Presbyterians do generally agree that the Disciplinary part or Form of Government Vid. Cawdry Indâ—pend Schisme page 172 173. is not Essential to a National Church yet they affirm that the Verity of a Natioanal Church consists in its Agreement in the same Doctrine and Worship and consequently though differences in Doctrine are not yet a breach of its Vnity and making divisions in a point of Worship is a plain Schisme from a National Church acording to the Principles of the Presbyterians Mr. Cawdrey spake not his own peculiar opinion when he said p. 178. I believe those men that raise differences in a Reforming Church he meant this National Church and persist in keeping open those Divisions Seperating also into other new Churches doe as well deserve the name of Schismaticks as those that make differences in one Particular Church Upon the whole then you perceive how aptly you ask p. 42. Whether a Minister may not remove from one Parish to another or any man remove his dwelling into another Parish c. and be no Schismatick an old objection of Dr. Owens and answered by Mr. Cawdrey that they remove to Churches of the same Constitution a thing never questioned but alwaies allowed both by the Vnion and Custome of this National Church Again and alike pertinently you ask Whether a Seperation of one Parish from another be Schism or whether I mean by it a Local Seperation only as you gravely enquire p. 33. Or whether little differences in the modes of Worship particularly in the manner of the Ministers Prayer and he should have added in dividing his Text be Schism but he prevents my Answer by denying these himself Those that differ thus he saith and thereby doubtless very wisely and to general Satisfaction determineth these saith he p. 34. are not Seperated Churches any otherwise than Local and in such Modal Differences Thus what the Church of England and what Schism from it is But at the beginning of the discourse 't was hinted that if we would consider the Church of England not organice but entitative as some speak that is as it is a part or member of the Vniversal visible Church even in this consideration of it Separation and the present practice of gathering Churches is a Schism in the Church of England if not so from it And by those intestine Ruptures and rents it is causing in the midst of her gives her too much cause to complain O my Bowels my Bowels While it tears in pieces her Old and Stated Congregations tramples upon her Liturgy defies her Worship renounceth her Pastors throws down all her ancient Land-marks and laudable bounds of her particular Churches and endeavours every where to Erect new Altars and Seperate Churches that were never before heard of in the Christian world but amongst wild and desperate and Schismatical Sectaries But this will meet us in the next Chapter when we speak of Schism from particular Congregations CHAP. IX Gathering Churches a Schisme from particular Parochial Churches The general Nature of Schism THe present practice of Gathering Churches is not only a Schism from the Church of England but a Schism also from our particular Parochial Congregations This comes now to be evinc'd and I shall take my advantage for the doing of it from an Observation of Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen and the Independ great Schis p. 177. Independents There was saith he and is another Church-State in England in our particular Churches from these also they have most of them as once of them or they had been once of them Palpably Separated I am now to charge the present practice of our New Church gatherers and their Neâ— Churches with the like Schism from particular Parochial Churches whereof they are or lately were Members and ought so to have continued To cut our work as short as may be I shall confine my strength within one Argument which I conceive the cleerest and most likely to put an end to the matter in debate and 't is taken from the nature and definition of Schism wherein we shall shew what we are to understand by Schism and how the present gathering of Churches out of our Churches agrees with it not doubting but then the conclusion will find its own way well enough What is Schism then I shall give you the easiest and the least controverted definition of it and such as was never excepted against by any Presbyterian that I ever heard of 'T is this Schism is a causless or as others a voluntary unwarrantable separation from a true Church Here are two parts to be considered in the general separation from a true Church and the formal special and distinguishing part of it coucht in the words causless or unwarrantable and voluntary 1. Schism is a separation from a true Church it is so in the proper and peculiar notation of it the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schism Cameron cap. de Schis is a stranger to prophane Authors and the Old Testament and is only to be found in the New Testament so that it only intends something about the Christian Church and what that is must be understood by the New Testament and Ecclesiastical Writers who have taken it thence It is commonly affirmed that in the Scripture-use of it it sometimes signifies division among Christians in opinion only but I have observed that usually those opinions were such as had a tendency to divisions in practice as I am of Paul c. but 't is generally acknowledged that differences in practice especially touching Divine Worship whether from the signification of the word which is properly a rent or division or whether from the more frequent use of it that way in Scripture or for some other reason I say difference in practice about Divine Worship hath long since obtained and appropriated to it self the name of Schism Sometimes such division in the Church when there hath been no actual separation from the Church is conceived to be called Schism in Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 10. And this notion exclusive of all other kind of Schism in Scripture Dr. Owen espoused contrary both to Scripture reason and the general apprehension of the Ancient and Modern Divines as Mr. Cawdrey hath sufficiently argued Separation from a Church is a more obvious division and consequently a more notorious kind of Schism and it seems more reasonable to argue if the Holy Ghost called the first buds and beginnings of seperation by the name of Schism it was to deter the dividers from the sin in its ripeness and accused fruits which more hainously mâ—rited that black title as our Saviour calls lust adultery Schisma seperat ab Ecclesia Schism seperates from the Church saith St. Hierom. To proceed this separation from the Church as a learned Presbyterian asserteth is from the Church as Catholick which he calls Donatism or from a particular Church and that faith he is properly Seperatism Lastly this Schismatical seperation is negative or positive the former
Schysm it is not a differing Faith but a breaking the fellowship of Communion which makes men Schysmaticks Yet more plainly Schysma est eadem opiniantem eodem Ritu utentem Solo Congregationis delectari dissidio Schysm is when a man that professeth the same faith and worship is delighted only with the difference of an Assembly or Congregation You might have advised this Father a little better had he been now alive but it seems your objection was then urged by some that you are loath to own And this same notion of Schysm kept its ground in the Church from St. Aug. to Beza's time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est c. Schysm or Division saith Beza An. in 1. Co. 1. 10. is this when men are so addicted to some men or to some outward Rites that though they do agree in the chief points of Religion yet they are estraâ—ged in their minds and engage themselves into parties and Factions Thus Beza and yet he passeth for a Presbyterian and so doth Mr. New comen who useth all these places of Authority to my very purpose against the Independents who would it seems have excused their Schysm from the Moderation of their principles and the soundness of their Doctrine He therefore shall be the next Presbyterian that we shall produce New commen Sr. at Pauls p. 14. for this notion of Schysm not necessarily inclusive of the Brownists rigid principles He tells us plainly as I observed in my other book their holding one head and one faith with us doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of unity and down-right Schysm as long as they hold not one body one Baptism As if he had said let your principles be what they will you are downright Schysmaticks while you seperate and break our unity As for Seperation Mr. Baxter tells us that the mischief Ep to his Rest printed 1669. of it lies not in the bare error of judgment but in the unchristian and Church-dissolving division and Alienation which thence followeth Yea let us know the man that did ever directly or by any clear consequence to be drawn from his words print such a Notion of Schysm as includes the Brownists rigid principles about our Churches c. in the Nature of it Examine Cameron Ames Hales Brinsly and if any others be dearer to you and see whether their definitions take in any such thing or can bear such an exposition as you would put upon them See how Mr. Cawdrey and the London Ministers at Sion Colledg deal with the Independents in the point and whether you can possibly perswade your self to continue in the beleif that for the reasons you have alledged the Non-Conformists may gather Churches and not be Seperatists in the judgment of the Presbyterians before the year 1660. or any of the old Non-Conformists you may see their Judgment in general by a few quotations out of their writings CHAP. XVIII Testimonies of Non-Conformists for the same GIve me leave tousher in this worthy verdict with an Argument after your own mode I will undertake to prove that the Non-Conformists both Ancient and Modern before 1660. held gathering Churches out of our Churches unlawful and Schysmatical and that absolutely without any reference to the principles upon which it is don much less the Brownistical Do you prove afterwards if it be possible that they supposed your New distinctions and evasions or that they at any time let words drop from them signifying an allowance of Seperation from our Churches and setting up new ones upon such weak grounds as you stand upon Mr. Ball I had mentioned in Mr. Ball. my last as one of the old â—uritans that had wrote for Communion with our Parochial Congregations you tell me subtilly that he speaks not against Non-Conformists preaching and that 's an Answer But I must now add that that great Nonconformist doth not plead for our Communion as lawful but in a sort necessary and that to seperate from us is a sinfull Seperation He telleth you roundly that such Seperation is the Wound of Ep to his 1. vol. Friendly Tryal the Church yea whosoever seperateth from the body of the Church seperateth from Christ in that respect Voluntary Seperation from the Lords Table and the Prayers he reckoned upon more than hearing Sermons of the Congregation what is but a willing Excommunicating of our selves from the visible tokens of the Lords presence and love is it not a greater sin in Members to deprive themselves then in the Church Governors to deprive others of the same Communion for small occasions you see he makes the smalness of the occasion of Seperation to be Emphasis and Aggravation of it Again more smartly in his Answer to Cann Thus Seperation from the true Churches of Christ his Ministery Epistle and Worship of which sort I shall prove that to be by the word of God for which I plead meaning the Church of England tendeth not to the overthrow of Anti-Christ but to the Renting of the Church the disgrace of Religion the Advancement of Pride Schysm Contention the offence of the weak the grief of the Godly who be better setled the hardning of the Wicked and the Recovery or rising again of Anti-Christ 2. Let worthy Mr. Hildersham lay down his grave and weighty point clearly and boldly and like Hildersham upon 4. Joh. p. 149. himself 't is this Those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation though they have many Corruptions remaining in them are to be acknowledged the true Churches of God and such as none of the faithful may make Separation from He will not allow you upon pretence of purity and serving God better in your way to seperate and gather Churches not any one none of the faithful he proceeds to prove it largely and it may be well known how severe he is against the faithful that will ordinarily leave their honest Minister to hear those that are more able upon pretences of profiting better by them which is yet the best plea the present Separation hath for it self 3. M. Calvin speaks to the point with no mean Authority Calvin Insti li. 4. c 1 sect 9 10. 12. He tells us that wheresoever the Gospel is purely preached and the Sacraments Administred according to the Institution of Christ there is the Church of God There appears neither a deceitful nor doubtful face of a Church of which no man may either despise the Authority or refuse the Admonition or resist the Counsels or mock at the Corrections much less depart from it breaks in sunder the Unity of it and go unpunished For the Lord so highly esteems the Communion of the Church that he counts him for a Traiterous run-away and forsaken of Religion whosoever shall stubburnly estrange himself from any Christian fellowship so that it be such a one as hath the true Ministry of the word and Sacraments The fellowship of such a Church is
is only Cameron de Schis simplex secessio when men do peaceably and quietly withdraw their communion from the Church in part or in whole to enjoy their consciences in a private way The other called positive seperation is when persons thus withdrawn do gather into a distinct and opposite body setting up a Church against a Church to worship God in a seperated way themselves which St. Augustine calls a setting up Altar against Altar alluding to that act of King 2 King 16. Ahaz in setting up an Altar of his own making after the fashion of that which he saw at Damascus besides the Lord's Altar And this is it saith Cameron and most that write upon the point which in a peculiar manner and by way of eminency is and deserves to be called by the name of Schism Thus we see that gathering our selves into new Churches is the complement and perfection of Schism the very Apex extrema Schismatis linea as Cameron speaks This evil as I lately hinted hath its beginnings and usually goes on by degrees to this perfection In the Church of Corinth it first began with a factious esteeming of one Minister above another One saith I His Def. of Prin◠of Con. p. 2. am of Paul c. at length it came to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Mr. Baxter renders emulation strife and separation or factions or dividing into several parties This appeared somewhat higher Chap. 11. for they would not eat their Love-Feasts and Pareus thinks they would not eat the Lord's Supper together but those that were for Paul would communicate among themselves so those that were for Apollos and those that were for Peter And though they did not gather themselves into stated Congregations or absolutely seperate into several Churches for they came together though to little Chap. 11. purpose yet their divisions are not only called Schism but a despising the Church of God But if this progress of Schism was so smartly rebuked we may the less wonder to find the Apostles so very severe against the Gnosticks and those more perfected Schismaticks that afterwards drew Disciples after them wholly from the Church and made false Apostles and Anti-Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extra terminos Ecclesiae educentes Oecumenius segregantes fideles a fidelibus and Clem. Alex. making distinct and seperate and opposite parties and meetings for the worship of God Mr. Hale observes these two things make Schism compleat the chusing of a Bishop in opposition to the Tract of Schism p. 3. former a thing very frequent among the Ancients and which many times was the cause and effect of Schism and then the erecting of a new Church for the dividing parts to meet in publickly and this he calls Ecclesiastical sedition and Ames peccatum gravissimum a most grievous sin both in its nature and effects For Division so far as it proceeds whether in Natural Civil or Ecclesiastical Bodies is the dissolution and destruction of it CHAP. X. The differencing Nature of Schism The Answerers Objections answered especially the Preaching of the ejected Ministers I Will suppose we are agreed that the general nature of Schism is such a seperation from a true Church as we have shew'd but to make it unlawful and to merit the evil and usual sence of the word it must be causless unwarrantable and as Mr. Hales term is unnecessary when it is so is to be carefully stated for this indeed is the punctum difficultatis and the very hinge upon which this controversie turns Herein that I may prepare to argue with due closeness I shall continue to aim at the sence of Presbyterians And as I have before I shall here also follow the steps of Mr. Brinsley late Minister of Yarmouth not only because his Book of Schism seems to me judicious and exact as to our point and he therein follow so excellent a person as Cameron but likewise for that he was an eminent Non-conformist as a Minister only for I have been well informed that though he ceased preaching at Bartholomew 1662. yet he kept no private meetings but ordinarily attended on the publick worship in the place where he lived besides his Book was licensed by Mr. Cranford with a sufficient commendation and was Preacht and Printed in the Presbyterian Service against the Sectaries and no doubt his Brethren of that perswasion did then heartily concur with him in the point This Mr. Brinsley p. 34 35. states the matter thus Seperation is unwarrantable either for the ground or manner the former an unjust the latter a rash seperation each a Schism wherein he follows Cameron I shall vary his method a little but keep close to his sense and then an unjust separation is two-fold either when there is no cause and it is absolutely causless or when the cause is light and not sufficient to warrant it Seperation is rash when there being cause supposed sufficient yet it is done in an undue manner 1. Separation is unjust when it is without cause given by the Church and as he enlargeth When there is no Persecution no spreading Error or Heresie no Idolatry no Superstition maintained or practised but the Church is peaceable and pure and that both for Doctrine and Worship and in a good measure free from scandals which no Church ever wholly was now in such a case to seperate is an unjust seperation and Schism If this be indeed the state of the case whether the parties think they have cause to seperate or not I think it is not much material except to aggravate their crime For if they think they have cause they are plain Seperatists and if they do not think so and yet divide the Church by a seperation causeless in their own opinion as well as truth they are far worse Neither will any wantonness of spirit of this kind though boy'd up by a distaste taken at our Guides or an higher esteem of other Teachers or pretences of greater purity much less an ill will to the state of the Church from which we shall thus seperate admit an excuse from any sober and wise man 2. There may be some causes of offence given us by our Church but they such as may by no meanes warrant a seperation cause of offence is not always cause of seperation which our Author calls a light cause He enlargeth Possibly some sleight opposition or persecution it may be by some small pecuniary Mulcts some lesser errors in Doctrine not fundamental nor near the foundation some corruptions in or about the worship of God but those not destructive to the Ordinances being not in substance but in ceremony and those such as the person offended is not enforced to be active in scandals few and those only tolerated not allowed All tolerable evils such as charity may well bear with this ground is not sufficient to bear a seperation You see he is full and particular and in all this I believe he referred in