The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 10

The Good Old Way Defended · Treatise · Section 10

p. 245SECTION X.

Of Schism.

THe Enquirer falleth next upon the Presbyterian notion of Schism, as one of the New Opinions; the Opinion of the Presbyterians in this, he taketh from one Person, who never pretended to Write in the Name of all the Presbyterians; neither did ever Write of Schism, of set Purpose, or fully; but only endeavoured to take off that odious Charge that his Party had laid on Us, by Answering their Arguments: However, I am willing to Account for what he Opposeth in that Author, or to yield to the Force of Argument, if there be any thing which cannot be Defended. My Antagonist hath treated on this Subject so indistinctly, that there is a Necessity to give a more clear Account of the Nature of Schism in general; without which we may wrangle, but not p. 246Dispute. It hath been an ancient Practice, and is frequent in later Times, and in ours; for different Parties to brand one another (and that with fierey Zeal) with the odious Name of Schismaticks; without considering, or at least Defineing what it is that they call Schism; The bitter Epithets among the Ancients given to them whom they imputed this Blame to, did sufficiently shew their Zeal against Schism, but did more shew that there were Schisms among them; and that they were Angry one with another, and hold …urth some particular Causes of these Heats; than lead us to a distinct Knowledge of the general Nature of Schism: Some modern Authors have Written more dis…inctly of it; yet the particular Cause they were concerned for, hath distorted their Thoughts of the Nature of Schism into one side; and wrested its Essence to serve their Hypothesis. It is Observed by the Learned and Reverend Stillingfleet, Irenic. p. 108. that the word Schism (though it sound harsh, it being often taken in an ill sense) as it importeth a separation from a Church, is not a thing intrinsically evil in it self; but is capable of the Differences of Good and Evil, according to the Ground, Reasons, Ends, and Circumstances inducing to such a Separation; the withdrawing from a Society is but the Materialitie of Schism; the Formalitie of it must be …etcht from the Grounds on which that is built. He citeth also another Author, Observing that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used, are Two Theological Scarcrows, with which they who would uphold a Partie in Religion, use to fright away such, as making Enquirie into it, are readie to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either Erroneous or Suspicious.

§. 2. Before I come to search into the Opinion of the Fathers, and others, about the Nature of Schism; it is needful to premise a few things▪ 1. Schism is a Breach of Unitie; and therefore, there can be no Schism where there ought to be no Unitie; yea, where there need be no Unitie, or where there can be no Unitie. Wherefore that we may understand what Schism is, it is needful to Consider what Unitie should, and must be amongh Churches, and among Christians. There are several sorts of Unitie, that we cannot have with all Churches, as local Communion: some that we need not have, as Identitie of Rites: some that we ought not to have with some Churches; as Communion in false Doctrine, or impure Worship. 2. The Unitie of the Church may be Considered in all the Notions in which the Church is considered; or in all the sorts of Churches: In the Catholick Church, visible, and invisible, in all the Combinations of Chur…hes among themselves, National, provincial, p. 247classical, and in particular Comgregatious. It is an undue Notion of Unitie and Schism that Independents have, that they are only to be Considered as in a particular Congregation. 3. Unitie consisteth in Joyning with, and c…eaving to the Church in all these Acts of Communions with her that the LORD hath made our Dutie▪ so that it is not only Schism to depart f…om a Church (without just cause) that we have been joyned to; but not to joyn with some Societie of Christians, when it is possible for us; and when we can do it without Sin; the former may be called a …ositive, this a negative Separation. 4. Schism may be also called Positive, or negative in another Sense; the former, when a Partie in a Church, doth not joyn with the Church; yet setteth up no Church in a separated way from that Church, whereof they were Members: the later, when they set up such a distinct Societie; there may be just Causes for both: The first, When I cannot joyn with the Congregation I belong to, because of some Corruption that I must partake of, if I joyn; but I partake with some other more pure Societie; The second, When a Body of People cannot joyn without Sin, nor can they have the occasion of a Societie, where they might joyn; they must either live without Ordinances, or set up another Religious Societie; on this Ground Protestants did thus separate from the Popish Churches. 5. There may be a partial Separation, when one Ordinance is so corrupted, that we cannot joyn in it, and yet can joyn with the Church in all other Acts of Communion: and a total Separation, when either the Church will not suffer us to joyn with her in any part of her Service, unless we joyn in all; or she is so Corrupt that we can joyn with her in nothing that is Religous. The former by most wise and sober Men, is not reckoned such a Schism; as that any are to be blamed as Schismaticks on that account; but the Author I now Debate with, aggravateth that even to a very high degree of Schism; as also do many of …is Partizans; driving many Consciencious and good Men from them, for the sake of some Usages, which themselves count indifferent, and the others apprehend to be unlawful. 6. The Differences in Opinion about Religious matters, especially when Managed with heat, and animosities, may be called Schi…m, according to the import of the Word; yet in the usual Ecclesiastical notion of Schism, they are not to be so reputed; unless some kind of separation, or shuning the ordinarie Church Communion one with another, follow upon them. Diversitie of Opinion, and of Affection, are sinful evils; but it is diversitie of Religious p. 248Practice, following on these, that maketh ChurchiSchism. 7. When a separation falleth out in a Church, the Guilt of it doth certainly ly on the one side or the other; and often neither side is wholly innocent; they who have cause to separate, may manage their Good cause by evil Methods, and in a way that is not wholly Commendable: now to know on which side the blame of the Schism …ieth, we must not always conclude that they are in the fault. 1. Who are the fewer Number; otherwise most Reformations of the Church were sinful: Nor, 2. Who separate from the Church Rulers, themselves being in Possession of Church Authority: for this should condemn our Reformation from Poperis; Nor, 3. Who separate from that Partie that hath the countenance of civil Authority, and hath the Law on its side; not only because it is the Gospel, not the Law of the Land, that is the Rule of our Religion, and Church Practice: but also because that is variable, and by that Rule, they who were the sound Partie one year, may be Schismaticks the other; without any Change in their Principles or Practice; which is absurd. Wherefore the blame of Schism, in that case, lieth only on them who hath the wrong side of that controverted Matter about which they divide; or who, though their Opinion be better than that of the opposite Partie, yet depart from the Communion of their Brethren without sufficient Cause; every thing that we may justly blame, not being sufficient for making a Rent in the Church. Hence it plainly followeth, that Mens assuming to themselves the name of the Church, is not sufficient Ground for them to Brand such as Schismaticks who depart from their Communion: Where Truth and Gospel Puritie is, there is the Church, and they who have most of these are the soundest Church.

§. 3. Having laid this Foundation for Discerning what is truly Schism, and where the Blame of it lieth: I shall next enquire into the Opinion of the ancient Church, about Schism: it is evident that they did Oppose it; and set forth its Sinfulness, and sad Consequences, with a great deal of Zeal, and that justly; for it is not only a sinful thing on the one side, or the other, but is a great Plague and Judgment from the LORD on a Church, and tendeth to the of Ruine of Good Order, of the inward and outward Practice of Religion, and of Mens Souls; and herein I shall make no Debate with my Antagonist in what he Discourseth, p. 211. 212. He is in a vast Mistake, if he reckon it among the New Opinions of Presbyterians, that they think well of Schism, that is truely such; p. 249or speak diminutively of the Evil and Hazard, and Fatal Effects of it; nay, our Principle is, that a Man should part with what is dearest to him in the World, to Redeem the Peace and Unitie of the Church; yea, that nothing can Warrant, or Excuse it, but the Necessity of shuning Sin. It is also evident that the Ancients were very Liberal in bestowing on one another the odious Names of Schismaticks, as also of Heretick; and that often proceeded from a true (though mistaken) Zeal for lovely Truth, and beautiful Unity: at other times it might arise from some sinful Infirmities, that they (as all Men are) were Subject to. Good Men may be Zealous for their own Opinions, because they take them to be the Truths of GOD. The Fathers called several Practices Schism, and shewed a great dislike of them all. As, 1. They blamed Dividing from the Universal Church, as Schism; and there are many things wherein Men may be blamed, under this Head, which I shall not now mention; it being my Work at present, only to Enquire into the Opinion of the Fathers in this Matter. I find they were not of my Adversaries Opinion in this; many things he maketh a heavy out-cry about, and blameth People for, as Schismaticks, and Sectaries, which they laid no such stress on; They bare with one another, though they Dissered in Rites, and several Customs. They did not fall out about what they counted indifferent, but maintained Peace, and Concord, notwithstanding of different Practices in one Church from another. Euseb. lib. 5. C. 23. citeth Irenaeus, reproving Victor of Rome (where Usurpation, and imposing on others early began) for Excommunicating other Churches which kept not Easter on the same Day with him; and he setteth before him some Differences between Polycarpus and Annicetus; so as neither could perswade the other to be of his Mind; and yet they did lovingly Communicate together: The Words of Iren. as Eusebius hath them, are foreign, &c. Some think they should Fast one Day (to wit, before Easter) some two, others 40 hours; but yet still they retained Peace; the Diversity of their Fasting Commended the Unity of their Faith: and in the same place foreign, they maintained Peace, and none was cast out for that Difference. Among Cyprians Epistles, one from Firmilian, sheweth the same thing, i… plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum & nominum varietate diversa fiunt, nec tamen ob haec ab Ecclesiae Catholicae …ace atque unitate aliquando discessum est.

§. 4. It is also very plain, that the Fathers, (I mean of the first Ages) did not place the Unitie of the Church Catholick in being of the same p. 250Opinion about all points of Doctrine; but did bear with one another, and maintained Peace, even when they Differed about some of the lesser Truths; yea, when some of them would impose their Opinions on others, and Censure them who Differed from them; they were, by the rest, dealt with, not as Maintainers, but Disturbers of the Peace and Unitie of the Church. Justin. Martyr: dialog. cum Tryphon: speaking of these Jewish Converts who clave to the Mosaical rites; if they did it out of weakness, and did not impose on other Christians, sayeth of them, foreign. That we must receive them, and Communicate with them, as of the same Mind, or Affections, with us, and as Brethren. And we find that in the Difference between Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, about the Validitie of Baptism Administred by Hereticks, Stephen was by the rest of the Bishops condemned, as a Breaker of the Peace of the Church; because he Anathematized Cyprian on this account. Firmilian in the Ep. above cited, hath these Words on this occasion, quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere, rumpens adversum vos pacem quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum amore & honore servabant. Irenae. lib. 4. C. 62. Condemneth them as makers of Schism, who used such Crueltie toward their Bretheren; propter modicas & quaslibet causas magnum & gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt, & dividunt, & quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt; pacem loquentes, & bellum operantes, vere liquantes culicem & camelum transglutientes.

§. 5. But we find the ancient Fathers with a Holy Zeal, Charging such as Apostats from the Church, and breakers of her Peace, who held Opinions contrarie to the Essential, and Fundamental, or any of the great Articles of the Christian Faith; so that they placed the Unitie of the Catholick Church, in a Harmonious consent to these great Truths. Irenae. lib. 1. C. 3. p. 53. edit. Colon▪ 1625. having given a short Account of the chief Articles of the true Religion, hath these Words, hanc igitur praedicationem, & hanc …dem adepta Ecclesia, quamvis dispersa in universo mundo, diligenter conservat, a… si in una eademque domo habitaret, ac similiter iis fidem habet, ac si unam animam unumque & idem cor haberet; atque un… consensu hoc praedicat, docet ac tradit, ac si uno ore praedita esset. Quamvis enim dissimilia sunt in mundo genera linguarum, una tamen & eadem est vis traditionis; nec quae constitutae sunt in Germania Ecclesiae aliter credunt; nec quae in Hispania, neque in Galliis; neque in Oriente, neque in AEgypto, neque in Lybia, aut in medio Orbis terrarum fundatae sunt, sed quemadmodum Sol p. 251Creatura Dei unus & idem est in universo Mundo; ita & praedicatio veritatis ubiquae lucet, & illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis venire volunt. Eusseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 27. Citeth Irenae, condemning Tatianus, the Author of the Sect of the Encratitae, and saying of him, foreign ▪ he reckoned his Opinions a falling from the Church, or a breaking her Unitie. The same Historian, lib. 4. c. 24. giveth Account of Egesippus narrating, how long the Church remained a Virgin, Teaching and Believing nothing but the Law and the Prophets, and what the LORD himself taught, and he mentioneth particularly the Churches of Corinth, Rome, and Jerusalem; and then sheweth how Heresies arose, whose Authors he calleth false Christs, false Prophets, and false Apostles, and of them he sayeth, foreign, they divided the Unity of the Church, by their corrupt Doctrines against GOD, and against his CHRIST. Several other Citations might be brought to this purpose; but these may be sufficient. I do not Question, but that there might be other things which might be called Schism, even with respect to the universal Church, as if any should bring in Idolatrous, or Superstitious Worship, contrarie to the Rules of the Gospel; or should violate any of the necessarie and landable Canons of general Councils, and should set up Societies in opposition, not only to one or few, but to all the Societies of Christians, or all the Soundest of them; But of the first, we hear little of the first Ages; neither could the second be, because they had no general Councils; nor had the Church then begun to make so many Canons as afterward: for the Third, we find none guiltie of that except some Hereticks, who were Noted for their Heresie; and their Schism little spoken of, as being the Consequent of the other, so it was with the Novatian Schism.

§. 6. There is another sort of Unity much regarded among the Ancients, which though the Breach of it had as bad influence on all, or most Churches, and so on the Catholick Church: yet it properly respected Neighbour Churches; either, which were united by the Bond of one Government, a Provincial, or lesser Synod, being made up of them: or only living in the vicinitie of one another, or having frequent occasion of Correspondence; they who were not under any uniting Bonds, but these commune to all the parts of the Catholick Church, yet had an Unity of kind Correspondence, mutual Assistance, as occasion offered; acquainting one another with their Affairs, so far as it was of any Advantage: admitting the Members of other Churches to Communion p. 252with them, on occasion; refusing Communion with such Members of other Churches, as were by them Excommunicated: and this Unity was then broken when these Acts of Friendship were shunned, or refused; especially when they who were cast out by one, were received to another: or when occasional Communion was either shuned by them who so joyned in another Church, or denied to such Sojourners, if they desired it: or, when one Church shewed Rage, Furie, and Bitterness against another; because of what they differed about. Instances of this are many: the Difference betwixt Stephen of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage, came to that Height, that they would not Communicate together; one of them Anathematized the other: and it spread so far that the Churches of Europe, and these of Africk did concern themselves in it. Eusebi… (cited Catal. Test, verit. p. 26.) ascribeth the Persecution under Dioclesian chiefly to the Contentions of Priests and Bishops. Basilius Magnus cited by the same Author, p. 27. maketh an Observation, that among Men of other Imployments there was much Concord; in Sol… vero Ecclesia Dei, pro qua Christus est mortuus, & in quam Spiritum Sanctum abunde & opulenter …ffudit, maximum dissidium, & vehementem multorum, tum inter ipsos, tum contra Divinam Scripturam dissentionem obs…rvari, & quod horrendissimum est, ipsos Ecclesiae pr…sides in tanto & Animi & Opinionum inter se dissidio constitutos, tantaque contrarietate mandatis Domini repugnantes, ecclesicam Dei crudeliter dissipare & gregem ipsius absque ull… commiseratione perturbare, ut & ipsis nunc si unquam, prodeuntibu… & florentibus iniquis, impleatur illud Apostoli, ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri perversa loquentes, ut abstra…ant post se discipulos. The Learned Owen, of Apostacie, p. 500. observeth that the Scandalo… Divisions among Christians, especially among their Leaders was the first …tep of the visible Degeneracie of Christians; and afterward because the Sport of the Heathen.

§. 7. The Unity of Associated Churches who were Governed in Common, to which Government that of the several Congregations was subordinate, consisteth especially in the Agreement of the Rules in their Meetings for Managing the Publick and Common Affairs of the Churches, and each Member submitting to what was Determined by Common Consent of the Plurality; whether it were Injunctions, Reproofs, or Censures. The Breach of this Unitie was when any, one, or moe, of that Ruleing Society took on them to Oppose or Contradict what was Determined as above-said: much more when they did that by themselves, which should have been done by the whole, as when Foelicissimus, p. 253and some others of the Presbyters of Carthage, absolved some of the Lapsed, neglecting Cyprian the Bishop, or Praeses, and the Body of the Presbyters: which Cyprian did Highly, and Justly Resent. Or when they, or any of the People, refused Subjection to the just Decisions of the Church Rulers Assembled. This sort of Schism is much of the same Nature with what followeth, I insist no further on it: for it is the same Thing, as to Church Unity, whether any Minister of the Church Rebell against the Bishop; if that be the right Government of the Church; or against the Synod, Presbyterie Classical, or Congregational; if that be the way that CHRIST hath Appointed. Yea, it is the same Breach of Unity, to set up another Bishop, beside the true Bishop of the Church; or a new Synod or Presbyterie, beside these which one was before a Member of, or Subject to; yea, or to gather a Church, and to set up a Minister and Meeting in a Parish, beside what was orderly there settled. Wherfore the last sort of Unity, or Schism, is that which belongeth to a particular, Congregational Church. This Unity if we take Schi…m in a large Sense, is broken by Diversitie, either of Opinions, or Affections, among the Members of the Church; when they Disagreee, and Manage their Differences with Strife and Contention; even though there be no separation in their publick Exercises of Religion. At Corinth there was such a Schism; they came together, and yet the Apostle saith, there were Divisions (foreign) among them. But Schisms in the Church, were of old, and now are, taken in a more restrained Sense for a causeless separation from the Church in the publick Exercises of Religion; either by withdrawing only, or by setting up another Religious Society also. This the Fathers Expressed, sometimes by Rebellion against the Bishop; or withdrawing from him; that is Denying due Subjection to the Pastor of that Church; and Obedience to him with the Presbyterie. So it is sometimes Expressed by them; but even when the Presbyterie, or Church is not named; it is so to be understood; and the Bishop is so often Named, because he was (in these times) the constant Praeses of their Meetings; and even this Praelation (though without sole Jurisdiction, into which it did at last, Issue) began early to be too much taken Notice of, as I have more fully shewed else-where.

§ 8. I shall first shew that Schism was often (yea ordinarilie) thus understood by the Ancients. Next, that they did not always blame this Disobedience and Separation as a Sinful Schism: but allowed it to be done in some Cases, and for some Causes. For the former, Cyprian p. 254in many Places condemneth this, as Schism: Ep. 40. §. 4. Edit. 1593. Deus unus est, & Christus unus, & una Ecclesia, & Cat…edra una, super Petrum Domini voce fundata; aliud Altare constitui, aut Sacerdotium novum fieri, praeter unum Altare, & unum Sacerdotium non potest; Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit, Adulterium est, impium est, quodcunque Humano Furore instituitur, ut Dispositio Divina violetur. Here it is evident that he speaketh of Separating from the Church; also, Ep. 55. §. 6. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt Schismata, quam unde, quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur; nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur. This also Pointeth at Deserting the Lawful Pastor of the Church; and Setting up a Meeting in Opposition to him, and the Church. What he saith of one Priest, and one Judge, cannot be meant, that the Presbyters were no Priests; for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian; but it is to be understood of one Church Authoritie, in Opposition to Setting up Altar against Altar; likewise, Ep. 64. §. 4. H… sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium, ut sibi placeant, ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant: sic de Ecclesia receditur, sic Altare profanum foris collocatur; sic contra Pacem Christi, & Ordinationem atque Unitatem Dei rebellatur. Other Testimonies to the same Purpose might be brought, Ep. 69. §. 7. he calleth the Church, Plebs Sacerdoti unita, & Pastori suo Grex adhaerens: and Ep. 38. §. 1. saith of Schismaticks, …um Episcopo portionem Gregis dividere; id est a Pastore oves, & Filios a Parente separare, & Christi Membra dissipare. And de Unitate Eccles. §. 10. he saith of them, Conventicula sibi diversa constituunt; so also Ignat. ad Mag▪ nes. p. 32. Edit. Vossii, quarto, 1646. foreign, they conveened not firmly (that is, it would not hold in Law) according to the Command; and Ep. ad Smyrn. p. 7. foreign: who doth any thing (viz. in Religious Matters) without the Knowledge of the Bishop: (that is, in a Parish without the Pastor, or in a Presbyterie, without them orderlie met, with their Praeses) he serveth the Devil. The second thing above-mentioned is, to shew that there were some Causes, for which the Ancients allowed People to separate from their Bishop, or the Church, that they were Members of. I find but three expressie mentioned, 1. Apostacie from the Christian Faith: as in the Case of Martialis and Basilides, who Sacrificed to Idols, Ep. Synodal. apud Cyprian. quae est, 65. §. 1, 3, 4. where, after many Words to this Purpose, are these, Propter quod Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini, & Deum metuens, a peccatore Praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad Sacrilegi p. 255Sacerdotis Sacrificia mis…ere; quando ipsa maxime habeat Potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. A second Cause was Haeresie, Irenae. lib. 1. c. 13. Opportet longe fugere ab eis; speaking of Haereticks. Origen. Homil. 7. in Ezek. alloweth one to separate from his Bishop: Si habueris (saith he) occasionem Doctrinae p…ssimae, & aliena ab Ecclesia dogmata. Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 22. telleth us that at Antioch many of the Clergy, and People withdrew, and set up private Assemblies; when three Arrian Bishops Eulalius, Euphronius, and Placentius were set over them. And lib. 2. c. 24. that they did the like when Leontius, who favoured the Arians, was set up: and that Flavianus and Diodorus took the Charge. Vincent. Lyrin. adversus Haer. c. 16 relateth of Photinus Bishop of Sirmium, a Man of great Abilities, that when the People discerned his Error, Quem ante… quasi Arietem Greg…s sequebantur, eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere coeperunt. Thirdly, The Scandalous and Wicked Life of a Bishop: which the Words cited out of that Synodal Ep. in Cyprian, a little above, do plainly bear; and Irenae. lib. 4. c. 44. Qui vero Presbyteri serviunt suis voluptatibus, & non praeponunt …imorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquo…, & principalis confessionis tumor… elati sunt, & in absconsis agunt mala, ab omnibus absistere opportet. I shall not now determine whither this was sound Doctrine; if it be understood of Peoples deserting their Pastor for his Personal Immoralities, before the Sentence of a Church Judicatorie be interposed. I only relate the Opinion of the Ancients. Origen. indeed saith Homil. 7. in Ezech. that they should not, for his Scandal, desert the Faith that he Preached: But he speaketh nothing of their deserting his Ministrie, nor contradicteth the rest whom I have cited.

§ 9. I now come to consider what Apprehensions Modern Writers have had of Schism. And here were a large Field to Expatiat in; If I should Examine all or most of them, so many have written on this Subject, and so different their thoughts are of it. Wherefore I chuse one, whom, I think my Antagonist will not except against, the Learned Bishop of Worcester, in his Irenic. p. 109. The Sum of whose Discourse is; all are bound to joyn into some Church Societie; and being so joyned, should continue in that Societie, till his Communion with them becometh Sin. Now for what maketh it Sin to continue in Church Communion, and consequentlie warranteth Separation; he supposeth, that Corruption in the Essentials of the Constitution of the Church, may warrant it; but where there are Corruptions crept into a true p. 256Church, yet remaining such, he saith the Question is, whither we may separate from such a Church, for purer Administrations; particularly, whither we should separate from a Church, because of Corruptions in the …xercise of Discipline: he determineth it, that one may separate where there are Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice, which are avowed; and owning them, is required as the Terms of Communion with the Church: he alloweth in that Case, not only Noncommunion, but a total and positive Separation: but he telleth us, that where Soundness of Doctrine is retained, but some Corruptions in Practice are tollerated, but not imposed, Separation is unlawful on that Account. He saith thirdly, where Doctrine is sound, but some unlawful, or suspected Practice is required to be owned, and conformed to, denying of such Conformitie and Communion with the Church in these things is lawful, but positive Schism, or erecting Altare contra Altare is not lawful. These are Concessions of that profoundly Learned Writer. Against which I have nothing to object, but what I have elsewhere Debated with him, viz. Where some unlawful, or suspected Action is required to be done by Ministers or People, and if the Church so imposing, will not suffer them to have Communion with her in any of Gods Ordinances, unless they will conform in these, both they must do (for keeping a good Conscience) and he alloweth them a Negative, and Partial Separation: and the Church forceth them on a Positive and Total Separation: what shall they do in that Case? either they must live without Gospel Ordinances; or they must set up Meetings wherein they must have them: the former is unreasonable; the latter, is, that Positive Separation which he condemneth. I with he, or any else, would tell us what is to be done in that Case. Let us then, improve that general, and indisputable Maxim; that we ought not to joyn with any Church, however commendable she be in many things, when our joyning doth engage us in any Action that is our Personal Sin: and that other Truth, which cannot be denyed; that when People are driven away from partaking of the Word and Sacraments with the Church, unless they will do that which is sinful, or that they, after their uttermost Diligence and Sinceritie in Searching, apprehend to be sinful; they ought not wholly to live without the Word or Sacraments; and it will clearly follow, that a positive Separation, even from a true Church; and setting up a Church in a Church, is not only lawful, but is a Dutie; and the Sin of that Schism doth not ly on them who so leave the Church, or are driven from her; but on that p. 257Church which requireth such unlawful Terms of Communion, and imposeth them with such Rigour.

§ 10. Having thus Prefaced to our Debate about Schism. I proceed to Examine what my Adversarie bringeth to prove the Scots Presbyterians to be Schismaticks; which he attempteth without making any Distinction among them: though he knoweth there were different Practices among them, with respect to joyning in Communion with the Episcopal Church. He saith, there is not a Church on Earth, with which they can joyn in Communion, without fear of being polluted. It was Answered, that we can joyn with the Churches of Holland, France, (when the Protestants had their Assemblies there) and Geneva. &c. It was not said by the Author whom he refuteth, that we dislike several things in these Churches; but by him: and it was Answered, we can communicate with a Church that is not so pure as we wish: what we dislike we shun the Practice of it; but do not, for that, refuse to communicate with the Church where it is found. His Refutation of this is, at this rate it will be hard to find Schismaticks in all the Records of the Church. This is most false: for some did cast off Communion totally with the Church, and set up separate Meetings, when they could blame no part of Church Practice: but had Quarrels with the Persons that governed the Church. As in the Case of Felicissimus, who quarreled with Cyprians Promotion, and several others who made Schisms, because they could not be made Bishops. Again, he argueth, we cannot be said to be Members of a particular Church, or to hold Communion with it, if we do not joyn in their Worship, as it is established among them. This is easily Answered by a plain Distinction; unless we joyn in their established Worship, as to the greatest and chief Acts of it; conceditur: as to all the parts of it, even to the least, negatur. I may joyn with a Church in the Word and Sacraments; and yet if they have a Holy Day or two beside the Sabbath, may forbear, yea I may, without this, be a Member of that Church (if they will suffer me) which all the Reformed Churches do, except the Episcopal Church of England. I shewed before, that the Ancients did not place the Unity of the Church in an Uniformity in these Punctilio's, (so they who owne them, do reckon them) and the Modern Churches, mostly are of the same Sentiments, and Practice. In Confirmation of this his Argument, he hath these Words, p. 214, 215. Since he forbears the Practice of these things he disliketh, why may he not be said to hold Communion with all visible Churches on Earth. And instanceth not only in the Churches of p. 258France; but in the Roman Church. This is an Absurdity beyond what he is aware of; for some Churches we are obliged wholly to flee from; because of Fundamental Errors, Idolatry, and horrid Corruptions of all Ordinances: so we sep…rate totally from the Church of Rome, so the Orthodox of old refused to Communicate with, or be Members of the Arian Churches; yet they did not shun Communion with some Churches, that differed from them in small Matters, as I have shewed above, §. 4. of this Section. And the Learned Stillingfleet (as I have observed already) alloweth of a Partial Noncommunion, where Communion is not totally cast off. What he saith, of our no more coming near a Liturgy than we would Sacrifice our Children in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom: these I say, are not the Words of Truth and Soberness; nor have they so much of Argument in them, as of unreasonable Sarcasm; and are not to be regarded. Cannot one dislike a greater and lesser Evil, unless his Aversion to both be equal?

§ 11. He falleth next on the Doxologie, p. 216. and doth insinuate without any Shadow of Truth or Candor, that we turn out the Episcopal Clergy for presuming to retain it in Public… ▪ Worship: all Scotland knoweth the contrary. We do not use it, but we never laid such Weight on using it, as to forbear all Communion with a Congregation where it is used; I called it a Humane Composure. He saith, the Matter of it is Orthodox and Unquestionable; Ergo, it is no Humane Composure; non sequitur; I said; there is no Warrant for constant Use of it. He saith, there is as good Warrant for it, as there is for Extemporary Prayer in Publick Worship. This is false; we read of no Praying by a Book, or set Form; but the Spirits Help, not that of the Book, is the Help we must look for, not only as to the Manner, but the Matter of our Prayers; what we should Pray for; Rom. 8. 26. But I insist not on this▪ he confesseth it to be a Digression; and but toucheth it slightly; I judge it a very impertinent Digression, (but I behoved to follow as he leadeth) for I think neither Ancient nor Modern Divines will call them Schismaticks, who cordially joyn with the Church where they live in all of her Worship, except this; and it seems he hath little Ground to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks, that he bringeth in this to help out his Proof against us. It is false also, that all the Churches abroad have Humane Ceremonies so twisted with their Solemn Worship, that Presbyterians cannot joyn with them. We have often (and do when occasion serveth) very cordially, and to our Edification, joyned with them; and yet partake in none of these: nor p. 259is so much of these among them as he would make us believe. Another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks is, p. 215. If the present Presbyterians had lived a hunder and fifty years before the Council of Nice, there was then a necessity (by their Principles) to separate from the Unity of the Church; because all the things they scruple were then practised. It was Answered, that the Hierarchy was not then in the Church; this he taketh no notice of, nor shall I, for we have already Debated it sufficiently. Neither do we make the Beeing of the Hierarchy the Ground of Separation; but that Ministers, at least, must owne it, or have no Communion with their Church. But he telleth us of a great many other things that were then used, as Anniversary Days, Significant Ceremonies, the Sign of the Cross, &c. And beseecheth me to read some of the ancient Monuments of the Church. I thank him for his good Advice; I have followed it, in some degree (though I cannot Brag of my Reading, nor Vilifie others, as if their Reading were short of mine) before he gave it; and shall yet further, as I can; and though I find that some of these crept early into the Church; (and yet, may be, not so early as he imagineth) I do not find that the ancient Church placed her Unity in these things; and I think, by the small Reading that I have attained, I have proved the contrary, and therefore if we had then lived, we might have been counted no Schismaticks. I further Answer, the Ancients placed Schism, with respect to the Universal Church, in her Heterodoxy, not in different Rites; and therefore we maintain Unity with the Fathers, while we believe as they did; for that Unity that should be in a particular Church; we are not capable of it, but with that Church where we converse, not with that which was 1600 or 1700 years ago; therefore it is improper to say we are Schismaticks, because of what we would have been in that possible Case that never was.

§ 12. His third Consideration to prove us Schismaticks is, that our Predecessors condemned the same Practices as Schismatical; the Answer to this was given; this Argument was used by him before, and I Answered it before: He saith; I leave him to Guess where it was brought, and Answered: and truly I thought it was an easie Guess, being but in the end of the former page, viz. 33. If he had read heedfully what he undertaketh to refute, he could not have been at a Loss here. It was there told him, that as the former Presbyterians did not separate from the Episcopal Church, so nor did all of them of late: and they who did, were driven away by the Apostacy of his Party, from the way that they had engaged in; and that by forcible p. 260changing of the Church Government, without her Consent, or any Means used to satisfie the Consciences of them who scrupled. I add, in former times Presbytery continued, only Bishops were superinduced; therefore Ministers did not leave their Stations, till driven from them: but at the last Settling of Episcopacy, Presbytery was razed, (so far as Men could) and what Shew of it was left, stood on the Foot of the Bishops Authority, who Called and Impowered them to Act. This true Presbyterian Ministers could not submit to; it being an owning of a Power in the Church, which they are convinced is unlawful. His fourth Argument is, No Schismaticks can be named in the Records of Ecclesiastical History, to whom that Name is more agreeable, than to the Presbyterians in Scotland. In Answer to this, the Donatists were mentioned, as Schismaticks, more justly reputed such, than the Scots Presbyterians can be. And the Novatians might also have been brought as another Instance; to whom I confess, what was said agreeth more directly, viz. That they separated, because the Church admitted the Lapsed to Repentance. His Refutation of this is a long Discourse of the Original of the Donatists; in many Circumstances, that do no way concern the present Purpose: and in which are some Mistakes, as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records, as that Lapse of Memory is, ascribing somewhat to the Donatists, which agreeth better to the Novatians; and yet there was great Affinity between these two sorts of Schismaticks; they both had the same Rise; Donatus in Africk; and Novatus a Presbyter at Rome; (together with one of the same Name, who, upon Discontent, came from Carthage to Rome, and joyned with him in making a Schism) both of them were, (as they thought) disobliged by the Election of a Bishop, the one, that Caeciliaenus was Elected; who (as he alledged) was ordained by a Traditor; yea, was a Traditor himself; that is, in time of Persecution, had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt; the other, that Cornelius was made Bishop; both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church, than the rest of the Pastors had; the one, that all the Churches had fallen into Apostacy, through their Communion with them who had been Traditors; the other, that they who so had fallen, or otherwise, in time of Persecution, were not to be admitted to Church Communion again, nor get Absolution; though he, nor his Followers did not deny, that they might obtain Mercy from God, upon true Repentance, (the contrary of which some impute to them) both of the Sects were called foreign, Puritans; both of them separated p. 261from all the Churches of the World; and managed their Separation with unreasonable Rigour; especially the Donatists, and among them the Circumcelliones; who were furiously enraged against all who differed from them▪ Both of these Schisms spread far and wide. It is observed by some, that there were of both sorts, Men of strict Lives. Though some of the Ancients tell us of their Haeresies; yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith: of the Donatists Cresconius said, they confessed the same Jesus born, dead, and risen again; they had the same Religion, and the same Sacraments, and there was no Difference about the Practice of Christianity. Augustine confesseth that their Difference was not about the Head, but about the Body, not about Christ, but about his Church. Augustin. de Unitat. Eccles. c. 4. and Epistle 45. saith, they were agreed in the Creed, in Baptism, and other Sacraments of our Lord; also Ep. 162. he telleth us, that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome, and his Brethren, …ffered to hold Communion with the Bishops that Majorinus (whom Donatus and his Party had set up in Opposition to Cae…ilianus) had ordained; which Condescendence is also evident, from Collat. 1. Carthag. Art. 16. apud Optat. Milevit. p. 45. 6. Edit. Paris. 1631.

§. 13. Our Author tells us, that we ought to have named Schi…maticks in the Primitive Church; whose Pleas when Represented with all possible advantage, are not so fair and plausible as these of the Presbyterians. I Answer the Donatists and Novatians were Schismaticks in the ancient Church; and their Pleas for their Separation were not so fair as these of the Presbyterians, which I shall shew in these Three things. 1. They had no good, nor sufficient Ground to separate; we declare that we will never separate, because the Church admitteth scandalous Sinners to Repentance and Communion, as the Novations did: nor because some Ministers and People, are not so innocent as they should be, as the Donatists did: we condemn their Schism as much as he doth. What the Donatists alleged was false in matter of Fact, as was made appear. First, By some Judges appointed by the Emperour, to try the matter▪ next by a Synod held at Arles: And lastly, by the Emperour, after a full Hearing of the Matter: and if it had been true; it was no just ground of Separation; though it had been a great Grievance. The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all, because the Church was not culpable in such Admission, which they did unreasonably bl…me. Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is so unreasonable. What we dislike is, an usurped Power set up in the Chuch; and humane Ceremonies p. 262imposed on us; and our owning of these formally in Words, or materially in our Practice, is made a condition of our Communion with the Church. It is true, if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreasonable; and that what we dislike is Warrantable; he may blame us, for none Complyance; but what is the Question between him and us; if we Scruple without cause, the blame lieth on us: if not, the Guilt of Separation lieth on them who impose such things. Wherefore the Determination of this Point, who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Present, dependeth on the Question now under Debate, about Episcopacie and Ceremonies. 2. We always were willing to unite with them, if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways; which themselves confess to be indifferent. I mean the Ceremonies; and if they will not require our owning of Episcopacie, directly nor indirectly. The Novations nor Donatists never offered such terms of Peace. It is not what they do that skareth us from them, but what they will needs force us to do. 3. We do not Exclude any of them from our Communion; as the Schismaticks of old did. Who either of their Clergy, or of the People have been Excluded from the LORD'S Supper with us, on account of their Opinion in the things that are matter of our Debate. 4. We do not condemn their Church, as no Church; as the Donatists did to all beside themselves; we condemn only some things among them that are of inferior moment. 5. It is evident that themselves are the cause of all the Schism; and they are not of the healling temper that the Church was of, which had to do with the Donatists: that Church was willing to forbear them, even in their most unreasonable Separation; and to indulge such as were of a Religious Conversation; but differed from the Church without cause, in matters of lesser moment▪ The Episcopal Church had no Pity on such as differed in indifferent Ceremonies, acknowledged to be such; but drave them away from their Communion unless they would comply in these, which they could not do without wounding their Conscience. If he can Prove that we deny Communion with the Episcopal Church, on on frivolous pretences, as he supposeth, p. 222; he gaineth what he contendeth for; but he findeth it easier to suppose this, than to Prove it. It was said by his Antagonist, that the Donatists forsook their lawful Pastors; which Presbyterians do not: the Bishops being none of our Pastors. He saith this is the very Crime of the Presbyterians, in their Erecting Altar against Altar. Answer, 1. That is not all that we plead for, as is clear from what hath been said. I p. 263have shewed §. 8. Cases in which, even lawful Pastors may be forsaken; and ibid. that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them. But I say, 2. That the Bishops set up in Scotland were none of the lawful Pastors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule. And I am willing that Matter be Determined. 1. By the strength of Argument; if he can Prove the Warrantableness of the Power that they Claim to, we must yield. 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church, which was positive, plain and unanimous in this, that the People should chuse their own Bishop, and other Church-Officers; see Instances, Enquirie into the Constitution, &c. of the Primiiive Church; c. 3. p. 63. Append. ad Catalog. Test, veritat. p. 33. The ancient Church did never own a Pastoral relation, in any Man, to a People, on whom he was thrust by the Magistrat, or any Power not Properly Ecclesiastical, and without their own Consent. This is our case, the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable Possession of Presbyterian Government, the Magistrat, not the Church, made a Change, and set Men over the People to be their Bishops, whose Office they could not own, and whose Persons they had no concern in: I Question whether the Primitive Church (I mean the first Ages) would have counted it Schism to disown such, and to cleave to their own lawful Pastors, who had been called by them, setled by Church Authority among them, and laboured among them, to their Comfort and Edification. His denying the Donatists to have taken their Name from Donatus a casis nigris, is contrarie to Petavius, rationar: tempor: lib. 6. p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him: his Assertion, p. 220. that Presbyterians have thrown Deacons out of the Church, is so false, that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it: If he understand it of Preaching Deacons, he should have said so: and proved such an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church.

§. 14. His Fifth Reason to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks, is from the Doctrine of Cyprian; of which he is so confident; that he maketh my asserting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a Pastor of a Flock, or a Presbyterian Moderator, not a Diocesan; to be a plain Demonstration that I have never read Cyprians Writings. If I had read much more than either he or I have, I should not so often, nor so superciliously, vilisie others. If I have read little he will find it the easier to refute what I have Written. Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task these few Lines in my Def. of Vindic. which he now p. 264undertaketh to refute: Which Book I have Answered (with such reading as I could attain, both of Cyprian, and other ancient Writers) in a Book Intituled the Cyprianick-Bishop Examined; where I have endeavoured to Answer all that he hath here Written, before I saw it. I am not willing to Transcribe it, being the most part of that Book. He may read it, if he thinketh fit; and if he, or any other, will refute what is there said of Episcopacie in Cyprians Age, I shall be willing to be Informed by him. His Triumphant Conclusion, p. 225. evanisheth into smoak, if what hath been said, be duly Considered. He begineth another Debate, about Preaching Moralitie; which he passeth in a Word, overlooking all that had been said in Refutation of his former Book on that Head: While it was told him that not all the Clergy, but he, and such as he, was so blamed. Also, that Preaching Moralitie was never Censured, but Applauded, and lookt on as necessarie; but what we Quarelled was, that some do only Preach Moralitie, and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit, by which they should obey the Law acceptably, and the Righteousness of CHRIST, on account of which they, and their Works that are moraly Good, should be accepted; and a great deal more to this purpose was Discoursed, to shew his Mistakes in that Matter: to all which he maketh no Return, but that his Antagonist had seen no Sermons of his in Print, nor heard him: and therefore could not tell what sort of Doctrine he preached. I think there was sufficient ground for thinking that he useth to Preach in that strain, seing he so doth Defend and Applaud it; but much more occasion was given for so thinking, from a large Discourse in his Book; that I was then Refuting, Vindicating their way of Preaching, in which their is nothing of that which is the Marrow of Gospel Preaching, viz. the imputed Righteousness of CHRIST, and the influence of his Spirit, by which we must do that which pleaseth GOD. His so often Rehearsing (as he hath done the Third time) an Error of the Press, which maketh a Passage that is unexceptionable to be Nonsense and Blasphemie, after it had been Solemnly disowned by the Author; this, I say, sheweth the Mans temper: I am sure this silly shift will Reflect more on himself, in the Eyes of them who are not Malicious, than it will on the Person whom he would Defame.