Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist, Tract · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Of SCHISM.
THere remains yet one thing to be ſpoken to, viz. the great crime of Schiſm, with which we are charged by the Fr. Deb. in his firſt and ſecond Book very deeply; thus alſo Dr. Goodman, and this is the common language of them all, both in Pulpit and Preſs.
To which I would take liberty to ſpeak more largely: That Schiſm in the Church is a great crime, is readily yielded by underſtanding men of all parties, and no party will own it, though they be guilty enough of it.
At this day all but Conformiſts are Schiſmaticks; but to the Prelatical party this ſin is a ſtranger; yea in the time of our troubles, when they were in France, and refuſed Communion with the French Proteſtant Churches, yet a Prelatical perſon was not then, nor can be guilty of Schiſm, but they were Schiſmaticks in France.
What is Schiſm? Dr. Goodman tells us, p. 112, 113. Schiſm is a voluntary ſeparation of ones ſelf without cauſe given, from that Chriſtian Church whereof once he was a member.
He opens his Definition, p. 113, 114.
Firſt, It is a ſeparation, &c. i. e. When a man ſhall refuſe to join in the acts and exerciſes of Religion, uſed by ſuch a ſociety, and to ſubmit to its authority. So he that refuſeth Baptiſm, the Lords-Supper, or to ſubmit to the cenſures of the Church. Thus he. But what he means by non-ſubmiſſion to the cenſures of the Church, I know not, for I know but few Nonconformiſts that are under the Cenſures of their Church: nor how it will agree with his ſecond: which is,
2ly. It muſt be voluntary ſeparation: So that Excommunicate perſons are no Schiſmaticks.
3ly. It is ſeparation from a particular Church.
4ly. Of which Church he was once a member, becauſe Schiſm imports diviſion, making two of that which was but one before.
But according to this opening of his definition, I pray Sir, tell us how you will prove us Schiſmaticks?
For take up your third head.
1. I pray tell us what is that particular Church you mean, National, Dioceſan, Parochial?
As for the National, I know not how you underſtand a National Church; for as I underſtand it, you cannot prove us Schiſmaticks.
For the Dioceſan, you cannot prove us Schiſmaticks, unleſs the refuſing to ſubmit to Prelatical Government be Schiſm. (For the Sacraments belong not to a Dioceſan Church quâ ſic.) I ſuppoſe Dr. Goodman's judgment to be the ſame with the Doctor that kept the Act at the Commencement at Cambridg. I heard ſo much of one queſtion, that I laboured much to get a view of it, but could not in our parts. A Conformiſt told me it was to this purpoſe, Receſſio a regimine Epiſcopali, eſt mortale ſchiſma; he told me, Damnabile ſchiſma, as it was told him.
I ſay only this to it: As God gives up ſome men to monſtrous luſts in practiſe, ſo he doth others to as monſtrous opinions in judgment in theſe days. So that it muſt be meant the Parochial Church.
But, 2ly. I pray prove that we were members once of that particular Church you mean. For the Dioceſan, we deny any ſuch Church (eſpecially as your conſtitution is) to be according to Chriſts Inſtitution; and therefore were not, are not members of it.
For the Parochial Churches, I pray how are we members of them?
1. Not by our Baptiſm; if that were your meaning, I would ſoon give arguments to confute it.
2. Not by my dwelling within ſuch a Pariſh-bounds; though I am for the Vicinity of Church-members, yet I was not ſo ſimple when I was in my Place, to think that all the people that dwelt within the bounds of the Pariſh where I was Miniſter, muſt own me for their Miniſter; as if a ſpot of ground meaſured out by a Civil conſtitution, muſt make a man a member of a Church, which as ſuch is a ſpiritual and free ſociety. I wiſh Dr. Goodman could convince all the Papiſts that dwell within theſe Pariſhes, that therefore they are members of the Church of England, or Schiſmaticks.
3. I know nothing but conſent that conſtitutes any man a member of a Church; but that we never gave either to the Prieſts impoſed upon us by a Patron, and a Prelate; nor to the Parochial Church, as you take Parochial.
Wherefore upon Dr. Goodman's definition I argue, where there was no union, there can be no Schiſm.
But between us and your Church there was no union: Ergo, no Schiſm; why then doth he charge us with it?
3ly. Suppoſe we were members, yet ſtill you are to prove there was no cauſe given for our ſeparation; which though you attempt to do, yet Sir, you muſt bring other manner of arguments than Rhetorical flouriſhes, and humane ſtories to convince us.
But one thing more: Why doth he tye up his definition to a particular Church? I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a member, and yet both he and that particular Church too, may be guilty of Schiſm. So that his definition is too ſtrait. I will give him more advantage, and let him take it.
I ſhall then give a deſcription of Schiſm, and open it. Then I will lay down ſeveral Propoſitions tending to the clearing of the Queſtion, who are the true Schiſmaticks.
Schiſm is a renting or diſſolving that Ʋnion which Chriſt our Head requireth in his viſible body.
To open it, I ſhall be ſhort.
1ſt. That Chriſt hath a Body Natural and Myſtical, or a body in a myſtery, which is to him as his natural body, is known to all Chriſtians, Epheſ 1.22. ſpeaking of Chriſt, He is the head over all to the Church, v. 23. which is his body. This Head, and this Body, make up one Chriſt mystical, 1 Cor. 12.12. ſo is Chriſt.
2ly. This Body of Chriſt is but one; two Bodies joined to one Head, much more thouſands, were monſtrous. All the believers in all the particular Churches of the world make up but this one Body of Chriſt, foreign, Eheſ. 4 4. one body. So Rom. 12.4, 5. & 1 Cor. 12.12. ſo Revel. 19. & ch. 21. one Bride, one Wife.
3ly. This body hath its bands or ligaments, whereby the body is tyed to the Head, and the members one to another. For thoſe to the Head I omit; the other concern me in this place, how the members are tyed one to another. Now theſe ligaments are firſt Internal; ſecondly, are External.
1. Internal: and they, 1. The bleſſed Spirit of Chriſt, Epheſ. 4.4. One body and one ſpirit. ſo 1 Cor. 12.13. The ſecond is love, Col. 3.14. Eph. 5.16.
2. The External bands are the Sacraments or Seals of the New Covenant; whether Government be any thing, I ſhall touch afterwards.
But for the Sacraments, they are the bands of this viſible body; they belong only to the members of this body; one Baptiſm, Epheſ. 4.5. belong only to that one body, v. 4.
1 Cor. 11.17. We being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Hence Excommunication, in which men are cut off the Body, and rendered, durante hoc ſtatu, as Heathens and Publicans, not viſible members of Chriſt, is by caſting them out of Communion with their Body in theſe Ordinances. In theſe Ordinances the viſible members of the body declare that unity and internal band of love one to another.
Panis igitur fractio eſt unitatis, & dilectionis ſymbolum. Virtute hujus Sacramenti, con a leſcimus, in unum corpus invicem & cum Chriſto. Par. in loc.Paraeus in loc. who quotes Chryſoſtom, and the practiſe of the old Chriſtian Churches, how Chriſtians in this Ordinance did manifeſt their unity and love.
A Chriſtians love (I ſpeak to the buſineſs in hand) is twofold.
1. There is a Chriſtian love common to all.
2. There is a Chriſtian Eccleſiaſtical love proper to ſome; as for Chriſtian love I am bound to manifeſt that to the bodies and ſouls of all, though Heathens. I will pray with Heathens, (a ſilly thing to turn Excommunicated perſons from Prayer, which is Natural Worſhip) I will Preach to Heathens; I will exhort, reprove, encourage Heathens privately; to comfort a Heathen as a Chriſtian, I cannot; elſe I call not to mind what effects of love I manifeſt to a Chriſtian, but I will to a Heathen.
But for Chriſtian Eccleſiaſtical love, manifeſted by Communion in theſe Symbols or ſigns, I will not manifeſt that to one Heathen, only to the members of this viſible body, being one with them.
As for Epiſcopal Government, which Dr. Goodman, and this late Commencer adds,
Firſt, I would thank either of them if they would give us a ſtout piece againſt Eraſtus and his followers.
2ly. If by Epiſcopal Government they mean ſuch as now is among us, let them firſt prove it is of Divine Inſtitution, which all the Commencers in Cambridg or Oxford ſhall never be able to do, ſo long as there is a Bible; and if they cannot do that, then where is the ſchiſm? It's rather our duty to ſeparate from what is not of Chriſts planting in his houſe.
3ly. But let the Government be of Chriſts Inſtitution, yet wherein doth that Government ſhew it ſelf? among other things in letting in, or caſting out of this body? by admitting or caſting out from theſe Ordinances of the Sacraments? but that refuſing, or ſeparation from ſuch Epiſcopal-Government, meerly as Epiſcopal, ſhould be Mortale ſchiſma, this is but the figment of the delirant-brain of a Prelatical Zealot.
2ly. This Schiſm is in the viſible body of Chriſt. I hear there are ſchiſms among you, 1 Cor. 11.8. the houſe of Cloe, 1 Cor. 1.11. ſaw them, who informed Paul. Schiſm it ſeems comes under the ſenſes, then it muſt be in the viſible body, when this body viſibly met together.
By the viſible body of Chriſt I underſtand all that make profeſſion of their Faith in the Lord Jeſus, and the Doctrine of the Goſpel ſoundly, and do in their converſation viſibly walk according to his Rules in his Goſpel, ſo that their converſation do not openly be…ly and deny their profeſſion, Tit. 1.16.
That the one body of Chriſt mentioned 1 Cor. 12.12. in which there ought to be no ſchiſm, v. 25. is meant the viſible body of Chriſt, I think none will deny. So Rom. 12. & Epheſ. 4.
1. It is ſuch a body in which the Lord had ſet Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, 1 Cor. 12.18. Epheſ. 4.11. ſuch a body to which extraordinary gifts were given. But theſe were Apoſtles; not to one particular Church, but the Catholick Church viſible.
2. One member is to ſuffer or rejoice with another, 1 Cor. 12.26. Ay, if it be a member and real member of our particular Church of Corinth; but for other Churches, and unleſs we are ſure they are inviſible members, let them go. Is this the meaning?
3. Are we baptized into a particular, or the Catholick Church? 1 Cor. 12.13. and Baptiſm belongs to the viſible Church.
Other things I might mention, but I think it will not be denied.
3ly. When then that union our Lord and Head requireth in this his viſible body is rent, diſſolved; when Communion is denied among the members of it, contrary to his appointment.
Now Schiſm appears, when the internal band, Love, is broken, there is ſomething of the nature, the root of the ſin is in it, but that is hid. Men can hypocritically and vilely meet together, and hold communion in that Ordinance which holds forth unity and love, and have their hearts wretchedly divided one from another, this may be hid, as I ſaid.
But Schiſm properly ſo called, is when the external band is broken; when communion in thoſe ſymbols or ſigns, is denied on one ſide, or refuſed on the other ſide, without warrant from Chriſt; ſo that the members do not meet and hold their communion as they ought, but ſplit into ſeveral pieces, oppoſite one to another, as if they were not members of that one body. Now Schiſm is apparent, Quia haec ſciſſio maximè perficitur & apparet in debita communione Eccleſiaſtica recuſanda, id circo illa ſeparatio, per appropriationem ſingularem recto vocatur, Schiſma. Ames Conſc.
Having opened our deſcription for finding out the true Schiſmatical Church or Perſons, let me give the Reader my mind under ſeveral Propoſitions.
Firſt, I reaſſume that which I mentioned before, viz. the body of Chriſt is but one; and that Schiſm is found in the viſible body.
2ly. This body being but one, hence then, that this one body comes to be divided into ſo many particular Churches, and meeting in ſo many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament, and the other Inſtitutions of Chriſt, it is is but accidental, and not eſſential to this body, it being the conſequent of that vaſt number which makes up this one body.
3ly. Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all theſe particular Churches unto the Goſpel pattern, the Law and Rule of their Head, in their Faith and Doctrine, in their Worſhip and Diſcipline, in their converſation and practiſe, I may add, and conſtitutions, that whereever the members of this body come, they may manifeſt their Ʋnity, and Chriſtian Eccleſiaſtical love to and with thoſe particular Churches, without any juſt ſcruple or doubt. It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the leaſt from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them; for in ſo doing they deny him to be the Head, and make themſelves the Head. The Head is to direct.
4ly. If any particular Church ſhall vary from that Pattern, and ſhall impoſe upon the members of this body, conditions of communion which our Head hath not impoſed, and ſuch as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as ſinful, and yet will force them to ſubject to ſuch conditions, or elſe no communion; that impoſing Church is the ſchimatical Church, and the guilt of Schiſm lyes at their door; Let this Impoſition be in Faith, Worſhip, Diſcipline, or Manners. Let the Church be Papal (if that be a Church), Epiſcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptiſtical, Lutheran, Calviniſt, no matter what, the Impoſing party is the Schiſmatick. Why do you, how dare you if you be members of that Head, impoſe that upon the members of his Body, which himſelf hath not? we will not, we muſt not admit any other wiſdom or will in things which concern him, but his own; if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule, we may admit three hundred, and turn him out from being Head. A great ſtir there is about the power of the Church in circumſtances of worſhip: If you mean inſeparable circumſtances, ordering them according to the general Rule our Head hath given, for the edification of the Church, I know no Nonconformiſt ſuch a block as to deny it; but that the things impoſed upon us as conditions of Communion in the Church of England (as you call it) are ſuch, the former diſcourſe hath ſufficiently proved the contrary. Hence the Church-men of England are the Schiſmaticks.
5ly. It is an irrational thing that the Impoſers of Conditions in things belonging to God, ſhould be the ſole Judges of the lawfulneſs of their Impoſitions.
Firſt, Becauſe there is but one word or Rule given, to which the Impoſers and Impoſed are ſtrictly bound, and the Impoſed may underſtand that Rule as well and better than the Impoſfers; elſe how the Proteſtant party will defend themſelves againſt Rome (the Impoſer) I know not; they ſuppoſe they underſtood it better than Rome, and ſo do you now think.
2ly. The Impoſers have ſin in them, and may ſin; they are not Infallible; therefore their Impoſitions muſt be judged by others.
3ly. If Impoſers muſt be ſole Judges, and we muſt obey becauſe they impoſe, then never muſt the people of God obey the call to come out of Babylon, Apoc. 18.4. for Impoſing-Babylon being the ſole Judg, will tell you, her Impoſitions are all lawful, and therefore you muſt obey.
6ly. Chriſt our Head no where requires, but rather forbids our holding Communion with that Church which Impoſeth ſuch things as conditions of Communion, which his members cannot ſubject to, but with a doubtful conſcience, Rom. 14 23. foreign. He that doubteth is damned if he eat; but not, if becauſe of doubting he dare not eat.
That there are ſome ſuch giddy Chriſtians who will find ſuch exceptions againſt any Church that they cannot communicate with a clear conſcience, though there be no humane invention impoſed, but only what Chriſt himſelf hath appointed, I do not deny; but then let the guilt of Schiſm lye at their door. But as to your Humane Injunctions we cannot ſubmit to them, but with a doubtful conſcience at leaſt.
7ly. There is great difference between a Church in which there are ſome corruptions, but no Impoſition, and a Church where there is Impöſition of Humane Inventions, not agreeable to the Word; with the firſt we would not doubt to communicate, but not with the ſecond.
Hence for the examples brought againſt us out of the Scripture, where were corrupt Churches, but no command for ſeparation, as under the Old Teſtament.
It's very true, how could they make a ſeparation there from the Temple, and the Levitical Prieſthood, without going expreſly againſt the Word? Might they erect another Temple? Is there any ſuch Temple under the Goſpel?
For thoſe in the New Teſtament:
1ſt. Their Churches were rightly conſtituted.
2ly. Their Paſtors were rightly called.
3ly. Their Paſtors ſound in Doctrine; we do not read they were charged with unſoundneſs.
4ly. For outward ſcandalous ſins we read of none in their Paſtors.
5ly. Their members for the major part ſound; though ſome particular members were unſound in Doctrine and converſation, yet they were but few.
6ly. They had Chriſts Order and Diſcipline, as he appointed, to help themſelves againſt thoſe unſound and corrupt members.
Hence what cauſe was here for ſeparation? what underſtanding man would ſcruple communion with theſe Churches, though there were ſome corruptions? Compare yours and theſe. But,
1ſt. Where was this Impoſition of Humane Inventions in the Worſhip of God? unleſs ſome few Schiſmaticks in the Church of Corinth, we do not find the Churches charged with mixing any thing of theirs in the Worſhip of God.
2ly. Which of thoſe Churches had ſworn to the Great God to reform what was amiſs in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline, and then return to their vomit again?
8ly. Chriſt our Head may hold communion with his members living in corrupt Impoſing Churches, and yet others of his members that ſee and know theſe corruptions, muſt not hold communion with them; ſtill the Schiſm lyes upon the Impoſer.
1ſt. Your Spiritual Courts having Excommunicated many gracious and ſincere-hearted Chriſtians, for what cauſe we know; a ſad thing that ſuch a ſolemn Ordinance ſhould be ſo abuſed. But with theſe gracious Chriſtians, Chriſt holds communion we are ſure; and will not your Church therefore hold Communion with them?
2ly. Chriſt holds Communion with his people in Babylon, Apoc. 18.4. how were they made, and kept his people elſe? muſt we therefore hold Communion with Babylon?
3ly. Chriſt holds Communion with his people in the Lutheran Churches, I doubt not; but if they impoſe upon you the Doctrine of the Ubiquity of Chriſts Humane Nature as a condition of Communion, will you hold Communion with them?
9ly. Perſecution joined to Impoſition upon the members of Chriſts body, what Chriſt never impoſed, renders the ſin of the Impoſing-Church much greater; and refuſing Communion with ſuch a Perſecuting Impoſing Church is no Schiſm. If Chriſt doth give us leave to flee from one Perſecuting City to another, where there is no Perſecution, then if a City be a Perſecuting City, by reaſon of a Perſecuting Church, ſurely he doth not bind us to hold Communion with that Perſecuting Church.
10ly. Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church, becauſe of their corrupt Impoſitions, yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other, will admit of thoſe members of that Church who walk as become Chriſtians in all other points, excepting thoſe Impoſed corruptions which at preſent they cannot ſee, being blinded with thoſe deluding notions of indifferency and circumſtances, that Church cannot be charged with Schiſm, though they refuſe communion with the Impoſing Church; for we give communion to their members, only exclude their impoſed corruptions. I do not mean ſuch members as voluntarily took that ſolemn Oath, &c. of reforming thoſe corruptions, and now return to them again. I look on this as a greater ſin; but for others I know ſeveral of our Churches would give them communion, (I do not ſay all will) but then how are we Schiſmaticks?
11ly. Particular Churches may be ſo corrupt both in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Converſation, that the ſounder members not only may, but ought to ſeparate from them to ſave their own ſouls from infection, and this is not Schiſm but Duty.
12ly. The caſe of thoſe who are actual members of thoſe Churches where theſe corruptions are, is different from thoſe who are no members of ſuch Churches; they have ſomething elſe to do before they may ſeparate.
13ly. If it be our ſin to communicate with ſuch as we know to be notoriouſly wicked, unleſs we follow the rule of Chriſt, Mat. 18.15, 16, &c. to ſeek the removal of them, or do not our duty to reform the Paſtor, Cure of Church-Diviſion, pag. 100.or remove him, as Mr. Baxtar tells us; How we ſhall communicate without ſin, though we had nothing elſe to trouble us, I know not: that many ſuch come to the Sacraments, and who more boldly than they? we know; which way ſhall we reform them? the Curate hath no Juridical power. To the Spiritual Court muſt we go? To the Dioceſan muſt we go? we are like to mend it; carry Witneſſes, how many miles? when yet the power we cannot own to be of Chriſt. When all is done, have a Writ upon our backs to bring us to the common Law, and what then?
Whence to conclude, they have dealt unworthily by us, who bring the old Nonconformiſts againſt us, to condemn us, as if the ſtate of this Church were the ſame with the true Church of England.