Schiſmatick with him; though it ſeeme to be ſwallowed up, in further abominations. There are degrees of Schiſm, (as I ſaid) which are not denominated from the terminus ad quem, the wickedneſſe that ſuch proceed unto; but from the terminus à quo, that is from a true Church. I ſhall put him a caſe; If a member of his Congregation, inclining to Apoſtacie, Idleneſſe, or ſenſuality ſhould firſt raiſe diviſions in his Church, concerning any of thoſe, and then ſhould ſeperate from his Church, either into irregular walking, as ſome Antinomians, or into Abhominations, as ſome Ranters, or into totall Apoſtacie and Atheiſm, which many are fallen into, from the height of this way; would he not ſay thee were Schiſmaticks and ſomething worſe? And of all it may be ſaid, "Theſe are they that ſeparate themſelves: I leave it to him.
§. 5 But he is ſo confident of the contrary, that he redoubles more vigourouſly, his former Aſſertion. I ſay,p. 77. for a man to with-draw, or with-hold himſelf from the Communion externall and viſible of any Church, or Churches, on the pretenſion and plea, be it true or otherwiſe, that the worſhip, doctrine, diſcipline inſtituted by Chriſt, is corrupted among them, with which corruption he dares not defile himſelfe, it is no where, in the Scripture called Schiſm, &c. Before I come to ſcanne the words in particular, I ſhall ſay, in generall, this is a fallacious, becauſe an ambiguous, aſſertion. For 1. He tells not whether a man may ſeparate, when there is corruption in ſome one of theſe onelyonly, or in all of them. 2. Nor how far ſome or all of theſe, muſt be corrupted, before we may ſeparate. 3. All theſe were as much corrupted (and more) in the Jewiſh Church, as in ours, (when he and his partie ſeparated from us) and yet our Saviour and his Apoſtles continued their Communion with it: and the Church of Corinth, in all theſe, was as much and more corrupted, than ours, yet the Apoſtle mentions, no ſeparating from it: 4. He now requires that it be called Schiſme in Scripture; when as before, he ſaid, if it had the nature of it, it was ſufficient. 5. If a bare Plea againſt corruptions, true or falſe, may warrant a ſeparation; then the moſt rigid ſeperatiſts may be, and are by him acquitted from Schiſm; as I ſaid above. But more particularly; He hath not rightly ſtated the queſtion, as now it lyes between us: which is not of a ſingle mans ſeceſſion from a true Church, a particular Congregation; to joyne himſelfe to another Church, of the ſame Conſtitution, where he may enjoy (as he thinks) the Ordinances more purely, or more profitably. For it was ever lawfull for a man to remove his habitation, and to joyne himſelfe to ſuch a Congregation. But the pinch of the queſtion is, whether a man, or a company of men, may ſeparate from a true Church, upon a plea of corruption in it, true or falſe, ſet up another Church, as to all Ordinances, renouncing that Church, to be a true Church. And ſo much the worſe and more Schiſmaticall is that ſeparation, from a true Church, when either thoſe men that ſeparate, have not done thoſe duties incumbent on them, to reforme it; or that Church is upon a Reſolution and endeavour, to reforme it ſelfe according to the Rule of the Goſpell. This is plainly our caſe at preſent, with the Doctor and his Aſſociates.
§. 6 But he further affirmes; Of one Church particular, departing from that communion with another,p. 78. or others, be it what it will, which it ought to hold, unleſſe in the departing of ſome of them, in ſome things, from the common Faith, which is ſuppoſed not to relate to Schiſm, in the Scripture we have no example. The more happie were thoſe times, that they yeelded no ſuch example. But if they did not, yet if they give us an example of one Church, divided upon differences, into ſeverall Congregations, or to ſome Ordinances (as we proved they do) they come very neere the caſe of Schiſm before us; And himſelfe hath granted, that upon ſuppoſition that Rome is a (particular) Church (as oppoſed to the Catholick) ſhe is the moſt Schiſmaticall Church in the world; not onelyonly in regard of her own inteſtine diviſions (as he) but alſo in her ſeparation from the Apoſtolicall primitive Church, in doctrine, worſhip and diſcipline; (as our Divines do maintaine) upon this acount it was, that the Divines of the Aſſembly ſaid; To leave all ordinary communion in any Church, with diſlike, where oppoſition,See p. 141 or offence offers it ſelfe, is to ſeperate from ſuch a Church, in the Scripture ſenſe; though they adde,pag. 79. ſuch ſeparation was not in being in the Apoſtles time. His exception to this, is frivolous, How they came to know exactly the ſenſe of the Scripture in and about things not mentioned in them, I know not. The reconciliation is eaſie; In the Apoſtles time, or in that caſe of the Corinthians, (ſuch was their happineſſe) there was no ſeparation of one Church from another, in that high manner, as after they did; but yet the Scripture gives a faire ground, by way of conſequence; there and in other places, above named, to conclude, that if ſeparation in a Church, in opinions and judgement, be a Schiſm, much more ſeparation from a true Church by perſons, or Churches, leaving all ordinary communion with it, with diſlike or oppoſition, is to be accounted Schiſm; eſpecially if they firſt depart from the common Faith, and then, upon that difference, ſeparate from the Church. And therefore, though he be unwilling, I ſhall not doubt but to be able to compell him to carry on the notion of Schiſm, further than yet he hath done.
§. 7 But that he may ſhew his skill and gratifie his Adverſaries, he will carry on this diſcourſe to a fuller iſſue, p. 81.according to the common definition of Schiſm; "That it is a breach of union, onelyonly he will put in a reaſonable poſtulatum, that this union be an union of the appointment of Jeſus Chriſt, which I ſhall freely grant him; provided he do not limit Schiſm, as formerly he did, to the worſhip of God only: yet that he does here againe; The conſideration of what ſort of union, in reference to the worſhip of God (marke that) is inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt, is the foundation of what I have further to offer, &c: The Deſigne of this is, that he may have a faire retreat, when he is charged with breach of union, in other reſpects, and ſo with Schiſm, to eſcape by this evaſion, This breach of union, is not in reference to the worſhip of God, in one Aſſembly, met to that end. And that is onelyonly Schiſm in the Scripture-notion; as he hath often ſaid. But I ſhall attend his motion.
§. 8 This union being inſtituted in the Church, according to the various acceptions of that word, ſo it is diſtinguiſhed: For which purpoſe he undertakes three things, to ſhew. 1. The ſeverall conſiderations of the Church, with which union is to be preſerved. 2. What that union is,p. 82. we are to keep with the Church, in each conſideration. 3. How that union is broken, and what the ſinne whereby it is done. Wherein we ſhall follow him as farre as we are concerned, leaving others to plead for themſelves.