Chapter 2. The Nature of Schism Determined from Scripture

The nature of Schisme to be determined from Scripture only. This principle by some opposed. Necessity of abiding in it. Parity of Reason allowed. Of the name of Schisme. Its constant use in Scripture. In things Civill and Religious. The whole Doctrine of Schisme in the Epistles to the Corinthians. The case of that Church proposed to consideration. Schisme entirely in one Church. Not in the separation of any from a Church. Nor in substraction of obedience from Governours. Of the second Schisme in the Church of Corinth. Of Clemens Epistle. The state of the Church of Corinth in those dayes: [in non-Latin alphabet] who: [in non-Latin alphabet] what. [in non-Latin alphabet]. paracia. To whom the Epistle of Clemens was precisely written. Corinth not a Metropoliticall Church. Allowance of what by parity of Reason may be deduced from what is of Schisme affirmed. Things required to make a man guilty of Schisme. Arbitrary definitions of Schisme rejected. That of Austin considered: as that also of Basil. The common use and acceptation of it in these days: Separation from any Church in its own nature not Schisme. Aggravations of the evill of Schisme ungrounded. The evill of it from its proper nature and consequences evinced Inferences from the whole of this discourse. The Church of Rome, if a Church, the most Schismaticall Church in the world. The Church of Rome no Church of Christ: A compleat image of the Empire. Finall acquitment of Protestants from Schisme on the Principle evinced. Peculiarly of them of the late Reformation in England: False notions of Schisme the ground of sinne and disorder.

The thing whereof we treate being a disorder in the instituted worship of God, and that which is of pure Revelation, I suppose it a modest request to desire, that we may abide solely to that discovery and description, which is made of it in Scripture; that, that alone shall be esteemed Schisme, which is there so called, or which has the entire nature of that, which is there so called; other things may be other crimes; Schisme they are not, if in the Scripture they have neither the name nor nature of it attributed to them.

He that shall consider the irreconcilable differences that are among Christians all the world over about this matter, as also what has passed concerning it in former Ages, and shall weigh what prejudices the severall parties at variance are intangled with, in reference hereunto, will be ready to think, that this naked appeale to the only common principle among us all, is so just, necessary & reasonable, that it will be readily on all hands condescended to. But as this is openly opposed by the Papists, as a most destructive way of procedure, so I feare, that when the tendency of it is discovered, it will meet with reluctancy from others. But let the Reader know, that as I have determined [in non-Latin alphabet], so to take the measure of it from the Scripture only. Consue[illegible]udo sine veritate est vetustas erroris (Cyp. Ep. ad Pomp.) and the sole measure of Evangelicall Truth, is this word, of whom it was said [in non-Latin alphabet]. Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis, sayes Tertul: It is to me a sufficient answer to that fond question, where was your Religion before Luther? Where was your Religion in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles? My thoughts to this particular are the same with Chrysostomes on the generall account of Truth, [in non-Latin alphabet]. Homil. 3. in Acta.

But yet least this should seem too streight, as being at first view exclusive of the learned debates & disputes, which we have had about this matter, I shall after the consideration of the precise Scripture notion of the name and thing, wherein the Conscience of a Believer is alone concerned, propose and argue also what by a parity of Reason may from there be deduced, as to the Ecclesiasticall common use of them, and our concernment in the one and the other.

The word which is Metaphoricall, as to the businesse we have in hand, is used in the Scripture, both in its primitive, native sence, in reference to things Naturall, as also in the tralatitious use of it about things Politick and Spirituall or Morall. In its first sence we have the Noune (Matthew 9:16) [in non-Latin alphabet] [illegible] (in the cloth) it [illegible] Verbe (Matthew 27:51) [illegible] veile of the Temple [illegible] [in non-Latin alphabet] and the [illegible] noting an interruption of [illegible] externall power in things me [illegible] this is the first sence of [illegible] or division of parts befo[illegible] continued, by force, or violent dissol[illegible] The use of the world in a Politicall sence is also frequent: (John 7:43) [in non-Latin alphabet], there was a division among the multitude; some being of one mind, some of another; (John 9:16) [in non-Latin alphabet], there was a division among them: and cap. 10. 19. likewise. So (Acts 14:4) [in non-Latin alphabet], the multitude of the City was divided: and cap. 23. 7. There arose a dissention between the Pharisees and the Sadduces, [in non-Latin alphabet], the multitude was divided, some following one, some another of their leaders in that dissention; the same thing is expressed by a word answering to it in Latine,

Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus And in this sence relating to civill things it is often used.

This being the next posture of that word, from where it immediately slips into its Ecclesiasticall use, expressing a thing morall or spirituall; there may some light be given into its importance, when so appropriated, from its constant use in this state and condition to denote differences of mind and judgement with troubles ensuing thereon, among men met in some one Assembly about the compassing of a common end and designe.

In the sence contended about it is used only by Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, and therein frequently: cap. 1. 10. I exhort you [in non-Latin alphabet], that there be no Schismes among you: cap. 11. 18. when you meet in the Church [in non-Latin alphabet], I heare there be Schismes among you: cap. 12. 25. The word is used in reference to the naturall body, but with an application to the Ecclesiasticall. Other words there are of the same importance, which shall also be considered, as (Romans 16:17, 18). Of Schisme in any other place, or in reference to any other persons, but only to this Church of Corinth, we heare nothing.

Here then being the principal foundation (if it has any) of that great fabric about schism, which in latter ages has been set up, it must be duly con[illegible]ered; that if it be possible, we may discover by what secret engines or artifices the discourses about it, which fill the world, have been hence deduced, being for the most part, universally unlike the thing here mentioned: or find out, that they are built on certain prejudices and presumptions, nothing relating thereto. The Church of Corinth was founded by Paul (Acts 18:8, 9, 10). With him there was Aquila and Priscilla (v. 2, 18). After his departure, Apollos came there, and effectually watered, what he had planted (1 Epistle cap. 3:6). It is probable that either Peter had been there also, or at least that sundry persons converted by him were come there, for he still mentions Cephas and Apollo with himself (cap. 1:12 and 3:22). This Church thus watered and planted came together for the worship of God [in non-Latin alphabet] (cap. 11:20), and for the administration of discipline in particular (cap. 5:4). After a while through the craft of Satan, various evils in doctrine, conversation, and church-order crept in among them; for doctrine, besides their mistake about eating things offered to idols (cap. 8:4), some of them denied the resurrection of the dead (cap. 15:12). In conversation they had not only the eruption of a scandalous particular sin among them (cap. 5:1), but grievous sinful miscarriages, when they came together about holy administrations (cap. 11:21). These the Apostle distinctly reproves in them: their church-order, as to that love, peace, and union of heart and mind, wherein they ought to have walked, was woefully disturbed with divisions and sidings about their teachers (cap. 1:12). And not content to make this difference the matter of their debates and disputes from house to house, even when they met for public worship, or that which they all met in, and for, they were divided on that account (cap. 11:18). This was their schism the Apostle dehorts them from, charges them with, and shows them the evil thereof. They had differences among themselves about unnecessary things; on these they engaged into disputes and sidings, even in their solemn assemblies; when they came all together for the same worship about which they differed not. Probably much vain jangling, alienation of affections, exasperation of spirits, with a neglect of due offices of love ensued hereupon. All this appears from the entrance the Apostle gives to his discourse on this subject (1 Epistle chap. 1, v. 10): [in non-Latin alphabet], I beseech you that you all speak the same thing. They were of various minds, and opinions, about their church affairs; which was attended with the confusion of disputings: let it not be so, says the Apostle; [in non-Latin alphabet], and let there be no schisms among you; which consist in such differences and janglings: he adds, [in non-Latin alphabet]; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and the same judgment. They were joined together in the same church-order and fellowship, but he would have them so also in oneness of mind and judgment, which if they were not, though they continued together in their church-order, yet schisms would be among them. This was the state of that Church, this the frame and carriage of the members of it, this the fault and evil, whereon the Apostle charges them with schism, and the guilt thereof. The grounds, whereon he manages his reproof, are their common interest in Christ (cap. 1:13), the nothingness of the instruments of preaching the Gospel, about whom they contended (cap. 1:14; cap. 3, v. 4, 5), their church-order instituted by God (cap. 12:13), of which afterward.

This being as I said the principal seat of all that is taught in the Scripture about schism, we are here, or hardly at all to learn, what it is, and wherein it does consist; the arbitrary definitions of men, with their superstructions, and inferences upon them, we are not concerned in. At least I hope I shall have leave from hence to state the true nature of the thing, before it be judged necessary to take into consideration what by parity of reason may be deduced from it. In things purely moral, and of natural equity, the most general notion of them is to be the rule, whereby all particulars claiming an interest in their nature are to be measured, and regulated; in things of institution, the particular instituted is first and principally to be regarded: how far the general reason of it may be excluded, is of after consideration; and as is the case in respect of duty, so it is in respect of the evils that are contrary thereto. True and false are indicated, and tried by the same rule. Here then our foot is to be fixed; what compass may be taken to fetch in things of a like kind, will in its proper place follow. Observe then,

1. That the thing mentioned is entirely in one Church, among the members of one particular society. No mention is there in the least of one Church divided against another, or separated from another, or others; whether all true, or some true, some false, or but pretended. Whatever the crime be, it lies wholly within the verge of one Church, that [illegible]et together for the worship of God, and administration of the ordinances of the Gospel; and unless men will condescend so to state it upon the evidence tendered, I shall not hope to prevail much in the process of this discourse.

2. Here is no mention of any particular man, or any number of men's separation from the holy assemblies of the whole Church, or of subduction of themselves from its power, nor does the Apostle lay any such thing to their charge, but plainly declares, that they continued all in the joint celebration of that worship, and performance together of those duties, which were required of them in their assemblies; only they had groundless, causeless differences among themselves, as I shall show afterwards. All the divisions of one Church from another, or others, the separation of any one or more persons from any Church or Churches, are things of another nature, made good or evil by their circumstances, and not that at all, which the Scripture knows and calls by the name of schism; and therefore was there no such thing or name, as schism, in such a sense, known in the Judaical Church, though in the former it abounded. All the different sects to the last, still communicated in the same carnal ordinances; and those who utterly deserted them, were apostates, not schismatics; so were the body of the Samaritans, they worshiped they knew not what, nor was salvation among them (John 4).

Here is no mention of any substraction of obedience from Bishops or Rulers in what degree soever, no exhortation to regular submission to them, much lesse from the Pope or Church of Rome; nor does the Apostle thunder out against them, you are departed from the Amity of the Catholick Church, have rent Christs seamelesse Coat, set up Altare contra altare, have forsaken the visible head of the Church, the fountaine of all unitie; you refuse due subjection to the Prince of the Apostles; Nor, you are Schismaticks from the Nationall Church of Achaja, or have cast off the Rule of your Governors; with the like language of after dayes; but, when you come together, you have divisions among you: Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth.

A condition not unlike to this befalling this very Church of Corinth, sundry years after the strifes now mentioned were allayed by the Epistle of the Apostle, does againe exhibite us the case and evill treated on. Some few unquiet persons among them drew the whole society (upon the matter) into division and an opposition to their Elders. They, who were the causes [in non-Latin alphabet], a Clement tells them in the name of the Church at Rome, were [in non-Latin alphabet] a few men, acted by pride and madnesse: yet such power had those persons in the Congregation, that they prevailed with the multitude to depose the Elders and cast them out of office: So the same Clement tells them; [in non-Latin alphabet]. What he intends by his [in non-Latin alphabet] &c. he declares in the words foregoing, where he calls the Elders, that were departed this life, happy and blessed, as not being subject or liable to expulsion out of their offices; [in non-Latin alphabet]. Whether these men, who caused the differences and sedition against those Elders that were deposed, were themselves by the Church substituted into their roome and place, I know not. This difference in that Church, the Church of Rome in that Ep. of Clement calls every where Schisme, as it also expresses the same things, or the evill frame of their minds and their actings by many other words: [in non-Latin alphabet], are laid to their charge. That there was any separation from the Church, that the deposed Elders, or any for their sakes withdrew themselves from the communion of it, or ceased to assemble with it for the celebration of the Ordinances of the Gospell, there is not any mention: only the difference in the Church is the Schisme whereof they are accused. Nor are they accused of Schisme for the deposition of the Elders, but for their differences among themselves, which was the ground of their so doing.

It is alleadged indeed, that it is not the single Church of Corinth, that is here intended, but all the Churches of Achaia, whereof that was the Metropolis: which though as to the nature of Schisme, it be not at all prejudiciall to what has been asserted, supposing such a Church to be; yet because it sets up in oposition to some Principles of Truth, that must afterwards be improved, I shall briefely review the arguments whereby it is attempted to be made good.

The title of the Epistle in the first place is pretended to this purpose: It is [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] wherein (as tis said) on each part the [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] or whole Province, as of Rome, so of Corinth, the Region and Territorie, that belonged to those Metropolis, is intended. But as I have formerly elsewhere said, we are beholding to the frame and fabrick of Church affaires in after Ages for such interpretations as these; the simplicity of the first knew them not. They who talked of the Church of God, that did [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] at Rome, little then thought of Province or Region [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], is as much as [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (Acts 8:1). [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is a man that dwells at such a place, properly one that dwells in another's house, or soil, or that has removed from one place, and settled in another; from where it is often used in the same sense with [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], he is such an inhabitant, as has yet some such consideration attending him, as makes him a kind of a foreigner to the place where he is; so (Ephesians 2:19) [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] are opposed. Hence is [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which as Budaeus says differs from [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], in that it denotes a temporary habitation; this a stable and abiding. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is so to inhabit, to dwell in a place, where yet something makes a man a kind of a stranger. So it is said of Abraham [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] (Hebrews 11:9), (1 Peter 2:11) joined with [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]: (hence this word by the learned publisher of this Epistle is rendered peregrinatur, diversatur) and more clearly (Luke 24:18) [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which we have rendered, are you only a stranger in Jerusalem. Whether [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] & paroecia is from hence or no, by some is doubted, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is convivator; and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] praebitio, Gloss. vetus: so that parochi[illegible] may be called so from them, who met together to break bread, and to eat. Allow parochia to be barbarous, & our only word to be paroecia from [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], then it is as much as the Voisinage, men living near together for any end whatever. So says Budaeus [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] are [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; from there Churches were called [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], consisting of a number of them, who were [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] or [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] the Saints of God expressing the place which they inhabited, and the manner, as Strangers, said of the Churches whereof they were [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. This is now made to denote a Region, a Territorie, the adjacent Region to a Metropolis; and such like things, as the poor primitive pilgrims little thought of. This will scarcely as I suppose evince the Assertion we are dealing about; there may be a Church of God dwelling at Rome or Corinth, without any adjacent Region annexed to it, I think. Besides, among those who first used the word in the sense now supposed, did not understand a Province by [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which was with them (as originally) the charge of him that was a Bishop, and no more. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] was with them a Province that belonged to a Metropolitan; such as the Bishop of Corinth is supposed to be. I do not remember where a Metropolitan Province is called his [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], there being many of these in every one of them. But at present I will not herein concern myself.

But it is said, that this Epistle of Clement was written to them, to whom Paul's Epistles were written; which appears, as from the common title, so also from hence, that Clement advises them to whom he writes, to take and consider that Epistle, which Paul had formerly wrote to them. Now Paul's Epistle was written to all the Churches of Achaia, as it is said expressly in the second, To the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints, which are in all Achaia (Cap. 1:1). And for the former, that also is directed [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and the same form is used at the close of this, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], wherein, all places in Achaia (and every where therein) not absolutely are intended; for if they should, then this Epistle would be a Catholick Epistle, and would conclude the things mentioned in it, of the letter received by the Apostle &c. to relate to the Catholick Church.

It is confessed, that the Epistles of Paul, and Clement, have one common Title; so that [in non-Latin alphabet], which is Clement's expression, is the same with [in non-Latin alphabet], which is Paul's in both his Epistles, which adds little strength to the former argument from the word [in non-Latin alphabet], as I suppose, confining it there. It is true, Paul's second Epistle, after its Inscription [in non-Latin alphabet] adds [in non-Latin alphabet]. He mentions not any where any more Churches in Achaia than that of Corinth, and that at Cenchrea; nor does he speak of any Churches here in this salutation, but only of the Saints. And he plainly makes Achaia and Corinth to be all one (2 Corinthians 9:2), so that to me it appears, that there were not as yet, any more Churches brought into order in Achaia, but that mentioned; with that other at Cenchrea, which I suppose, comes under the same name with that at Corinth; nor am I persuaded, that it was a completed congregation in those days. Saints in Achaia that lived not at Corinth, there were perhaps many; but being scattered up and down, they were not formed into societies, but belonged to the Church of Corinth, and assembled therewith (as they could) for the participation of ordinances: so that there is not the least evidence, that this Epistle of Paul was directed to any other Church, but that of Corinth. For the first, it can scarce be questioned; Paul writing an Epistle for the instruction of the Saints of God, and Disciples of Christ in all ages, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, salutes in its beginning and ending all them, that on that general account are concerned in it. In this sense all his Epistles were Catholick, even those he wrote to single persons. The occasion of writing this Epistle was indeed from a particular Church, and the chief subject matter of it was concerning the affairs of that Church. Hence it is in the first place particularly directed to them; and our present enquiry is not after all that by any means were, or might be concerned in that, which was then written, as to their present or future direction, but after them, who administered the occasion to what was so written, and whose particular condition was spoken to: this I say was the single Church of Corinth. That [in non-Latin alphabet], all in every place, should be all only in Achaia, or that Clement his [in non-Latin alphabet], should be with them, that are called in Achaia, I can yet see no ground to conjecture. Paul writes an Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, and concludes it, [in non-Latin alphabet]: the extent of which prayer is supposed to reach farther than Ephesus, and the region adjacent. It does not then as yet appear that Paul wrote his Epistles peculiarly to any other, but the particular Church at Corinth. If concerning the latter, because of that expression with all the Saints which are in all Achaia, if it be granted there were more Churches than that of Corinth with its neighbor Cenchrea (which whether it were a stated distinct Church or no, I know not) yet it will not at all follow (as was said before) that Clement attending the particular occasion only, about which he and the Church of Rome were consulted, did so direct his Epistle, seeing he makes no mention in the least, that so he did. But yet by the way there is one thing more, that I would be willingly resolved about in this discourse; and that is this, seeing that it is evident that the Apostle by his [in non-Latin alphabet]: and Clemens, by his [in non-Latin alphabet], intend an enlargement beyond the first and immediate direction to the Church of Corinth, if by the Church of Corinth, as it is pleaded, he intend to express that whole region of Achaia, what either the Apostle, or Clemens do obtain by that enlargement, if restrained to that same place.

It is indeed said, that at this time there were many other Episcopal Sees in Achaia; which until it is attempted to be put upon some kind of proof, may be passed by. It is granted that Paul speaks of that which was done at Corinth, to be done in Achaia (Romans 15:28), as what is done in London is without doubt done in England: but that which lies in expectation of some light or evidence to be given to it, is, that there was a Metropolitan See at Corinth, at this time, whereunto many Episcopal Sees in Achaia were in a subordination, being all the [in non-Latin alphabet] of Corinth, all which are called the Church of Corinth, by virtue of their subjection thereunto; when this is proved, I shall confess some principles I afterwards insist on, will be impaired thereby.

This then is added by the same author, that the ecclesiastical estate was then conformed to the civil: where ever there was a Metropolis in a civil-political sense, there was seated also a Metropolitan Church; now that Corinth was a Metropolis, the Proconsul of Achaia keeping his residence there, in the first sense is confessed. And besides what follows from there, by virtue of the principle now laid down, Chrysostome calls it a Metropolis relating to the time wherein Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there in the latter sense also.

The plea about Metropolitan Churches, I suppose will be thought very impertinent to what I have now in hand, so it shall not at present be insisted on. That the state of Churches in after ages was moulded and framed after the pattern of the civil government of the Roman Empire is granted; and that conformity (without offence to any be it spoken) we take to be a fruit of the working of the mystery of iniquity. But that there was any such order instituted in the Churches of Christ, by the Apostles, or any instituted by the authority from the Lord and Ruler, is utterly denied; nor is any thing, but very uncertain conjectures from the sayings of men of after ages, produced to attest any such order, or constitution. When the order, spirituality, beauty, and glory of the Church of Christ shall return, and men obtain a light, whereby they are able to discern a beauty and excellency in the inward, more noble spiritual part, indeed life and soul of the worship of God, these disputes will have an issue. Chrysostome says indeed, that Corinth was the Metropolis of Achaia, but in what sense he says not; the political is granted, the ecclesiastical not proved; nor are we enquiring what was the state of the Churches of Christ in the days of Chrysostome, but of Paul. But to return.

If any one now shall say, will you conclude, because this evil mentioned by the Apostle is Schisme, therefore nothing else is so?

I answer, that having before asserted this to be the chief and only seat of the doctrine of schism, I am inclinable so to do: and this I am resolved of, that unless any man can prove that something else is termed schism by some divine writer, or blamed on that head of account by the Holy Ghost elsewhere, and is expressly reproved as another crime, I will be at liberty from admitting it so to be.

But yet for what may hence by a parity of reason be deduced, I shall close with, and debate at large, as I have professed.

The schism then here described by the Apostle, and blamed by him, consists in causeless differences, and contentions among the members of a particular church, contrary to that of love, prudence, and forbearance, which are required of them to be exercised among themselves and towards one another; which is also termed [in non-Latin alphabet] (Acts 15:21) and [in non-Latin alphabet] (Romans 16:13). And he is a schismatic that is guilty of this sin of schism, that is, who raises, or entertains, or persists in such differences; nor are these terms used by the divine writers in any other sense.

That any men may fall under this guilt, it is required;

1. That they be members of, or belong to some one church, which is so, by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ. And we shall see, that there is more required hereunto, than the bare being a believer or a Christian.

2. That they either raise or entertain, and persist in causeless differences with others of that church more or less, to the interruption of that exercise of love in all the fruits of it, which ought to be among them; and the disturbance of the due performance of the duties required of the church, in the worship of God. As Clement in the forementioned Epistle, [in non-Latin alphabet].

3. That these differences be occasioned by, and do belong to some things in a remoter or nearer distance appertaining to the worship of God; their differences on a civil account are elsewhere mentioned, and reproved (1 Epistle, cap. 6), for therein also there was from the then state of things an [in non-Latin alphabet] v. 7.

This is that crime, which the Apostle rebukes, blames, condemns under the name of schism, and tells them that were guilty of it, that they showed themselves to be carnal, or to have indulged to the flesh and the corrupt principle of self, and their own wills, which should have been subdued to the obedience of the Gospel. Men's definitions of things are for the most part arbitrary and loose; fitted and suited to their several apprehensions of principles and conclusions; so that nothing clear or fixed is generally to be expected from them; from the Romanists' description of schism, who violently without the least color or pretense thrust in the Pope, and his headship, into all that they affirm in church matters, least of all. I can allow men that they may extend their definitions of things to what they apprehend of an alike nature to that, which gives rise to the whole disquisition, and is the first thing defined. But at this I must profess myself to be somewhat entangled, that I could never yet meet with a definition of schism, that did comprise, that was not exclusive of that, which alone in the Scripture is affirmed so to be.

Austin's definition contains the sum of what has since been insisted on; says he, Schisma ni fallor est eadem opinantem, & eodem ritu utentem solo Congregationis delectari dissidio (Against Faust, lib. 20, cap. 3); by dissidium congregationis he intends separation from the church into a peculiar congregation; a definition directly suited to the cause he had in hand, and was pleading against the Donatists. Basil in Epist. ad Amphiloch. Con. 44 distinguishes between [in non-Latin alphabet], and [in non-Latin alphabet]: and as he makes schism to be a division arising from some church controversies suitable to what those days experienced, and in the substance true; so he tells us that [in non-Latin alphabet] is when either presbyters, or bishops, or laics hold unlawful meetings, assemblies or conventicles, which was not long since with us the only schism.

Since those days schism in general has passed for a causeless separation from the communion and worship of any true church of Christ, (the Catholic Church says the Papist) with a relinquishment of its society, as to a joint celebration of the ordinances of the Gospel; how far this may pass for schism, and what may be granted in this description of it, the process of our discourse will declare. In the mean time I am most certain, that a separation from some churches true or pretended so to be is commanded in the Scriptures; so that the withdrawing from, or relinquishment of any church or society whatever, upon the plea of its corruption, be it true or false, with a mind and resolution to serve God in the due observation of church institutions, according to that light which men have received, is nowhere called schism, or condemned as a thing of that nature, but is a matter that must be tried out, whether it be good or evil, by virtue of such general rules and directions, as are given us in the Scriptures for our orderly and blameless walking with God in all his ways.

As for them, who suppose all church power to be invested in some certain church officers originally (I mean that which they call of jurisdiction) who on that account are Eminenter, the church, the union of the whole consisting in a subjection to those officers according to rules, orders and canons of their appointment, whereby they are necessitated to state the business of schism on the rejection of their power and authority, I shall speak to them afterwards at large. For the present, I must take leave to say, that I look upon the whole of such a fabric, as a product of prudence and necessity.

I cannot but fear lest some men's surmisings may prompt them to say, that the evil of schism is thus stated, in a compliance with that, and them, which before we blamed: and seems to serve to raise slight and contemptible thoughts of it, so that men need not be shaken though justly charged with it. But besides that sufficient testimony, which I have to the contrary, that will abundantly shelter me from this accusation, by an assurance that I have not the least aim [in non-Latin alphabet], I shall further add my apprehension of the greatness of the evil of this sin, if I may first be borne with a little in declaring what usual aggravations of it I do either not understand, or else cannot assent to.

Those, who say it is a renting of the seamless coat of Christ (in which metaphorical expression men have wonderfully pleased themselves) seem to have mistaken their aim; and instead of an aggravation of its evil, by that figure of speech, to have extenuated it. A rent of the body well compacted, is not heightened to any one's apprehension, in its being called the renting of a seamless coat: but men may be indulged the use of the most improper and groundless expressions, so they place no power of argument in them, while they find them moving their own, and suppose them to have an alike efficacy upon the affections of others. I can scarce think that any ever supposed, that the coat of Christ was a type of his Church; his Church being clothed with him, not he with it. And therefore with commendation of his success, who first invented that allusion, I leave it in the possession of them, who want better arguments to evince the evil of this sin.

It is most usually said to be a sin against charity, as heresy is against faith. Heresy is a sin against faith (if I may so speak) both as it is taken for the doctrine of faith, which is to be believed, and the assent of the mind whereby we do believe. He that is a heretic (I speak of him in the usual acception of the word, and the sense of them, who make this comparison, in neither of which I am satisfied) rejects the doctrine of faith; and denies all assent to it. Indeed he does the former by doing the latter. But is schism so a sin against charity? Does it supplant, and root out love out of the heart? Is it an affection of the mind attended with an inconsistency therewith? I much question it.

The Apostle tells us, that love is the bond of perfection (Colossians 3:14), because in the several and various ways whereby it exerts itself, it maintains and preserves notwithstanding all hindrances and oppositions, that perfect and beautiful order, which Christ has appointed among his saints, wherein men by schism are kept off, and withheld from the performance of any of those offices and duties of love, which are useful, or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection, then is it, or may in some sense be said to be a sin against love.

Those, who have seemed to aim nearest the apprehension of the true nature of it in these days, have described it to be an open breach of love, or charity. That that expression is warily to be understood, is evident in the light of this single consideration. It is possible for a man to be all, and do all, that those were, and did, whom the Apostle judges for schismatics, under the power of some violent temptation, and yet have his heart full of love to the saints of the communion disturbed by him. It is thus far then in its own nature a breach of love, in that in such men, love cannot exert itself in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of the perfect order instituted by Christ in his Church. However I shall freely say, that the Schoolmen's notion of it, who insist on this as its nature, that it is a sin against charity, as heresy is against faith, is fond and becoming them; and so will others also, shall be pleased to that consider, what they intend by charity.

Some say it is a rebellion against the Church, that is, the rulers and officers of the Church. I doubt not but that there must be either a neglect in the Church in the performance of its duty, or of the authority of it in so doing, wherever there is any schism, though the discovery of this also have innumerable entanglements attending it. But that to refuse the authority of the Church is to rebel against the rulers, or guides of it, will receive farther light, than what it has done, when once a pregnant instance is produced, not where the Church signifies the officers of it, but where it does not signify the body of the congregation in contradistinction from them, or comprising them therein.

Add to these, those who dispute whether schismatics do belong to the Church or no, and conclude in the negative; seeing according to the discovery already made, it is impossible a man should be a schismatic, unless he be a Church member. Other crimes a man may be guilty of on other accounts; of schism, only in a Church. What is the formal reason of any man's relation to a Church, in what sense soever that word is used, must be afterwards at large discussed.

But now this foundation being laid, that schism is a causeless difference or division among the members of any particular Church, that meet together, or ought so to do, for the worship of God, and celebration of the same numerical ordinances to the disturbance of the order appointed by Jesus Christ, and contrary to that exercise of love in wisdom and mutual forbearance, which is required of them, it will be easy to see, wherein the iniquity of it does consist, and upon what considerations its aggravations do arise.

It is evidently a despising of the authority of Jesus Christ, the great sovereign Lord, and head of the Church. How often has he commanded us to forbear one another, to forgive one another, to have peace among ourselves, that we may be known to be his disciples, to bear with them that are in any thing contrary minded to ourselves. To give light to this consideration, let that which at any time is the cause of such hateful divisions, rendered as considerable as the prejudices, and most importunate affections of men can represent it to be, be brought to the rule of love, and forbearance, in the latitude of it, as prescribed to us by Christ, and it will evidently bear no proportion thereunto. So that such differences though arising on real miscarriages and faults of some, because they might otherwise be handled, and healed, and ought to be so, cannot be persisted in without the contempt of the immediate authority of Jesus Christ. If it were considered, that he stands in the congregation of God (Psalm 82:1), that he dwells in the Church in glory as in Sinai in the holy place (Psalm 68:17, 18), walking in the midst of the candlesticks (Revelation 1:13), with his eyes upon us as a flame of fire (v. 14), his presence and authority would perhaps be more prevalent with some, than they seem to be.

Again, his wisdom, whereby he has ordered all things in his Church, on set purpose, that schism and divisions may be prevented, is no less despised. Christ who is the wisdom of the Father (1 Corinthians 1:24), the stone on which are seven eyes (Zechariah 3:9), upon whose shoulders the government is laid (Isaiah 9:6, 7), has in his infinite wisdom so ordered all the officers, orders, gifts, administrations of, and in his Church, as that this evil might take no place. To manifest this, is the design of the Holy Ghost (Romans 12:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4:8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). The consideration in particular of this wisdom of Christ, suiting the officers of his Church, in respect of the places they hold, of the authority wherewith from him they are invested, the way whereby they are entered into their function, distributing the gifts of his Spirit in marvelous variety, to several kinds of usefulness; and such distance, and dissimilitude in the particular members, as in a due correspondence and proportion, give comeliness and beauty to the whole, disposing of the order of his worship, and sundry ordinances in especial, to be expressive of the highest love and union, pointing all of them against such causeless divisions, might be of use, were that my present intendment.

The grace and goodness of Christ, from where he has promised to give us one heart, and one way, to leave us peace, such as the world cannot give, with innumerable others of the like importance, are disregarded thereby. So also is his prayer for us; with what affection and zeal did he pour out his soul to his Father for our union in love. That seems to be the thing his heart was chiefly fixed on, when he was leaving this world (John 17), what weight he lays thereon, how thereby we may be known to be his disciples, and the world be convinced, that he was sent of God, is there also manifested.

How far the exercise of love and charity is obstructed by it, has been declared. The consideration of the nature, excellency, property, effects, usefulness of this grace in all the saints in all their ways, its especial designation by our Lord and Master, to be the bond of union and perfection, in the way and order instituted for the comely celebration of the ordinances of the Gospel, will add weight to this aggravation.

Its constant growing to farther evil, in some to apostasy itself; its usual and certain ending in strife, variance, debate, evil surmisings, wrath, confusion, disturbances public and private, are also to be laid all at its door. What farther of this nature and kind may be added (as much may be added) to evince the heinousness of this sin of schism, I shall willingly subscribe to; so that I shall not trouble the reader in abounding in what on all hands is confessed.

It is incumbent upon him, who would have me to go farther in the description of this evil, than as formerly stated, to evince from Scripture, another notion of the name or thing, than that given, which when he has done, he shall not find me refractory. In the mean time I shall both consider what may be objected against that, which has been delivered, and also discuss the present state of our divisions on the usual principles, and common acceptance of schism; if first I may have leave to make some few inferences, or deductions from what has already been spoken, and as I hope, evinced.

On supposition that the Church of Rome is a Church of Christ, it will appear to be the most schismatical church in the world. I say on supposition that it is a church, and that there is such a thing as a schismatical church, (as perhaps a church may from its intestine differences, be so not unfitly denominated) that is, the state and condition thereof. The Pope is the head of their church, several nations of Europe are members of it. Have we not seen that head taking his flesh in his teeth, tearing his body and his limbs to pieces? Have some of them thought on any thing else, but, arise Peter, kill and eat, all their days! Have we not seen this goodly head, in disputes about Peter's Patrimony, and his own jurisdiction, wage war, fight, and shed blood, the blood of his own members? Must we believe armies raised, and battles fought, towns fired, all in pure love, and perfect church order? Not to mention their old altare contra altare, Anti-Popes, Anti-Councils; look all over their church, on their potentates, bishops, friars, there is no end of their variances. What do the chiefest, choicest pillars, eldest sons, and I know not what of their church at this day? Do they not kill, destroy, and ruin each other, as they are able? Let them not say these are the divisions of the nations, that are in their church, not of the church; for all these nations on their hypothesis are members of that one church. And that church, which has no means to prevent its members from designed, resolved on, and continued murdering one of another, nor can remove them from its society, shall never have me in its communion, as being bloodily schismatical. Nor is there any necessity, that men should forgo the respective civil interests, by being members of one church. Prejudicate apprehensions of the nature of a church, and its authority, lie at the bottom of that difficulty; Christ has ordained no church, that enwraps such interests, as on the account whereof, the members of it may murder one another. Whatever then, they pretend of unity, and however they make it a note of the true church (as it is a property of it) that which is like it among them, is made up of these two ingredients, subjection to the Pope, either for fear of their lives, or advantage to their livelihood, and a conspiracy for the destruction, and suppression of them, that oppose their interests, wherein they agree like those, who maintained Jerusalem in its last siege by Titus; they all consented to oppose the Romans, and yet fought out all other things among themselves. That they are not so openly clamorous about the differences at present, as in former ages, is merely from the pressure of Protestants round about them. However, let them at this day silence the Jesuits and Dominicans, especially the Bajanists and the Jansenists on the one part, and the Molinists on the other: take off the Gallican Church from its schismatical refusal of the Council of Trent; cause the King of Spain to quit his claim to Sicily, that they need not excommunicate him every year; compel the Commonwealth of Venice to receive the Jesuits; stop the mouths of the Sorbonists about the authority of a general council above the Pope, and of all those, whom opposing the papal omnipotency they call politicians; quiet the contest of the Franciscans and Dominicans about the Blessed Virgin; burn Bellarmine's books, who almost on every controversy of Christian religion gives an account of their intestine divisions, branding some of their opinions as heretical, as that of Medina about bishops and presbyters, some as idolatrical, as that of Thomas about the worship of the cross with latria, etc. and they may give a better color to their pretences, than any as yet it wears.

But what need I insist upon this supposition; when I am not more certain, that there is any instituted church in the world, owned by Christ as such, than I am, that the Church of Rome is none, properly so called. Nor shall I be thought singular in this persuasion, if it be duly considered what this amounts to. Some learned men of latter days in this nation, pleading in the justification of the Church of England, as to her departure from Rome, did grant that the Church of Rome does not err in fundamentals, or maintained no errors remedilessly pernicious and destructive of salvation. How far they entangled themselves by this concession I argue not: the foundation of it lies in this clear truth, that no church whatever, universal, or particular, can possibly err in fundamentals, for by so doing it would cease to be a church. My denying then the synagogue of Rome to be a church, according to their principles, amounts to no more than this: the Papists maintain in their public confessions, fundamental errors; in which assertion it is known I am not alone.

But this is not the principle, at least not the sole nor main principle, whereon I ground my judgement in this case: but this, that there was never any such thing in any tolerable likeness or similitude, as that which is called the Church of Rome, allowing the most skillful of its Rabbis to give in the characters and delineations of it, instituted in reference to the worship of God by Jesus Christ. The truth is, the whole of it is but an imitation and exemplar of the old imperial government: one is set up in chief and made [in non-Latin alphabet] in spirituals, as the Emperors were in civil things; from him all power flows to others; and as there was a communication of power by the Emperors, to the civil state prefects, proconsuls, vicars, presidents, governors of the lesser and greater nations, with those under them, in various civil subordinations, according to the dignity of the places, where they did bear rule and preside, and in the military to generals, legates, tribunes and the inferior officers; so is there by the Pope, to patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, in their several subordinations, which are as his civil state; and to generals of religious orders, provincials, and their dependants, which are as his military. And it is by some (not in all things agreeing with them) confessed, that the government, pleaded for by them in the Church, was brought in and established, in correspondency and accommodation to the civil government of the Empire; which is undeniably evident and certain. Now this being not throughly done till the Empire had received an incurable wound, it seems to me to be the making of an image to the beast, giving life to it, and causing it to speak. So that the present Roman Church is nothing else, but an image or similitude of the Roman Empire, set up in its declining among and over the same persons in succession, by the craft of Satan, through principles of deceit, subtlety and spiritual wickedness, as the other was by force and violence, for the same ends of power, dominion, fleshiness, and persecution with the former.

The exactness of this correspondency in all things, both in respect of those, who claim to be the stated body of his ecclesiastical commonwealth, and those, who are merely dependent on his will, bound to him professedly by a military sacrament, exempted from the ordinary rules and government of his fixed rulers in their several subordinations, under officers of their own immediately commissioned by him, with his management of both those parties to balance and keep them mutually in quiet and in order for his service (especially confiding in his men of war, like the Emperors of old) may elsewhere be farther manifested.

I suppose it will not be needful to add any thing to evince the vanity of the pretensions of the Romanists or others against all or any of us, on the account of schism, upon a grant of the principles laid down, it lies so clear in them without need of farther deduction; and I speak with some confidence, that I am not in expectation of any hasty confutation of them, I mean, that which is so indeed. The earnestness of their clamors, importuning us to take notice of them by the way, before I enter upon a direct debate of the cause, as it stands stated in reference to them, I shall only tell them, that seeking to repose our consciences in the mind of God revealed in the Scriptures, we are not at all concerned in the noise, they make in the world. For what have we done? Wherein does our guilt consist? Wherein lies the peculiar concernment of these [in non-Latin alphabet]? Let them go to the churches, with whom we walk, of whom we are, and ask of them concerning our ways, our love, and the duties of it? Do we live in strife, and variance? Do we not bear with each other? Do we not worship God without disputes and divisions? Have we differences and contentions in our assemblies? Do we break any bond of union, wherein we are bound, by the express institutions of Jesus Christ? If we have, let the righteous reprove us, we will own our guilt, confess we have been carnal, and endeavour reformation. If not, what have the Romanists, Italians, to do to judge us? Knew we not your design, your interest, your lives, your doctrines, your worship, we might possibly think, that you might intermeddle out of love, and mistaken zeal, but ad populum Phaleras: you would be making shrines, and from there is this stir, and uproar. But we are schismatics in that we have departed from the catholic Church; and for our own conventicles, they are no churches, but styes of beasts. But this is most false. We abide in the catholic Church under all the bonds, wherein by the will of Christ we stand related to it. Which if we prove not with as much evidence, as the nature of such things will bear, though you are not at all concerned in it, yet we will give you leave to triumph over us. And if our own congregations be not churches, whatever we are, we are not schismatics; for schism is an evil among the members of a church, if Saint Paul may be believed. But we have forsaken the Church of Rome. But gentlemen, show first how we were ever of it. No man has lost that which he never had; nor has left the place or station wherein he never was. Tell me when or how we were members of your Church? We know not your language, you are barbarians to us. It is impossible we should assemble with you. But your forefathers left that Church, and you persist in their evil. Prove that your forefathers were ever of your Church in any communion instituted by Christ, and you say somewhat. To desert a man's station, and relation, which he had on any other account, good, or bad, is not schism; as shall farther be manifested.

Upon the same principle, a plea for freedom from the charge of any Church, real, or pretended, as National, may be founded, and confirmed; either we are of the National Church of England, (to give that instance) or we are not. If we are not, and are exempted by our Protestation, as before; whatever we are, we are not Schismatics. If we are fatally bound to it, and must be members of it, whether we will or no, being made so we know not how, and continuing so we know not why, show us then what duty, or office of love is incumbent on us, that we do not perform? Do we not join in external acts of worship in peace with the whole Church? Call the whole Church together, and try what we will do? Do we not join in every congregation in the Nation? This is not charged on us; nor will any say, that we have right so to do, without a relation to some particular Church in the Nation; I know where the sore lies. A National Officer, or Officers with others acting under them in several subordinations, with various distributions of power, are the Church intended. A non-submission to their rules and constitutions, is the Schism we are guilty of.

Quem das finem Rex magne laborum! But this pretence shall afterwards be sifted to the utmost. In the mean time let any one inform me, what duty I ought to perform towards a National Church, on supposition there is any such thing, by virtue of an institution of Jesus Christ, that is possible for me to perform, and I shall [illegible] address myself to it.

To close these considerations with things of more immediate concernment, of the divisions that have fallen out among us in things of religion, since the last revolutions of this Nation, there is no one thing has been so effectual a promotion (such is the power of tradition, and prejudice, which even bear all before them in human affairs) as the mutual charging one another with the guilt of Schism. That the notion of Schism, whereon this charge is built by the most, if not all, was invented by some of the Ancients, to promote their plea, and advantage them with them with whom they had to do, without due regard to the simplicity of the Gospel, at least in a suitableness to the present state of the Church in those days, is too evident. For on very small foundations have mighty fabrics, and [illegible] in religion been raised. As an ability to judge of the present posture and condition of affairs, with counsel to give direction for their order and management, towards any end proposed, not an ability to contrive for events, and to knit on one thing upon another, according to a probability of success for continuance, which is almost constantly disturbed by unexpected providential interveniences, leaving the contrivers at a perplexing loss, will be found to be the sum of human wisdom; so it will be our wisdom in the things of God, not to judge according to what by any means is made present to us, and its principles on that account rendered ready to exert themselves, but ever to recoil to the original, and first institution. When a man first falls into some current, he finds it strong, and almost impassable; trace it to its fountain, and it is but a dribbling gutter. Paul tells the members of the Church of Corinth, that there were divisions among them, breaches of that love and order, that ought to be observed in religious assemblies. Hence there is a sin of Schism raised; which when considered as now stated, does no more relate to that treated on by the Apostle, than Simon son of Jonas, lovest you me, does to the Pope's Supremacy; or Christ's saying to Peter of John, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you, did to the report, that went afterwards abroad, that that Disciple should not die. When God shall have reduced his Churches to their primitive purity and institution, when they are risen, and have shaken themselves out of the dust, and things of religion return to their native simplicity, it is scarce possible to imagine, what vizards will fall off, and what a contrary appearance many things will have, to what they now walk up and down in.

I wish that those, who are indeed really concerned in this business, namely, the members of particular Churches, who have voluntarily given up themselves to walk in them according to the appointment of Christ, would seriously consider, what evil lies at the door, if they give place to causeless differences, and divisions among themselves. Had this sin of Schism been rightly stated, as it ought, and the guilt of it charged in its proper place, perhaps some would have been more careful in their deportment in their relations. At present, the dispute in the World relating hereunto, is about subjection to the Pope, and the Church of Rome, as it is called: and this managed on the principles of edicts of Councils, with the practices of Princes, and Nations, in the days long ago past, with the like considerations, wherein the concernment of Christians is doubtless very small. Or of obedience, and conformity to Metropolitan and Diocesan Bishops in their constitutions, and ways of worship jointly, or severally prescribed by them. In more ancient times, that which was agitated under the same name, was about persons or Churches, renouncing the communion and society of Saints with all other Churches in the World, consenting with them in the same confession of faith, for the substance of it. And these differences respectively are handled, in reference to what the state of things was, and is grown to in the days, wherein they are managed. When Paul wrote his Epistle, there was no occasion given to any such controversies, nor foundation laid making them possible. That the Disciples of Christ ought everywhere to abound in love and forbearance towards one another, especially to carry all things in union and peace in those societies, wherein they were joined for the worship of God, were his endeavours, and exhortations: of these things he is utterly silent. Let them, who aim to recover themselves into the like state and condition, consider his commands, exhortations, and reproofs. Things are now generally otherwise stated, which furnishes men with objections against what has been spoken, to whose removal, and further clearing of the whole matter, I shall now address myself.