Independency a Great Schism, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Schiſm in Scripture.
§. 1 THis reverend and learned Authour (as appeares from his, pag. 16. Sect. 16. of the firſt Chapter) undertakes to anſwer a Popiſh charge of Schiſm, upon the Church of England, directed to both the Ʋniverſities. And in his vindication of our Church, (as was expected) carries on the debate ſo farre, as not only to vindicate himſelfe and his partie from the like charge, by ſome at home, but alſo (as many wiſe men think) to unchurch his mother the Church of England; and to find or leave no Churches here, but his own as the Donatiſts of old did. That this is the reſult of his diſcourſe (if not the deſigne) will appeare, before we have done. But we ſhall attend at preſent, to the method of his proceeding; who thus begins. The thing whereof we treat being a diſorder, in the inſtituted worſhip of God,P. 21. I ſuppoſe it a modeſt requeſt to deſire, that we may abide ſolely to that diſcoverie and deſcription, which is made of it in Scripture; that that alone ſhall be eſteemed Schiſm, which is there ſo called, or hath the entire nature of that, which is there ſo called. It is (they ſay) an ill ſigne or omen, to ſtumble at the threſhold, in going out. The firſt part of theſe words, is very ambiguous, and may have a double ſenſe, either that Schiſm is to be found, in matter of inſtituted worſhip only, or only in the d…fferences made, in the time of celebrating inſtituted worſhip: and neither of theſe is true, or yet proved, and ſo a meer begging of the queſtion: Yet both of theſe; are aſſerted by him hereafter; the firſt, Sect 23. the latter, Sect. 9. of which, more when we come at them. In the meane time we aſſert the contrary. That as there may be Schiſm in the Church about other matters, beſides inſtituted worſhip▪ ſo there may alſo be Schiſm, in other places and times, than thoſe of celebrating worſhip. For the ſecond part of the words, which is a Requeſt, it ſhall by me be readily granted. That we abide ſolely to that diſcovery, and deſcription, which is made of it in ſcripture; that, that alone be eſteemed Schiſm, which is there ſo called, or which hath the entire nature of that, which is there ſo called. That is, that only ſhall be eſteemed Schiſm, which is either expreſly in Scripture ſo called, or in aequivalent words, or may be deduced thence, by regular, and rational conſequence, as he ſaid above, chap. 1. §. 3,
p. 23.§. 2 What the Scripture-uſe and notion of the word is, is then firſt to be enquired: It is taken there, either in the prime and proper ſenſe, with reſpect to bodyes naturall, for a ſeperation into parts, or (as he expreſſes it, p. 24.) an interruption of continuitie, by an external power, a diviſion of parts before-continued: the places are cited by himſelfe, Math. 9.16. Math 27.51. "the vaile of the Temple was rent, from the top to the bottome into 2 parts. Or in the metaphoricall ſenſe, from bodyes naturall, to bodyes civill, or eccleſiaſticall; In a civill body, Joh. 7.43. There was a Schiſme or diviſion among the people. So Act. 14.4. the multitude of the cittie was divided; that was not only in their opinions and judgments, but alſo into parts or parties, for ſo its added; foreign, and ſome were with the Jewes, and ſome with the Apoſtles. So Act 23.7. the multitude was divided, ſome following one, ſome another of their leaders, in that diſſenſion; which is the reverend Doctors own gloſſe. Thus alſo it is expreſſed, in his Testimonie in the margine The Inhabitants of Rome, p. 24.were parted into two parts, and no more agreed, among themſelves, and there was a great Schiſm. They were divided, not only in their judgments, but in their ſocieties alſo, into two parties. This then being the notion and nature of it in the naturall and politicall ſenſe, it might eaſily ſlip, into the like, in its Eccleſiaſticall uſe; to ſignifie, not only a difference in Judgment, but a ſeparation into parties alſo. As the Aſſembly may be Civill or Eccleſiaſticall; ſo there may be a twofold Schiſm in each, (differing only gradually) either a div…ſion in opinion onelyonly, or into Parties alſo, one part ſeparating from another. And that the rather, becauſe the latter is the ordinary iſſue or conſequence of the former. See Act. 19.9. There was but one aſſembly at the firſt, in the Synagogue. But when divers ſpake evill of that way before the multitude, Paul departed,foreign and ſeparated the Diſciples, &c.
§. 3 It is true, that in the Eccleſiaſticall ſenſe, the word is not to be found uſed,p. 25. but in 1 Cor. 1.10. & 11.18. &c: only in the caſe of differences amongſt the Corinthians: I heare, that there are foreign, among you; which what they were, will preſently come to be conſidered, when we have heard, what he accounts in generall, the conſtant uſe of the word; To denote differences of mind and judgment, with troubles enſuing thereon,p. 25. amongſt men met in ſome one Aſſembly, about the the compaſſing of a common end and deſigne. But that this is a foreſtalling of the Readers judgment, by a meer begging of the queſtion, hath in part been proved, even from the Scripture it ſelfe, where it is uſed for ſeparation into parties, upon thoſe differences of mind and judgment, in the politicall uſe of the word; and why it may not be ſo uſed, in the Eccleſiaſticall ſenſe, I ſee yet no reaſon; eſpecially when the proper uſe of it, is, to ſignifie a breach of union, or a ſeparation of a naturall body, into ſeverall parts, two or more. And I have cauſe to ſuſpect, that he ſticks ſo hard upon this notion, not ſo much to confute that charge of Schiſm upon us, by the Romaniſts, as to ward off the ſame charge▪ upon himſelfe and his partie; as we ſhall ſhew hereafter: But, granting him this notion of Schiſme, for a while; this is the way, as on the one hand, to free all Church ſeparation, from Schiſme, with reſpect to one another; ſo on the other to make all particular Churches more or leſſe Schiſmaticall. For what one Congregation almoſt is there in the world, where there are not differences of judgments, whence enſue many troubles, about the compaſſing of one common end and deſigne. I doubt whether his own be free therefrom. Yet he askes confidently below, p. 63. Have we any differences and contentions in our Aſſemblies? Doe we not worſhip God, without diſputes and diviſions? Its happie with them, if it be ſo: For let moſt of the Aſſemblyes of ſeverall ſorts and ſects be viſited, and it will be viſible enough, that in their prophecyings, (as they call them) there are differences of mind enow, and troubles more than a good many, with wranglings and janglings, and ſometimes railing and reviings good ſtore, that a man might (upon this one principle of his, beſides other) venture to call them Schiſmaticall Conventicles, rather then Churches of Chriſt. And why not, as well as Paul charges that famous Church of Corinth, with the crime of Schiſm, for the ſame or like diſorders?p. 27. They had (ſayes our Authour) differences amongſt themſelves, about unneceſſary things: on theſe they engaged into diſputes and ſidings even in their ſolemne Aſſemblyes, probably much vain jangling, alienation of affections, exaſperation of ſpirits, with a neglect of due offices of love, &c. This was their Schiſm, &c. That the Apoſtle charges this upon them, is true; but was this all? were there not diviſions into parties, as well as in judgement? we ſhall conſider that ere long. For the preſent, I ſay, difference in judgment,Separation may proceed from Schiſm. p. 194. was the ready way, to difference in, and alienation of, affections, and that to exaſperation of Spirits, and that to neglect of due offices of love, &c: and at laſt ere long, to Separation of Societies. And he ſayes well. The Apoſtle would have them joyned together,p. 28. not only in the ſame Church-order, and fellowſhip, but alſo in oneneſſe of mind and judgment, which if they were not, Schiſms would be amongſt them, and upon thoſe, ſeparation, into ſeverall aſſemblyes; as we ſee at this day, to a lamentation. Difference in ſome one point, of doctrine, worſhip, or diſcipline, hath broken the Church into many fractions, almoſt as many as men; But I ſhall obſerve his obſervations upon theſe Diviſions amongſt the Corinthians.
§. 4 1. Obſerve (ſayes hee) That the thing mentioned,p. 29. is entirely in one Church: no mention of one Church divided againſt another, or ſeparated from another, or others: the crime lyes wholy within one Church, that met together, for the worſhip of God, &c: This it ſeemes, is a matter of great concernment, to be granted or denyed. In ſo much that he profeſſes,p. 30. That unleſſe men will condeſcend ſo to ſtate it, upon the evidence tendered, he ſhall not hope to prevaile much, in the proceſſe of this diſcourſe. This then being the foundation of that great Fabrick of Schiſm, as he calls it, it had need bee bottomed better, than upon his own bare Affirmation, (which is all, we yet have for it) without any proofe. For this end, I ſhall take his firſt obſervation, into particular conſideration. 1. That the diviſions mentioned, were in one Church is ambiguouſly ſpoken; for it may be taken either for the collection of ſeverall Aſſemblyes in Corinth (where there were multitudes of Chriſtians) which are ſometimes called the Church, yea a particular Church, with reſpect to the Catholick or other National Churches So himſelfe ſpeaks of thoſe Patriarchs (ſo called) how many or how few ſoever they were,p. 121. they were particular Churches. Or elſe, that the Saints at Corinth, were, at this time, but one particular congregation, meeting all, in one place. In this latter ſenſe, its evident, the Reverend Doctor takes it; but in ſo doing he beggs the queſtion, and conſents not with himſelfe. For he had ſaid before, they had diſputings and ſidings, in their ſolemne Aſſemblyes, p. 27.not one, but many Aſſemblyes. And the Divines of the Aſſembly, have made it more than probable, that the multitude of Chriſtians of Corinth, were too many to meet in one place, and yet may be ſaid to meet together, foreign, not jointly, but ſeverally in their particular places of meeting. As the Congregations of London, may be ſaid to meet together on the Lords Day, not conjunctim, but diviſim; 2. That, it was amongſt the members of one particular Church, is gratis dictum; For that all the Chriſtians in Corinth, and about it, were called one Church collectively, is evident, chap. 1. v. 2. To the Church of God, at Corinth. And that there were more particular Churches there, or thereabouts than one, is alſo evident, both by Rom. 16.7. The Church at Cenchrea, a particular Church diſtinct from that at Corinth, and alſo by, 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your women keep ſilence in the Churches; one and yet many Churches at Corinth. 3. This is alſo preſumed, but not proved, That the crime of Schiſm was charged on them, onelyonly, within the verge of one Church; as if all their Diviſions were confined to the Church; whereas there were Schiſms and differences, abroad and out of the Church; which I ſhall evince, firſt from the Scripture it ſelfe. The differences or Schiſms were of ſeverall kinds; Some out of the Aſſembly, chap. 1. & chap. 3. ſidings about their Teachers, as he ſpeaks p. 27. one ſaid, I am of Paul, &c: theſe were, its likely, abroad as they met, one with another; Some were in the Aſſembly, as thoſe he charges them with chap 11.18. When you come together in the Church, I heare that there are diviſions among you. But the Doctor carryes it ſo, as if all their differences were in the Church meeting, when they met to worſhip God; for reaſons hereafter to be given; The Apoſtle ſeemes to charge them thus; I hear there are Schiſms among you, not only, in private conferences, chap. 1. but alſo, which is worſe, in your ſolemne Aſſemblyes, chap. 11. when you meet to worſhip God. And this is the Doctors own Gloſſe, (unawares confeſſed) not content to make this difference,p. 27. the matter of their debates and diſputes, from houſe to houſe, (but) even when they met for publick worſhip, or that which they all met in, and for, they were divided on that account (alſo) chap. 11. This was their Schiſm, but not the only, though the worſer, Schiſm; which he confounds too much, to lead us away in a miſt. 4. That there was no one Church divided againſt another, or ſeparated from another, is aſſumed, but not proved, unleſſe by a Negative, which is invalid; There is no mention of ſuch a ſeparation, therefore there was none: of which in the next.
§. 5 2. Here is no mention of any particular man, or number of men's ſeparation from the Aſſemblyes of the whole Church,p. 30. or of ſubduction of themſelves, from its power, &c: only they had groundleſſe, cauſeleſſe differences amongſt themſelves.
But was this all? were there not ſeparations made, if not from that Church yet in that Church, as well as diviſions? Let the Scripture determine this. 1. The Apoſtle, cap. 1. charges them with ſidings about their Teachers, v. 11. It hath beene declared to mee, that there are Schiſms among you: One ſaith I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, &c: And againe, chap. 3. v. 3. Whereas there is among you, envying, and ſtrife, and diviſions are ye not carnall,foreign and walke as men? For while one ſaith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollo, are ye not carnall? That is, I am a diſcitle of Paul, ſaid one, and I of Apollo ſaid another: In our language, I am a member of ſuch a Miniſters Congregation, ſayes one; ſuch a man for my mony: and I am of ſuch a mans Congregation, ſaid another; and ſo a third: And hereupon, they (moſt probably) ſeparated themſelves, into ſuch and ſuch Congregations; with ſlighting and contempt of other Miniſters, with reſpect to their own. And is not Separation the ordinary iſſue of ſuch envying, ſtrife, and contentions? Let experience, this day▪ ſpeake. As Love is the Mother of Union; ſo Envy and ſtrife, of Separation.
2. That there was a ſeparation of parties in the Church of Corinth, at leaſt as to one Ordinance, appeares, cap. 11. that of the Lords Supper (as ſome do now) v. 18. with 21.22.33. They would,See, Jeams 2.1, 2. &c. ſuch a companie (the richer ſort perhaps) meet and receive the Supper together; and ſeparating themſelves, not tarry to take the poore with them. This was part of their Schiſm, which the Apoſtle charges them with, and warnes them of; They were not yet gone ſo farre in Schiſm, as to ſeparate from the Church, by gathering of Churches, in oppoſition to it; but they were next door to it, they made ſeparations in the Church, firſt in their differences of judgment, and then into parties, as to ſome Ordinances; Not long after, they ſeparated into other Churches, ſlighting and undervaluing the firſt Miniſters or Churches, as nothing, or leſſe pure than their own; which wee ſee practiſed ſufficiently at this day. 3. But ſuppoſe it granted, there was but one ſingle congregation at Corinth, yet the Apoſtle dehorting the Brethren, v. 10. from Schiſme, and writing to more than the Church of Corinth, v. 2. even all that call upon the name of the Lord Jeſus, in every place.
§. 6 3. Here is no mention of any ſubſtraction of obedience from Biſh…ps, Rulers, the Pope, &c: p. 31.Nor does the Apoſtle charge them as Schiſmaticks from the nationall Church of Achaia, &c: For the firſt part, it is no wonder; for ſuch kind of Creatures were not yet hatched, till many, or ſome generations after. And for the other, the Church, was yet but ſmall in Achaia, See him p. 37. f(ſome ſcattered ſaints there might be, but few Churches) and therefore they are charged only for their Diviſions, and ſeparations in, or from the Church of Corinth, according to the ſeverall Ministers, which they ſet up, as is moſt probable. As in the like caſe,p. 32. by him inſtanced in the time of clement. Some few unquiet perſons at Corinth, drew the whole Societie, into diviſion, and an oppoſition to their Elders, a few men acted by pride and madneſs; yet ſuch power had thoſe perſons in the Congregation, that they prevailed to depoſe the Elders, and caſt them out of Office. Is it not reaſonable to thinke, they ſet up new Elders and new Congregations? and moſt unreaſonable to thinke, that the whole Church, ranne into this madneſſe? and ſo ſome Congregations remaining ſound, the reſt made Separations from them: and this, Clement calls their Schiſm. And beſides his ſeverall words, to deſcribe it, foreign, &c: his word foreign, which ſignifies to lead away a partie, foreign, &c, thoſe that walk well, from their honoured Service (though the Doctor wayes to know what it meant,) and miſconstrues it, I ſay, the word foreign implyes a ſeparation into other Aſſemblyes: as the manner of ſeducers is, ſpeaking perverſe things, to draw away, (foreign,) Diſciples after them, Act. 20.30. The like may be conceived, though not ſo cleerly expreſſed, in this firſt Schiſm at Corinth, the ſame Church, and place: Surely thoſe differences noted by Clement in the ſame Church, were not diviſions in the Church, met together to worſhip God; but out of the Church, and cauſing ſeparations from the Elders, and ſo from the Church, breaking of it into fractions; which yet he calls their Schiſm.
As for his notion of foreign, in Clement, to ſignifie then,p. 34. not a province (as ſome,) but a citie Church, conſiſting of many Congregations, the Church foreign, &c I am apt to believe his conjecture to be true. The Church inhab…ting Rome, or the Church at Rome (which at that time, had no ſuch large Territories, as a Church provinciall, or Metropolitane, as ſome rather dream, than prove) as its ſaid of the Church in or at Jeruſalem, Act. 8.1. and the Church of God, foreign, at Corinth. But yet I cannot agree with him, that either Rome or Corinth, were in Clements time, onelyonly one Pariſh, (as he now uſes the word) or one Congregation, meeting all in one place. For as I believe this Epiſtle of Paul to the Corinthians, was intended to be written to the Church of Cenchrea (which whether it were a ſtated diſtinct Church or no the Doctor knowes not p. 39. nor was perſwaded it was compleated p. 38. but yet ſuppoſes, it comes under the ſame name with Corinth, ibid. though Paul mentions it, as a diſtinct Church, Rom. 16.1. and Phaebe to be a Deaconeſſe; or Servant of that Church) to the Church, I ſay, at Cenchrea; So I ſee no reaſon, but there might be & were ſeveral Churches, or Aſſemblies in Corinth, each diſtinct from other; though not ſuch Pariſhes, as ours are in London, &c: the greater part, being yet Heathens, and the Magistrates not yet Chriſtian, to erect, or allow them Churches, as now we call them; or to diſtribute them into particular Pariſhes; which was done, as ſoon, as moſt or all became Christians. However, the Doctor acknowledges the word Parochia may be ſo called,p. 35. from them who met together to break bread, and to eate, from foreign convivator. Whence it will follow, that if the multitude be ſo great, that they cannot meet in one place, to heare the word, or to break bread (as its evident the 3000, or 5000 at Jeruſalem, could not) then look how many meeting places there were for this purpoſe, ſo many Pariſhes, or Congregations there were, at Jeruſalem or Corinth, having ſeverall, if not fixed Elders over them, and yet the whole but one Church.
§. 7 p. 42.But if he grant, that this evill mentioned by the Apoſtle, is Schiſm, does it conclude that nothing elſe is Schiſm? He anſwers, he is inclinable ſo to do, and reſolved, that unleſſe any man can prove, that ſomthing elſe is termed Schiſm by ſome Divine writer, &c: he will be at Libertie from admitting it ſo to be. Surely this is no ſafe Rule to go by: For as there are ſome vertues, which are not termed ſo, expreſly in Scripture; So there may be degrees of Schiſm, which are not ſo expreſly called there. It is ſufficient, if the one have the nature of ſuch a virtue, the other of ſuch a crime, though not ſo called. There are other words uſed to ſignifie the ſame thing. As Rom. 16.17. foreign, of foreign and foreign, as ſignifying a diviſion into two parts, or parties; And what thinks he of the word foreign, which comes from a root, that ſignifies ſometimes trahere to draw, and ſomtimes ſectari to follow; See Concil. 1. Conſtantinop. ſome are called Hereticks; that hold the ſound faith foreign.as Sect-masters uſe to draw away Diſciples after them; and thoſe that follow them are called Secta, à ſequendo; The opinions of the Philoſophers, of ſeverall Sects, were called foreign, hereſies; and their followers, Sects, divided not onelyonly in opinion, but in parties and Schools alſo. So Paul uſes the word, Act. 26.5. according to the moſ… ſtrict Sect, of our Religion, I lived a phariſee: And is not hereſie as bad a word as Schiſm? or is it any advantage for a ſeparatiſt, to change his name, from Schiſmatick to Heretick? The Apoſtle 1 Cor. 11.18.19. uſes them promiſcuouſly, one for another: I heare that there are Schiſms among you. For there must be hereſies among you alſo. The word hereſie commonly is uſed to ſignifie errour againſt Faith, (which ſenſe he is not pleaſed with, p. 46.) as Schiſm is a ſin againſt love; If he like not to give his Separation, the name of Schiſm (though it hath fully the nature of it) let him, have good leave to call it Hereſie; This men gaine when they will diſpute about words.
Beſides, the Scripture uſes other words to ſignifie Schiſm, in a political ſenſe; Math. 12.25. A Kingdome or houſe, foreign, divided againſt it ſelfe; that is, into parts, and ſo into civill warres, and diſſenſions, cannot ſtand: which Act. 14 4. is expreſſed by foreign, the multitude was divided, and that into two parts (as well as opinions) as it followes; and ſome foreign were with the Jewes, and ſome with the Apoſtles, as I noted above: If this may not rather be underſtood of an Eccleſiaſticall ſeparation; for it was occaſioned by differences in one Aſſembly, v. 1. They entred into the Synagogue of the Jews, &c: The unbelieving Jews ſtirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds ill affected againſt the brethren, v. 2. which cauſed that ſeparation.
And the Schiſm was made by thoſe turbulent Jewes, the cauſes of that ſeparation, not by the Apoſtles or their partie.
Schiſm, in the Church, was but an Embrio, in the Apoſtles time; at firſt a difference or diviſion onelyonly in judgment but quickly grew into ſeparation or diviſion into parties.
But we need not plead any other text for our notion of Schiſm, but what is included in this place of the Corinthians, having made it appeare, that there was a ſeparation made in that Church, by ſuch as lead away Diſciples after them, or rather by them; who by having the faith of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt in reſpect of perſons, ſet up one Miniſter above another, and againſt another. However, ſomthing may be deduced by paritie of reaſon If diviſions of perſons, in a church, in judgment, may be & is called Schiſm, in Scripture; then Separation from a true Church, (grounded upon thoſe diviſions at firſt, in an Aſſembly, about unneceſſary things, as he ſaid) may well and much more, be called Schiſm. For (ſayes he) He is a Schiſmatick,p. 43. guiltie of this ſinne of Schiſm, who raiſeth, or entertaineth, or perſiſteth in ſuch differences. And is not he much more a Schiſmatick, who having raiſed groundleſſe differences in a Church, and perſiſting in them, draws Diſciples after him, and ſets up another Church in oppoſition to that from whence he ſeparated? To ſeparate men, in judgment, in a Church, is a Schiſm and crime bad enough; but to ſeparate them from the Church, upon the former, is farre worſe. Now this, as it may be done in a Church of many Congregations, all profeſſing the ſame truth, and practiſing the ſame worſhip; So the perſiſting in ſuch differences by any one Congregation, againſt the reſt, is a Schiſm in that Church (as of Corinth) and ends commonly in ſeparation from that Church: But let us heare further, what is required to make guiltie of Schiſm.
§. 8 1. That they be members of, or belong to ſome one Church, which is ſo by the inſtitution and appointment of Jeſus Chriſt. The ground of this aſſertion is, that he by one Church, meanes only one particular Church, or Congregation; So that if a man be not a member of that one Church, he can neither be a Schiſmatick to that Church, nor to any other. But this, I ſuppoſe, to be his foreign, his great miſtake, and the cauſe of all his miſcarriage hereafter. For as there may be a Schiſm in a Citie-Church, of many Congregations, which are ſuch, by the appointment, or allowance of Jeſus Chriſt, (ſuppoſe them all Independent, if he pleaſe): So one that is a member of one of the Congregations of that Church, yea that is a member of none of thoſe, but of ſome other, may be a Schiſmatick to that Church collectively taken, and to any one of thoſe particular Congregations, to wit, if he ſhall raiſe any differences in any one of them, and perſiſt to maintain them, being e…ther expreſly againſt the Goſpel, or meerly of things unneceſſary, &c. And this I ſhall prove; 1. By the Doctors own principle; He that raiſeth differences in any Congregation (and perſiſts therein) is a Schiſmatick; as was newly by him aſſerted: But that Chriſtian that breaks the peace of any Church, more generall or particular, by erronious or unneceſſary diſputes, raiſes differences in that Church; and therefore he is a Schiſmatick. Then it follows, that it is not neceſſarily required, to the guilt of Schiſm, that he be a member of that one Church, but he may be a member of another Church, or of no Church, but only a Chriſtian. 2. I prove it from a Scripture inſtance, Act. 15.1. Ceratine men which came down from Judaea, (to Antioch) taught the brethren ſaying, except ye be circumciſed, &c: ye cannot be ſaved. Theſe men were no members of the Church of Antioch, but of Judaea, or Chriſtians at large, of no particular Church: yet theſe men, making differences in the Church of Antioch, are ſaid, v. 24. to trouble them with words, ſubverting their Souls, and therefore might juſtly be called Schiſmaticks: He cannot now ſay; this was not a Church of the inſtitution of Chriſt; for whether it was then but one particular Congregation, or conſiſted of many congregations, (as not able to meet in one place), both wayes it was a Church of Chriſts appointment. For the very light of reaſon, ſpeaks thus much, That when a Congregation or firſt Church, grows too numerous, it ſhould ſwarm out into leſſer Congregations: and yet thoſe diſtinct Congregations may fairly be ſaid to be but one Church; and have ſtill ſome dependence (what ever it be) one upon another.
§. 9 2. It is required (ſayes he) that they either raiſe, entertaine or perſiſt in cauſeleſſe differences,p. 44. with them of that Church, &c: This is anſwered in the former, in part. And I adde, that thoſe differences raiſed, &c: in that Church, though by a member of another Church, do cauſe an Interruption of that exerciſe of love, which ought to be amongſt them, and the diſturbance of the duties required of that Church, in the worſhip of God, which he requires to make one guiltie of Schiſm. It were very ſtrange, that he that entertaines, or perſiſts in thoſe differences ſhould be a Schiſmatick, and he that firſt raiſed them (though of another Church) ſhould be none.
§. 10 3. It is further required, that theſe differences be occaſioned by, and do belong to, ſome things, in a remoter or neerer diſtance, to the worſhip of God. This will reach a great way; even civill differences (as they may be called Schiſm, as we heard above▪ ſo they) may come to trench upon the worſhip of God. But may there not be differences in other matters, beſides worſhip, which may amount to a Schiſm? He told us above, that Schiſm might be, in unneceſſary things, p. 27. things that properly concerne not the worſhip of God? ſuch were thoſe ſidings about their Teachers; not in the worſhip of God, but from houſe to houſe, as he confeſſed above. But ſuppoſing the differences to be in the worſhip of God, that is, in the time and place of it, may they not be in matter of doctrine? perhaps he will ſay, that is Hereſie, or Apoſtacie, not Schiſm (for ſo he ſayes, p. 161.) But 1. Every difference in matter of doctrine, is not Hereſie, much leſſe Apoſtacie; Hereſie is not charged uſually on any, but either for fundamentall errours, or obſtinacie in them; And though we commonly place, Schiſm, in matter of diſcipline, or circumſtances of worſhip, and Hereſie in matters of doctrine, yet, as we ſee by experience, thoſe that beganne with Schiſmaticall ſeparations, end too oft in Hereſie: So a Schiſm at firſt, if obſtinately perſiſted in, may come to be Hereſie, (for there is a doctrine of diſcip…ine, in the Scripture): and a Schiſmatick willfully defending his errour, though but in a matter of diſcipline, or other unneceſſary opinions, may prove to be Hereticall. 2. Hereſie and Apoſtacie, preſuppoſe Schiſm firſt: So that a man may be a Schiſmatick for raiſing the difference, and an Heretick in perſiſting in it. And ſay the ſame of Apostacie; as more perhaps hereafter. Or may there not be Schiſm in a matter of diſcipline, which is diſtinguiſhed from worſhip? Surely the greateſt Schiſms at this day, are found about diſcipline; As is evident, in the difference between Papiſts and us, in ſubjection to the Pope: between Epiſcopall men and us, about ſubmiſſion to the Hierarchicall Government, between the Preſbyterians and Independents, where the adminiſtration of diſcipline lyes. And each parties charge one another with Schiſm; as he aff…rmes in his following diſcourſe. In doctrine and worſhip, the Independents, ſome of them and we agree, having the ſame Confeſſion of Faith, the ſame Ordinance of worſhip. The diſcipline onelyonly makes the Schiſm; whereof who is moſt guiltie, will appear anone. Certaine it is, on which party ſoever the charge falls, to be guilty of this crime, they will be found to ſhew themſelves carnal or to have indulged to the fleſh,pag. 44. and the corrupt principle of Self, and their own wills, &c.
§. 11 But he profeſſes, "he could never yet meet with a definition of Schiſm, that did compriſe, that was not excluſive of, that,pag. 45. which alone, in the Scripture, is affirmed ſo to be. That ſhall be tryed by conſidering the definitions, ordinarily given. The definition of Auſtin is this, Schiſma eſt diſſidium congregationis; when men of the ſame judgment in doctrine, and ſame rites in worſhip, delight in the diſcord of the Congregation. By diſſidium Congregationis, the Dr. ſaies he means, 'A ſeparation from the Church, into a peculiar Congregation. Which was the caſe of the Donatiſts, which he had then in hand.
But 1. this definition is juſt the Doctors Diſſidium Congregationis, is not properly a ſeparation from, but in the Church; and ſuch was that of the Donatiſts at firſt, till, refuſing, or receiving no ſatisfaction, they ſeparated into other Congregations, and bid defiance to the Church; which is the Common iſſue of ſuch intestine diviſions. Acts 15.39.Paul and Barnabas, two holy, good men, firſt fell into a paroxyſm of contention, and preſently ſeparated and parted aſunder.
2. Baſil's definition, is almoſt the ſame; who makes ſchiſm to be a diviſion ariſing from ſome Church controverſies; and foreign, to be the unlawful Conventicles, the ordinary conſequents of ſuch diviſion; Firſt, they raiſe diviſions, that's the firſt degree of Schiſm; from Schiſm they fall into Hereſie, the ſecond degree; and then ſeparate into new conventions, pag. 46.which is the higheſt Schiſm. Nor, becauſe of later years, honeſt and pious meetings for Religion, were called Conventicles, and Schiſm, therefore may men conclude, that there is now no Schiſm in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church, when it ſhall be determined ſo to be.
3. The Common definition given, That Schiſm is a cauſeleſſe ſeparation from the communion and worſhip of any true Church, &c. preſuppoſes a Diviſion in that Church, which occaſions that ſeparation, one party not being ſatisfied by the other. The Crime of which ſeparation, muſt be taken, and judged by the unjustneſs of the cauſe thereof, which cannot be in a true Church, but in thoſe that ſeparate from it. For if a Church, be either no true Church, or ſo extreamly corrupted, that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without ſin, ſuch a ſeparat…on is no Schiſm, but they are the Sch…ſmaticks, who give the cauſe of that ſeparation. But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation;pag. 46. for he ſaies, Certain he is, that a ſeparation from ſome Churches, true, or pretended ſo to be, is commanded in the Scripture; ſo that the withdrawing from any Church, or ſociety whatever, upon the plea of its corruption, be it true or falſe, with a mind & reſolution to ſerve God in the due obſervation of Church inſtitutions, according to that light which we have received, is no where called Schiſm, nor condemned as a thing of that nature &c. If this be true, there will be found but litle or no Schiſm in any Church, or in the World. If a man may lawfully ſeparate from a true Church, as well as from a falſe, and that upon a falſe plea of its corruption, as well as true, only with a good mind to ſerve God, in Church institutions, true, or conceited by his own light; all the Sectaries & Separatiſts, Donatiſts & Browniſts in the world may be juſtified, But this will come again below; thither I ſhall remit the particular ſcanning of it.
§. 12 Now leſt (by the former indulgence) any ſhould ſurmiſe,p. 47. that he complyes with them, that have ſlight and contemptible thoughts of Schiſm, or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches (as we are able to prove them) he will at preſent heighten the heinouſneſſe of Schiſm, when he hath firſt conſidered what aggravations, others have put upon it.
§. 13 1. Some ſay, it is a renting of the ſeamleſſe coat of Chriſt, pag. 48.but (ſaies he) they ſeem to have miſtaken their aim, and inſtead of aggravating, extenuated it: a rent of the body is not hightned, in its being called, the renting of a ſeamleſs coat. But this is but a nicity. I ſuppoſe they us'd it only by way of alluſion, à minore ad majus. The Souldiers thought it not wiſdom to divide that ſeamleſſe coat, whereby it would be rendered uſeleſſe to all; how much more heinous was it to rent his Body. The Church is called Chriſts myſtical Body. Look then as it was an heinous thing to thoſe Souldiers to divide his ſeamleſs coat, and much more to divide by piercing his natural body: ſo it is more hainous to rent his body myſtical; which muſt needs reach to him the Head. This is the Apoſtles way of arguing, 1 Cor. 1.13. Is Christ divided? foreign divided into parts.q. d. Do you not by theſe diviſions, divide and rent the Body of Chriſt? and does not Christ himſelf ſuffer in ſuch diviſions? But enough of that.
§ 14 2. It is uſually ſaid to be a ſin againſt Charity,pag. 49. as Hereſie is againſt Faith: but is Schiſm ſo a ſin againſt Charity? doth it ſupplant and root out love out of the Heart? He means ſo, as Hereſie does the Faith. But that's not the queſtion; but whether Schiſm be not a ſinne againſt Charity, as well (though not as much) as Hereſie is a ſin againſt Faith? And ſuppoſe it do not root out Charity, may it not ſupplant, or at leaſt ſuppreſs & weaken it? may it not interrupt the exerciſe of the duties of love (as he ſaid above p. 27.) their Church order, as to Love, Peace, Union, were wofully diſturbed with diviſions, &c. And if Schiſm be perſiſted in, it may in the end root out Charity, and be inconſiſtent with it, as well as Hereſie doth the Faith: Nor does every Hereſie root out all Faith; a man may be an Heretick in one Article, and Orthodox in the Faith, in others. Yea,pag. 49. himſelf here confeſſes, men by Schiſm are kept off from the performance of any of thoſe offices, and duties of love, which are uſeful, or neceſſary for the preſervation of the bond of perfection, and then is it, or may in ſome ſenſe, be ſaid to be a ſin againſt Love. When the Apoſtle ſaies, that Love is the bond of perfection, becauſe it preſerves that perfect and beautifull order amongſt the Saints, notwithſtand…ng all hinderances and oppoſitions made by Schiſm; He tells us rather what true love is in it ſelf, and ought to be in us, than what it is manifeſted to be in mens corrupt hearts, and con…erſations.Diviſions among them, breaches of Love: ſo he, pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that deſcribed it to be "open breach of love, aimed near, at the true nature it; which his wary conſideration, doth not excuſe from Schiſm. For ſuppoſe it were poſſib…e▪ for a man to be all, and do all, that thoſe were and did, whom the Apoſtle judges for Schiſmaticks, under the power of ſome violent temptation, and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints, to the communion diſturbed by him, which is very rare; Yet that perſon, who ever he be, could not be excuſed from Schiſm and a breach of charity, any more than thoſe, whom the Apoſtle calls Schiſmaticks, who no doubt ſome of them, were under ſome violent temptation. It is again confeſſed, It is thus far a breach of love, in its own nature, in that in ſuch men, Love cannot exert it ſelf, in its utmoſt tendency, in wiſdom and forbearance for the preſervation of order in the Church. If this had been ſaid at firſt, this had been enough to aggravate the ſinfulneſſe of Schiſm.
§. 15 3. As for thoſe, who ſay, it is a rebellion againſt the Rulers of the Church; if they mean it,pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and impoſition of unneceſſary Ceremonies &c. let them plead for themſelves. But if he mean, that Schiſm may be raiſed, againſt the inſtituted Rulers of the Church, walking in the truths, and waies of Chriſt, (as well as againſt any other members of the Church) it may be ſo far called Rebellion againſt the Rulers of the Church, as they▪ that deſp…ſe Chriſts Embaſſadors, deſpiſe Him alſo, the miſchiefs whereof, extend to the whole Church. And commonly the Schiſm begins againſt the Rulers of the Church; as that againſt Moſes and Aaron did: So that at Corinth in Clements time. This is too evident, at this time, That all the preſent Schiſms, ſtrike principally at the Miniſters of the Goſpel, All Sects, contending againſt them primarily▪ and reproaching of them, either as Antichriſtian, He calls them, parochial Prieſts. pag. 235.or as no true Miniſters (beſides worſer names of ignominie and contempt) wherein the Dr. and his party, are not a little guilty▪ as will appear before we have done.
§. 16 Whether Schiſmaticks be Church Members, or no, is a queſtion of no great concernment. The Doctor is peremptory It is impoſſible a man ſhould be a Schiſmatick,p. 51. unleſs he be a Church member. If he mean it of a member of the Catholick Church, its granted: for an Heathen cannot be a Schiſmatick. But if he mean (as I believe he does) no man can be ſuch, unleſs he be a member of a particular Church, it is made appear to the contrary above, and ſhall be more hereafter. For the preſent I only ſay, Suppoſe a Schiſmatick of himſelf departs from the Church, or is ejected by the Church; yet ſtill perſists to maintaine the differences by him raiſed, in that Church; I deſire to know, whether he ceaſes to be a Schiſmatick, becauſe he is now no member of that Church, or is not ſtill ſuch, by the Doctors own principles? But too much of that.
§. 17 Upon the Definition of Sch…ſm, given by himſelf, A cauſleſs difference, or diviſion, amongſt the members of any particular Church, pag. 52. Is not this a mans definition, & the ſtrength of it this? ſuch an act is Schiſme, therefore none elſe is: See p. 44.that meet or ought to meet to the worſhip of God▪ &c. he proceeds to deliver the Aggravations of the ſin of Schiſm, wherein I ſhall agree with him fully; though not in his definition, in all particulars, as was ſaid above. That, that is a Schiſm I confeſs, & contains a part, but not the whole nature thereof. For, as I believe, a Schiſm may be made in a particular Church, by one that is no member thereof▪ (ſeducers uſe to creep into houſes and Churches, and raiſe differences). So I think, a particular Church, or ſome members of it, may make a Schiſm in & from the Catholick Church, or other particular Churches, which ſhall be capable of thoſe aggravations by him given. Look as in the body natural, there may be ſuppoſed a Schiſm, amongſt the fingers of either hand, whereof they are the more immediate members, which yet may truly be ſaid, to be a Schiſm, in relation to the whole body, which hath influence into, and intereſt in thoſe members, and ſhall ſuffer not a litle by their diviſions: So it is in the body myſtical, though the diviſions immediatly diſturb the particular Church, where they ariſe, yet they alſo reach to the diſquiet, and danger of the next Congregations, and then of the whole Church, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A mutinie begun in a ſingle troop, hath been the ruin of the whole Army. The Deſign (however diſclaimed p. 47. f.) I fear is this. This definition of Schiſm is forelaid, and ſo oft repeated to prevent the charge thereof, upon himſelf and his own ſelect congregation. If they have but ſo much wit, or ſo much grace, as either not to raiſe, or not to diſcover any cauſleſſe differences amongſt themſelves, though they ſeparate from, and diſturbe the peace and union of the whole national Church, or all the Churches of a Nation, they are by no means to be ſtyled Schiſmaticks. But more of this, in Hypotheſi, when he comes to apply it to themſelves.
§. 18 Whether the Church of Rome, is a Church of Chriſt, or no,pag. 56. and how they are Schiſmatical; I liſt not to be their Advocate, they are old enough, to anſwer his charge themſelves. I think he hath ſaid enough (if not too much) to vindicate the Proteſtant Churches from Schiſm, in their ſeparation from Rome. But his principle will carry him further, not only to unchurch Rome, but alſo all Protestant Churches, at home and abroad, for want (as he thinks) of a right constitution by Jeſus Chriſt: as well as to free himſelf and his from the crime of Schiſm: as will preſently appear. Only I obſerve that he does not charge Rome it ſelf to be Schiſmatical, but upon ſuppoſition, that it is a Church; (which he denies below) then indeed, by her inteſtine diviſions, ſhe is the moſt ſchiſmatical Church in the world; but if no Church, not ſchiſmaticall; whereas our Divines, have proved her ſchiſmatical, not only by her inteſtine differences but chiefly by her ſchiſmatical principles, as thoſe above mentioned, That ſhe is the Catholick Church, and none out of her Communion, are any better than Hereticks, Our Conventicles are no Churches, but ſtyes of beaſts p. 63. ſay they.or Heathens. That Ordination is void, except done by her Biſhops; and alſo, and eſpecially, by her abominable corruptions, doctrine, and worſhip, departing therein from the Scriptures, and example of the Apoſtolical Churches. Now his chief, if not only principle, to conclude himſelf not ſchiſmatical, in ſeparating from Rome, is this, That there was never any ſuch thing,pag. 60. as that which is called the Church of Rome, inſtituted in reference to the worſhip of God by Jeſus Chriſt, which he hereafter affirms alſo of National, and Presbyterian Churches, as he thereby frees himſelf from Schiſm, in ſeparating from all Churches in the world: So he therewith unchurcheth all our Churches, as well as Rome.
§. 19 For ſo he ſaies; upon the ſame principle, a plea,pag. 64. for freedom from the charge of any Church, really, or pretended, as National, may be founded and confirmed. That principle is, the definition of Schiſm before given, Schiſm is an evil amongſt the members of a Church. And hence he inferred againſt the Church of Rome, If our own Congregations be not Churches, whatſoever we are, we are not Schiſmaticks. And againſt them that plead for a National Church, and charge them with Schiſm for ſeparating from it, he ſaies again; If we are not of the National Church,pag. 67. (as they proteſt they are not) whatever we are, we are not Schiſmaticks. And this will once more be made uſe of, againſt the charge of Schiſm, in ſeparating from our preſent Churches; as we ſhall ſee below. But he makes a Dilemma, and thinks it both waies unanſwerable, either we are of the National Church of England, or we are not. If not, whatever we are, we are not Schiſmaticks. If we are, and muſt be of it, whether we will or no, being made ſo, we know not how, &c. ſhew us then, what office of Love is incumbent on us, that we do not perform. His arguing is not diſtinct, having not tot told us what he means by a National Church. If he take it, (as he ſeems to do) for the Hierarchical Church, with National Officers, with ſubordinations, &c. I would ſay, Its certain, himſelf was once of that National Church, a member of it, perhaps zealous of Epiſcopacy, and an exact obſerver of its Canons; So that, if that National Church be proved (as it is by ſome attempted) to be a Church of Christs inſtitution, he cannot be excuſed from Schiſm in ſeparating from it. For though they cannot charge him, as now, of that Church, both it being aboliſhed, and himſelf changed into another way, yet they may ſay, he was not long ſince, a member of that National Church. But if he take National Church, as the Churches were in the Nation, all profeſſing the ſame truth, and exerciſing the ſame ſubſtantial worſhip, (as the moſt Orthodox underſtood England to be a National Church) he muſt either acknowledge himſelf to be ſtill a member of this National Church, (as he does pag. 224.) or elſe renounce communion with her alſo as no Church, or Churches of Chriſt: which whether he does or no, comes after to be conſidered.
§. 20 For the other horn of his Dilemma, If they are, and muſt be of this National Church &c. what duty of Love is there, which they owe to it, and do not perform? Seeing he makes the challenge, and profeſſes, that if it can be ſhewn, he will addreſs himſelf to it. I ſhal take the pains to inform him fully, before we have done; only now conſidering what he ſaies here. Do we not (ſaies he) joyn in external acts of worſhip, in peace, with the whole Church?p. 67. Call the whole Church together, & try what we will do? Is not all this aequivocally ſpoken? In what external acts of worſhip, do they joyn with us, as a Church? Do they not diſown us, as no Churches? and our Miniſters as no Miniſters? & admit none to worſhip with them, but confederat members? When they ſometimes preach in our Congregations, or hear us preach, do they not count themſelves to us, and us to themſelves, as gifted brethren only, but no Miniſters? And what means he by the whole Church? or how can it be called together? unleſs he mean his own Church, or Churches. How then do they joyn in every Congregation in the Nation? When (though they preſume to preach in our Churches, to ſteal away our people from us) their own people will ſeldome or never come into our Congregations to hear, unleſs ſome of them preach. Ad populum phaleras. And as for their joyning in peace, with the whole Church, it is a Blind: for they ſeparate themſelves with ſome of our members, from our Churches, to the great diſcouragement of the Miniſters, and greater diſturbance of the whole, and all the Churches of the Nation.
§. 21 The Counſel that he gives to members of particular Churches,pag. 70, who have voluntarily given up themſelves, to walk in them, according to the appointment of Jeſus Chriſt, I fear, extends no further than to his formed and confederate Churches, That they would be careful to prevent cauſeleſs differences, in their own meetings, or among themſelves; which if they do, let them all ſay what they will, they are no Schiſmaticks. For as for our particular Congregations, they ſcarce account them Churches, though moſt of the members of them, have voluntarily given up themſelves explicitely, or implicitely (as New England men confeſſe) to walk in them, according to the appointment of Jeſus Chriſt. And if they grant ours to be true Churches, they muſt neceſſarily acknowledge, thoſe who firſt raiſed cauſeleſs differences in them, & now foment them by ſeparation from them, to be Schiſmaticks, by his own deſcription. Yea ſo much worſe, than thoſe Corinthians, whoſe caſe he exemplifies, if ſo be they did not upon their differences, ſeparate into parties and Churches, (which he denies, but we conceive they did) and theſe both raiſe differences, and then ſeparate from our Churches, into ſeveral combinations; and one ſayes, I am of Pauls Congregation, and another, I am of Apollo's, I ſpeak this in a figure, as Paul did.1 Cor. 4.6: He can eaſily apply it.