Of Schism, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. What Schiſme is, together with ſome general conſiderations thereon.
§. 1. OUR firſt enquirie muſt be what Schiſm is, in the ſtrict & proper notion (as (a)Non attendiſti inter ſchiſmaticos & haereticos quàm ſit magna diſtantia. Optat: l. 1. p. 13.diſtinguiſhed from Hereſie, the (b)Inter haereſim & ſchiſma hoc intereſſe arbitramur, quòd haereſis perverſum dogma habeat, ſchiſma propter Epiſcopalem diſſenſionem ab Eccleſiâ pariter ſeparet. Hieron: ad Tit: c. 3.introducing of ſome falſe doctrine into the Church.) And herein there will be no difficulty the Origination, and univerſal uſe of the word, according and conſenting exactly, to give us the importance of it.
The Original of the word Schiſm.§. 2. In the origination of it from foreign, ſcindi, it ſignifies literally ſciſſure, or diviſion, which being a figurative, and withall a relative word, referring to ſome body, which is thus cut or divided, but that no natural, but political body, the Church, or Congregation of Chriſtians, the literal notation of the word in the Eccleſiaſtical uſe, will be foreign foreign, a diviſion in or from the Ʋnity of the Church of Chriſt. Only the form & termination of the word muſt be farther noted, which being not foreign from the active foreign,Reciprocal paſſion noted by the word. but foreign from the paſſive foreign, the uſe of ſuch paſſives is obſervable, being of the nature (and for want of conjugations, deſigned to ſupply the place) of the Hebrew Hithpa…l, and ſo noting reciprocal action or paſſion, where the paſſion is from, and on himſelf, and is moſt fully expreſſed by the Latine Neutrals, which partake both of active and paſſive, but are ſtrictly neither of them. This might be largely exemplified in the uſe of other words, but the advantage of the obſervation will not be proportionable to the length of ſuch a diverſion, being no more then this, that the diſtinct notion of the word [Schiſme] is a voluntary dividing,Schiſme a voluntary receſſion. or, in the neutral expreſſion, which the Fathers familiarly uſe, a ſeparating, or receding of any member from the unity of the body, i. e. the Church of Chriſt, and ſo that the ſciſmatick is he that *foreign, Jude 19.divides himſelf from the Church of God, not that is cut off, or ſeparated, he that (a)foreign. 1 Joh. 2.19.goes out, or (b)foreign. Heb. 10.38.withdraws, or recedes of his own accord, not he that is caſt out by the Governours of the Church. Excommunication no Schiſme.For whatever blame, and vengeance may juſtly light on ſuch, who are by the righteous, and charitative Cenſures of the Church, cut off from communion, in caſe they doe not by humiliation, confeſſion, and reformation, and meet fruits of repentance, prepare and qualifie themſelves for readmiſſion to that Communion, yet certainly this puniſhment of Excommunication is very diſparate and diſtant from the crime of ſchiſme, the Judge, i. e. Biſhop or Governour of the Church, being the only actor in the one, (and that ex officio, an act of duty in him, when duly executed) but in the other, the offender, or guilty perſon, who is therefore ſaid to (c)foreign. Concil: Laod: Can: 40.accuſe, to caſt, to (d)Propriae conſcientiae videtur eſſe damnatio, cùm quiſpiam ſuo arbitrio ab Eccleſiâ receſſerit. Hieron: foreign. Cod: Can: Afric: Can: 22.condemn himſelf, throwing himſelfe, by his voluntary receſſion from the Church, into that very condition, into which the adulterer, and obſtinate offender is caſt by the Cenſures of it.
§. 3. This is ſo evident a truth, that this puniſhment, and ſo judicial act, of the Governour, cannot be the guilt of him that is puniſhed, and though it be ſuppoſed to be founded in ſome offence, is not yet in any propriety of ſpeech the offence it ſelf, much leſſe the ſin of ſchiſme, eſpecially when he is puniſhed for hereſie, or ſome other crime, and not for ſchiſme, that I need not farther inſiſt on it. Interpretative Excommunication.Only, as beſide the formal foreign, there is alſo an interpretative excōmunication, when he that is not under the Cenſures of the Church, is yet refuſed admiſſion, or reception unto it, unleſſe he will ſubmit to ſuch & ſuch conditions, indiſpenſably propoſed to him, and becauſe both in the one, and the other, in the formal, and in the interpretative excommunication, the Governours, being men, may poſſibly erre, and conſequently cenſure, and excommunicate the innocent, and in like manner propoſe thoſe conditions of communion which are not lawful for that man to ſubmit unto,Continuance out of actual Communion, without Schiſme. ſo it is poſſible in both caſes, that the perſon excluded may be abſolutely innocent, free not only from that of ſchiſme, but from all other guilt, ſo that he which is excommunicated may not be obliged to regain the peace, nor he that is barred out, to force his paſſage into the communion of the Church, and ſo both ſorts of theſe, continuing out of the actual communion, neither the one nor the other be guilty of ſchiſme in the leaſt degree by ſo continuing.
Unjuſt excommunication hurts no man.§. 4. He that is excommunicated unjuſtly, cannot be rendred criminous by that misfortune, nor concluded culpable by that argument, upon which he is ſuppoſed innocent. Our Saviour hath pronounced of the anathemaes of the Jews, of their bittereſt execrations, their foreign, their ſharpeſt cenſures, nay the foreign, caſting men out of the Synagogue, falſly or unjuſtly, that it is to be looked on as a moſt auſpicious token, a matter of the greateſt rejoicing to them which fell under it, one of the principal ingredients in, and forerunners of their bliſſe (and accordingly the Apoſtles when they were thus caſt out, and contumeliouſly uſed, went out of the Temple rejoicing that they were thought worthy to ſuffer ſhame for Chriſt's name) To which purpoſe is that of Photius Patriarch of Conſtantinople to Michael Metropolitan of Mitylene, Ep: 116. foreign, &c. The excommunication of the Jewiſh Sanhedrim ſent out againſt Chriſt's diſciples brought them ſo much neerer to their Lord and Maſter, and alien'd the Jews themſelves, removed them ſo much farther from the kingdome of heaven, and ſo doth all unjuſt excommunication now unite us to the Apoſtles by this conformity with and participation of their ſufferings. And I ſuppoſe the arguments, and teſtimonies produced by the Chancellour of Paris are (and, when they were firſt publiſhed, were ſo deemed by thoſe of the Romiſh communion) unanſwerable to this matter; And accordingly that of Thomas de Curſelis in the Councel of Baſil, that it was *Papae à Chriſto dictum, Quicquid ligaveris ſuper terram, erit ligatum, non quicquid dixeris eſſe ligatum. Jacob: Angularis in Ep: ad Weſſelum ap: Goldaſt: l. 1. p. 575. Which holds in the Interpretative Excommunication.ſaid by Chriſt to the Pope, Whatſoever thou ſhalt binde on earth ſhall be bound, not whatſoever thou ſhalt affirm to be bound,] hath with it the evidence of undeniable truth, equally applicable to him and all Biſhops in that and in all future ages.
§. 5. And then certainly what hath thus been ſaid of the Formal, will with the ſame evidence be extended alſo to the Interpretative excommunication, whenſoever the conditions of the communion contain in them any ſinne, and ſo become as the former cenſures were ſuppoſed to be; For in that caſe certainly it is no act of Schiſme from any Church, for any member to be, or to continue thus excluded from it. For how deſireable, and valuable ſoever an intire, inviolate peace with all Chriſtians, with all men, (together with the approbation of our willing, cheerful obedience, and ſubmiſſion of our judgments and practiſes, to our ſuperiors) muſt forever be deemed by all true diſciples of Chriſt, Yet muſt not the purchaſe of this treaſure be attempted by the admiſſion of any ſin, any more then the glory of God might be projected by the Apoſtle's lie. The leaſt tranſgreſſion of God's Law muſt not be adventured on upon any the moſt Chriſtian deſigne, or conſideration; The peaceable living with all men, which is ſo often exhorted to▪ and inculcated, is yet no farther recommended, then foreign, and foreign, if it be poſſible, and as much as in us lies, and that, we know, muſt be interpreted of a moral and leg… poſſibility, by which we are pronounced able to doe that (and no more) which we can doe lawfully, and ſo when the Apoſtle 1 Theſſ 4.11. exhorts to the moſt earneſt purſuit of this bliſful ſtate (this eaſe, and reſt, and quiet from the labours, and toils and hell of the factious, turbulent ſpirit) it is in a ſtyle, which ſuppoſes this reſerve, we muſt, ſaith he, foreign, have an ambition, and emulation, and contention to live peaceably, and quietly, obliging us to uſe all means that would be allowed to the ambitious perſon in his warmeſt purſuit, i. e. the utmoſt lawful, but not the loweſt unlawful means.
Mr Knots Conceſſion in this matter. c. 7. p. 471, 472.§. 6. In which matter it is remarkable what courſe hath been taken by the late author of Infidelity unmaſked, in his diſcourſe of the Schiſme of Proteſtants, where having acknowledged how perfectly unlawful it is to diſſemble, equivocate, or lie in the matters of faith— and withall urgeing from all antiquity, that to forſake the external communion of God's viſible Church is the ſin of ſchiſme, he makes a ſhift to conclude (as a natural conſequence) from hence, that therefore the Church (I ſuppoſe he means, of Rome) is infallible, and not ſubject to errour, becauſe otherwiſe men might forſake her communion— Where though the conſequence be very ſtrange, that we may forſake the Churches communion, in caſe ſhe be fallible or ſubject to errour (for this ſuppoſes it lawful 1. to forſake the communion of any erroneous Church, which is much more then we would deſire to be granted us, and 2. to forſake all that are fallible, though they be not actually in errour, which is in effect to forſake the communion of all but Saints, and Angels, and God in heaven, for they only have the privilege of impeccable and infallible) yet it abſolutely acknowledges that it would be lawful to ſeparate from, and forſake the (even Ʋniverſal) Church of Chriſt, in caſe, or on ſuppoſition that we could not be permitted to communicate with it, without lying, and diſſembling, and equivocating in matters of faith, which he there acknowledgeth to be the denying God on earth.
§. 7. Now (to return to our preſent conſideration) Severe conditions of ſome Churches Communion.Of this there is no queſtion, but that, as it is ſaid to be cuſtomary among the Kings of the Hunnes (as ſoon as they have any children, and ſo no need of their brethrens aſſiſtance) to baniſh all their brethren out of their dominions, and not to admit them again without putting out their eyes, (foreign, ſaith Cinnamus, Hiſt: l. 1.) ſo it is poſſible (I wiſh it were not juſtly ſuppoſable) for a particular Church ſo to fence, and limit, to guard, and reſtrain their communion, to require ſuch ſevere conditions of all whom they will admit, or tolerate within their Church, that ſome men cannot without putting out their eyes, or wilful acknowledgment of untruths, others without committing ſin againſt conſcience, undergoe the conditions thus required, nor conſequently be admitted to communion with it.Make Communion with them impoſſible. As in caſe any unſound or untrue poſition be entred into the Confeſſion, or Catechiſme of any Church, and all the members of that Communion be explicitly required to believe, Such are preſcribing ſubſcription of errors.and acknowledge the truth of every branch of that Confeſſion, and ſo that confeſſion be really the condition, and accordingly in the reputation of men eſteemed the teſſera, or ſymbol of that communion, then he that ſhall enter this communion thus conditionated, muſt certainly either actually ſubſcribe, or (which, as to the ſcandal of the action, is equivalent) be reaſonably ſuppoſed to acknowledge that untruth; and if in ſome perſons blameleſs ignorance may be ſuppoſed ſufficient for the excuſing, or alleviating that fault, yet 1. he that hath means of diſcovering that untruth, and criminouſly neglects to make uſe of thoſe means, and 2. he that hath diſcovered the truth, and yet thus profeſſeth himſelf to believe the contrary, will not be thus excuſable; And it is not here ſufficient to object the ſuppoſable levity of the error, or intellectual falſity, For how light, and inconſiderable (and extrinſecal to the foundation) ſoever the error be ſuppoſed to be, yet if there be obſtinacy in continuing in it againſt light and conviction, or if there be falſneſs in profeſſing, or ſubſcribing, contrary to preſent perſwaſions, or ſcandal and ill example, temptation and ſnare to others, in ſeeming to doe ſo; theſe certainly are ſins, and neither light nor inconſiderable, nor reconcileable with that fabrick of Chriſtian practiſe, which ought to be ſuperſtructed on that foundation.
§. 8.or Profeſſion againſt Conſcience. Nay if the errors be really on the other ſide, if the doctrines ſo propoſed, as the condition of the communion of any Church, be indeed agreeable to truth, but yet be really apprehended by him, to whom they are thus propoſed, to be falſe, and diſagreeable, it will even in that caſe be hard to affirm that that man may lawfully thus ſubſcribe, contrary to his preſent perſwaſions; For though it be certain, that he that thus erres, be obliged to uſe all probable means to reform, and depoſite his error, and, as long as he remains in it, is ſo farre guilty of ſin, as he wants the excuſe of invincible ignorance, and being obliged to charity and peace, as farre as it is poſſible, and in him lies, he cannot be freed from offending againſt that obligation, if he doe not communicate with thoſe, the condition of whoſe communion contains nothing really erroneous, or ſinful; and ſo though ſuch a man, on that ſide, be, or may be in ſeveral reſpects criminous, yet it is as evident on the other ſide, that he that profeſſes to believe, what he really doth not believe, that ſubſcribes with his hand, what he rejects in his heart, or that doth that which is under the ſcandal of doing ſo, is farre from being guiltleſs, he certainly offends againſt the precept of ſincerity and veracity (yea and of charity to his brethren, in reſpect of the ſcandal) hath added hypocriſie to his error, and ſo which way ſoever he turns, he is ſure to ſin (the worſt and moſt unhappy kinde of ſtraight) he remains in error, and ſchiſme on the one ſide, and by flying from that, he advances to lying and hypocriſie on the other, and the deſire of avoiding one of theſe, cannot juſtifie the other.
§. 9. This I ſay, in caſe the error be really on the mans, not on the Churches ſide; But if (as in the caſe propoſed) the errors be ſuppoſed to be wholly on the Churches ſide, and withall indiſpenſably required to be ſubſcribed by all, and ſo the conditions of that communion being exacted of him, who cannot without ſin undertake them, be to him really, and unexcuſably unlawful, then certainly to that man in that caſe it is no crime not to communicate (when he is thus excluded from communicating) with that Church, but a crime, and a great one, thus (by teſtifying againſt the truth and his own conſcience) to qualifie himſelf for that communion. The admiſſion of ſuch guilts as theſe, hypocriſie, and lying againſt conſcience, and due grounds of conviction, is too high a price to be paid even for peace, or communion it ſelf.
§. 10. A meek ſon of the Church of Chriſt will certainly be content to ſacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchaſe, and when the fundamentals of the Faith, and ſuperſtructures of Chriſtian practiſe are not concerned in the conceſſions, he will cheerfully expreſſe his readineſs to ſubmit, or depoſit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his ſuperiours in the Church where his lot is fallen. But when this proves unſufficient, when peace with the brethren on earth will not be had at a cheaper rate then this of a voluntary offending againſt our father which is in heaven; in this caſe, the Chriſtian muſt be content to live without it, and though he would rejoice to ſell all that he hath to purchaſe that jewel, yet his conſcience, the health and peace of that (which is interrupted by every wilful ſin) is a commodity, that muſt not be parted with, whatſoever the acquiſition be, which is in his view and thus offers it ſelf in exchange for it.
§. 11. Application to the Church of Rome; in relation to the preſent Church of England.The evidence of which is, I conceive, ſo demonſtrative and irreſiſtible, that it will be juſtly extended much farther then the preſent caſe of the Church of England gives me any temptation to extend it; For in caſe our Anceſtors had unjuſtly and criminouſly made a ſeparation from the Church of Rome (which it ſhall anon appear that they have not) and we their ſucceſſors in that ſchiſme ſhould unfeignedly confeſs, and repent, and deſire to reform that ſin, and uprightly diſcharge our conſcience in neglecting no means, that patience, humility, charity could ſuggeſt to us, in order to obtaining our reconciliation, yet if that cannot be obtained by all theſe ſubmiſſions, without that harder condition of renouncing, or profeſſing, or ſeeming (in common reputation of men) to renounce any part of Divine truth, or Chriſtian practiſe, which we verily believe to be the truth, and our duty, it would not be our guilt, but only our unhappineſs, that we were thus forced to continue in that ſeparation. The reaſon is evident from the former grounds, we muſt not ſin, that we may give glory to God (ſuch is confeſſion, & fruits of repentance, Joſ. 7.19.) a penitent thief muſt not lie, to enable himſelf to make reſtitution, nor the contrite ſchiſmatick commit any new ſin (ſuch certainly is hypocriſie, lying, profeſſing contrary to preſent perſwaſion) to complete his repentance for the old.
§. 12. If this laſt be conceived (as it is not the preſent caſe of the Church of England, ſo) to be an impoſſible, unſuppoſeable caſe, not only upon the Romaniſts grounds, who I preſume will not acknowledge any ſuch hard condition (as is the profeſſion of an untruth) to be required to any mans reconciliation, and readmiſſion to their communion, but upon this other ſcore, becauſe if any falſe profeſſion be now required to our readmiſſion, the ſame was formerly required to our continuance in their communion, and conſequently our Anceſtors departure then could not be ſuppoſed (as in this laſt fiction of caſe it is) a ſchiſmatical departure. I ſhall not need to give any more diſtinct anſwer to this, then 1. That we that acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be infallible, may be allowed to make a ſuppoſition, which is founded in the poſſibility of her inſerting ſome error in her Confeſſions, and making the explicite acknowledgment of that the peremptory indiſpenſable condition of her communion; 2. That it is poſſible alſo (though not by us pretended) that ſhe ſhould ſince that ſuppoſed departure of our Anceſtors, introduce ſome new doctrines, and conſequently ſome new errors, and thoſe now be ſuppoſeable to lie in the way to our return, though they had no part (before their birth) in driving us from them; 3. That that may be by the Church of Rome permitted, and allowed to thoſe that have alwaies remained in their communion, which to them that have departed, and either in their perſons, or poſterity, deſire to return to it, will not be permitted by them; It being more ordinary to indulge liberties to ſons, that have alwaies continued in the family, then to grant them to offenders, and ſuppliants, that expect favours, and graces, and reſtauration to privileges; 4. That thoſe which have had their education out of the Communion of the Church of Rome, may very poſſibly & probably come to diſcern that, which in that communion would never have been (for want of repreſentation) diſcerned by them, and conſequently may obſerve ſome errors in her doctrine or practiſe, which their Anceſtors at their very departure from them had not diſcerned, and then though thoſe errors ſubſcribed to by them, had the Lenitive, or Antidote of blameleſs ignorance, yet becauſe thoſe that now really diſcern that truth, which the Anceſtors diſcerned not, cannot lawfully profeſſe not to diſcern it, or profeſſe againſt conſcience to believe what they doe not believe, it is therefore neceſſarily conſequent, that the return of ſuch to the peace of the Roman Church may by this means be rendred impoſſible though their Anceſtors continuance there, lying under no ſuch prejudice, their ſeparation were acknowledged unlawful.