AN ANSWER TO SOME QUERIES, CONCERNING SCHISM, TOLERATION, etc. IN A LETTER To a Friend.  
It was not long since, that the Sins of Rebellion and Sacrilege were so Successful, that they did not only cast off their old Names, but commenced Virtues; and it was dangerous to discourse, whether there were such Sins or no: Prosperous Wickedness has never wanted its Apologists, who know how to call Evil Good, and Good Evil. The case is almost the same, concerning the Sin of Schism and Separation.  Long's Epist. to the Brethren, before the Character of a Separatist. 
An Universal Toleration is that Trojan Horse, which brings in our Enemies without being seen, and which after a long Siege, they hope to bring in at last, under the pretence of setting our Gates wide enough open to let in all our Friends.  Still. Misch. of Separation. p. 58. 
I beseech you, Brethren, mark them who cause Divisions and Offences, contrary to the Doctrine, which ye have learned, and avoid them.  Rom. 16. 17. 
London, Printed in the Year MDCC.   

AN ANSWER TO SOME QUERIES, CONCERNING SCHISM, TOLERATION, etc. In a LETTER to a Friend.  
SIR,  
I Received your Letter with some Queries, but I cannot imagine what made you pitch upon me (when you are acquainted with so many Learned men) to Answer ' 'em. But to let you see how willing I am to give you the best Satisfaction that I can, I have here sent you the Opinions of some of our most Celebrated Episcopal Divines, that out of them you may frame Answers to all your Queries; And if you are not Satisfied with what I have Collected out of 'em, you may have recourse to their Books yourself. If you say that the Authors I have quoted are but Private men. and their Writings of no Authority; I must Answer, that most of their Books have passed an Imprimatur, or, which by some is looked upon as Tantamont, The Approbation of the London Divines. If you say further That their Practices have in some Cases contradicted their Principles, I must say, that that is nothing to me, Let them look to that. If their Principles be Sound and Orthodox that's all that I desire, let them Answer for their Practices.  
As for the Preliminary Questions, I have likewise taken the Answers to them out of the same Writers, as you'll find upon the perusal.  
The first Question that you propose is this, What is meant by the Church? But before a distinct Answer can be given, you must know that the word Church has various significations; Sometimes 'tis taken for the Place where people Assemble, and sometimes for the People assembled; Sometimes for the Whole Church including the Church Triumphant which is in Heaven, as well as the Church 
Art. 19  Militant, or the Visible Church here on Earth; Sometimes for the Catholic Church Representative, or a General Council; Sometimes for the Catholic Church Diffusive or the Whole Body of Christians; Sometimes for the Church Universal; Sometimes for a Particular Church, etc.  
Q. What is meant by the Church in General or the Catholic Church?  
A. The Church [Ecclesia] among Christians in the largest use 
Dr. Loyd ' s Serm. on Acts 2. 42.  of the word, is the whole Multitude of Believers joined together in One Body, or Society under One Head, Jesus Christ.  
Or,  
The Catholic Church is the Whole Church of Christ spread 
Bramhal's Just. Vind. p. 23.  abroad through the whole World.  
Or,  
The Universal Church is the Company of Christians Knit together, 
Id.  by the Profession of the same Faith, and the Communion of the same Sacraments, under the Government of Lawful Pastors.  
By Catholic Church, is meant the whole number of Christians 
Disc. concerning the Cath. Ch. p. 2.  in all Ages and Places, admitted into the Church by Baptism, and gathered into Particular Churches under their respective Pastors, and Bishops, United to one another, and to Christ their Head, by the Profession of one Faith or Religion.  
Q. What is meant by a Particular Church?  
A. By a Particular Church is meant a Number of Men professing 
Vindic. of Ch. Eng. from Sch. p. 10.  Christianity, formed into a Society under Lawful Governors, and governed by such Laws, and Rules, as are not different from but Agreeable to the Laws of the Catholic Church.  
Q. What is meant by a National Church?  
A. The whole Body of Christians in a Nation consisting of 
Still. unreason. of Separ. p. 299.  the Pastors, and People, agreeing in that Faith, Government, and Worship, which are Established by the Law of the Realm.  
Q. What is meant by a Representative National Church?  
A. The Representative Church of a Nation, is the Bishops and 
Id. p. 300.  Presbyters of the Church meeting together, according to the Laws of the Realm, to consult and advise about Matters of Religion.  
Q. What is meant by the Church of England?  
A. The Church of England is a Society of People, which in 
Still. Misc. of Separ. p. 19  this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith, the same Laws of Government, and Rules of Divine worship.  
Or,  
By the Church of England, I understand that Body of Men, 
Faith and Prac. of Ch. Eng. man. c. 1.  who, as to Church Affairs, are united together, under the same Principal Church Officers, the Bishops, Priests and Deacons; and Communicate with them, and with one another, in all Religious Offices, according to the Liturgy, and Orders of our Church, Profess the Christian Faith according to the Ancient Creeds, and the 39 Articles, and are governed according to the Canons and Laws of this Church.  
Or,  
The Church of England is a Community consisting of professed 
Doct. of Sch. p. 42.  Christians, united in the same Government, Doctrine, and Worship according to the 39 Articles and Homilies; Her Liturgy, Canons and Laws, and divided into Parochial Assemblies, for the more Convenient worshipping of God.  
Q. What is meant by a Diocesan Church?  
A. The Notion of a Church (by the ancient Canons) was 
Still. Misch. of Separ. p. 29.  the same with that of a Diocese, or such a number of Christians as were under the Inspection of a Bishop.  
Or,  
A Church is the Body of Christians contained in a City, and 
Thorndike's Weights and Measures. p. 39  the Territory of it, for the Government of such a one the respective Authority of the Apostles, conveyed by the Overt Act of their Ordination, was visibly vested in a Bishop; in a number of Presbyters, for his advice and assistance: and in Deacons attending upon them, and upon the executing their Orders.  
Q. What is meant by a Parochial Church?  
A. A Parochial Church is a Company of Christians united under the care of a Pastor, in subordination to the Bishop of the Diocese.  
Q. Wherein consists the Unity of the Church?  
A. Ecclesiastical Unity consists in preserving all those Relations, 
Ham. of Schism. p. 508.  wherein each member of the whole Church of Christ is concerned one towards another; and this Unity is either of Subordination or Equality.  
Q. Wherein consists the Unity of Subordination?  
A. The Unity of those Members that are Subordinate one to 
Id.  the other consists, in the constant due subjection and Obedience of all Inferiors to their Lawful Superiors; and in due exercise of Authority in the Superiors towards all committed to their Charge. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Pet. 5. 2.  
Q. Wherein consists the Unity of Equality, or fellow Members?  
A. Unity of fellow Brethren consists in the preformance of all 
Id. ibid.  Mutual duties of Justice and Charity towards one another.  
Q. What is meant by Communion?  
A. Communion superadds nothing to Unity but the Relation 
Id. ibid.  of external Association, whether by Assembling for the worship of God in the same place, where the matter is capable of it, or whether by Letters Communicatory by which we maintain external Communion with those who are far distant from us.  
Or,  
Communion with a Church is joining with a Church as a 
Still. unreason. of Sep. p. 107.  member of that Church.  
Q. What destroys the Unity of the Church?  
A. Schism.  
Q. What is Schism?  
A. Schism is a Division in or from a Church. 
Doct. of Sch. p. 40.   
Or,  
Schism is a Voluntary dividing or a Separating, or receding 
Ham. of Schism.  of any Member from the Unity of the Body, i. e. the Church of Christ.  
Or,  
Schism is a Causeless Separation from a true Church. 
Doct. of Sch. p. 58.   
Q. What is meant by Schism from the Church of England? 
Doct. of Schism. p. 45.   
A. Schism from the Church of England is a sinful dividing from, or dissolving our Union and Communion with her, in her Governors, Members, Worship or Assemblies. This is the least we can mean by Schism from the Church of England, and is called Separation Negative; which is made Positive and more formally such, when those that have separated, set up their Altars against Hers, and erect other Congregations in Opposition to Hers.  
Q. What is meant by Negative Separation or Schism?  
A. Negative Schism is 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.  
Q. What is meant by Positive Separation?  
A. Positive Separation is when persons, thus withdrawn, do 
Id. p. 60.  gather into a Distinct and Opposite Body, setting up a Church against a Church, to worship God in a separated way themselves; which St. Austin calls setting up Altar against Altar.  
Q. What is a Schismatic?  
A. A Schismatic is he that divides himself from the Church 
Ham. of Schism.  of God, he that goes out, or withdraws, or recedes of his own accord.  
Q. What is an Excommunicate person?  
A. a▪ Excommunicate person is one that is cut off or separated, 
Ham. of Schism. p. 508.  and cast out of the Church by the Governors of the Church.  
From the Definitions, I think these Conclusions or Propositions will naturally follow. viz. 

1. That the Christian Church is a Society.  
2. That the Church is but one Body, ' though it consists of many particular Churches and Dioceses as Members of it.  
3. That the Church is governed by one Supreme Head.  
4. That the Supreme Head of the Church is Christ.  
5. That under this Supreme Head there have been always subordinate Governors.  
6. That those Subordinate Governors were first the Apostles, constituted immediately by Christ himself, over the whole Church, and after them the Bishops, as Successors to them, in particular Churches or Dioceses.  
7. That all Bishops in their several Districts or Dioceses have full power, as to Spirituals, over the whole Flock.  
8. That all the Members of the Church, within such Districts, own subjection to their Lawful Bishops, as to those Commissioned by Christ.  
9 That as Christ did ordain the Apostles, and the Apostles Bishops, for the Government of the Church; so the Bishops have ever since ordained Priests, and Deacons, to take care of, and instruct the Church in subordination to them.  
10. That all Christians are obliged to become Members of some particular Church, where the Sacraments are administered, and Communion enjoyed under the Authority of some Canonical Bishop, or in Communion with some Priest, owning and submitting to some Bishop of the Catholic Church.  
11. That all those, who break the Unity of the Church by actual Separation from the Communion of their Lawful Bishop, and fellow Christians, are Schismatics.  
12. That all those, that are united to, and in Communion with Canonical Bishops, and adhere to the Doctrine and worship established in the Church of England, as contained in the 39 Articles, Homilies, Liturgy, Canons and Laws, are the true Church of England, and their Assemblies are true Churches.  
13. That all those who separate themselves, as Schismatics, and all those that are Separated, as Excommunicate persons, by the Governors of the Church, are out of the Communion of the Church.    
Q. Is all Separation Schismatical? 
Still. unreas. of separ. p. 209.   
A. Tho' Schism be always a Sin, yet there may be such Circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism.  
That you may know when Separation is Schismatical and when 
Vindic. of the Ch. of Eng. from Schism. p. 16.  not, you must understand that there are three great Bonds of Communion, viz. Faith, Worship and Government; and whosoever shall separate from any Church, whereof he is a member in any of these, he or they so doing cannot be acquitted from the guilt of Schism, unless the Corruption in some one, or more of these be so great as to render the Communion sinful to him who knows it.  
Q. What is meant by the first Bond, Faith?  
A. If a Church hold the Catholic Faith, (tho' her Members 
Id.  may differ in some controverted Points) pure and undefiled, and impose no new Articles of Faith, as terms of her Communion, 'tis Schism to break Communion with that Church; but if she does impose new Articles of Faith, a Separation from such a Church is not only justifiable, but a Duty.  
Q. What is meant by the second Bond, Worship?  
A. If a Church have a pure Worship, as to its substance, tho' 
Id.  clothed with some accidental Modes, Rites and Ceremonies, to Separate from such a Church is downright Schism, and the reason is, because all Ceremonies and Modes of Worship, being in their own nature Indifferent, cannot by being imposed become sinful, and if not sinful, can never justify a Separation. But if on the other side, the Worship be polluted by Idolatry, or profane and immoral mixtures, or any other way be made such, as that the Members of the Church cannot Communicate without sin; Separation from such a Church is not only warrantable, but absolutely necessary, and the Schism must lie at the door of the Imposers.  
Q. What is meant by the third Bond, Government?  
A. If the Church of which we are Members, be governed by Lawful and Canonical Bishops, and they act according to the Rules of the Catholic Church, then to separate from them is a damnable Sin, and a pernicious Schism; 'Tis a denying of Christ himself, who appointed them to rule the Church in his stead: But if they are, either not Lawful Bishops, but Intruders, or not Orthodox but Heritical, than they that Separate are not only not Schismatics, but the true Church, and they that cause the Separation the Schismatics.  
To confirm what is said, I have subjoined some few Testimonies, by which it will plainly appear. 

1st, That, tho' Separation he sometimes a duty, yet if the Faith be sound, and the Worship pure and uncorrupt, Separation is sinful.  
2ly, That Separation from the Communion of Lawful and Canonical Bishops, is Schismatical.    
1st. That (tho' Separation be sometimes a duty, yet) if the Faith be sound, and the Worship pure and uncorrupt, Separation is sinful.  
Violation of the Unity of the Church, where there is no sufficient 
unreason. Separ. p. 209.  reason to justify it, is a sin as much as Murder is, and is as plainly forbidden.  
My Judgement being, that a causeless breaking the peace of 
Pref. to Vnreas. of Separ. Sh●rl. Vird. of Def. p. 39●. Doct. of Sch. p. 66. Id. p. 1●2.  the Church we live in, is really as great and as dangerous a sin as Murder; and in some cases aggravated beyond it.  
To Separate, where no sinful terms of Communion are imposed, is a causeless Separation.  
Separation is unwarrantable, if Communion with the Church may be without Sin.  
Renouncing Communion, or denying to Communicate with any Church, upon any dislike, or for any cause, except sin, is properly Separation and Schism: it is not actually not communicating with a True Church, but renouncing Communion, that we think makes the Schismatic.  
Schism is directly a Breach of Unity; as that is a Breach of 
Id. ibid.  Charity. Refusing to Communicate with a true Church, when I have opportunity, especially my own Church, is a plain breach of both, whatever my reason be, short of Sin.  
There may be an Actual Criminous separation of Churches, 
Bramhal. Just. Vind. p. 10.  which formerly did join in one and the same Communion; and yet the separaters be Innocent, and the persons from whom the Separation is made be Nocent and Guilty of Schism; because they gave just Cause of Separation from them: it is not the separation but the Cause that makes the Schism.  
Wherever— there is no necessity of Separating, there the 
Norris Charge. Sch. p. 93.  Church has a Right to Communion, which to withhold from her is Schism, or else there is no such thing as Schism in the World.  
A part of the Catholic Church may have so many errors 
Ans. to the Kings Pap. p. 106.  and corruptions mixed with it, as may make it necessary to Salvation to leave it.  
There are three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation. 
unreason. of Separ. p. 213.  1st, In Case of Idolatrous worship. 2ly. In Case of false Doctrine imposed instead of true. 3ly. In Case men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account.  
I do not charge those with Separation, who under Idolatrous 
Id. p. 148.  or Arian Princes, did keep up the exercise of true Religion against the will of the Magistrate.  
There are many false Teachers, that transform themselves into 
Long's Pref. to 2d. pt. unreas. Sep.  Angels of Light— But if they teach any thing for Doctrine contrary to the word of God, any Doctrine that tends to Impiety, Disobedience or Divisions, it is our duty to reject and withhold Communion from them.  
It is beyond question that there may be such Corruptions in 
Id. Ep. to the Char. of a Sepa.  Doctrines, and such Idolatrous practices required in Worship, as may justify a Separation.  
The Divines of the Church of England, first proved that the 
Apologet vindic. of Ch. E p. 44  Communion of the Romish Church, was not Pure and Apostolical, and thence justified the Separation of the Church of England from it, as necessary, etc. And on the Contrary, They have proved that the Communion of the Church of England is Pure and Apostolical, and thence condemn the Separation of the Dissenters from it, as Needless.  
God only bids me obey the Church in such Cases as are not 
Faith and practice of Ch. Eng. c. 3. Long's Char. of Sep. p. 6.  defined by the Law of God; but doth not give the Church leave to Command any thing contrary to God's Law, nor oblige me to attend to it, or Obey it, if it should so Command.  
We do still hold and teach, that the Condition of our Communion [with the Church of Rome] was made sinful, by professing False Doctrine, Believing Lies, and joining in Idolatrous Worship; and so it was unlawful and intolerable; and they who practise such things themselves, and would impose them on others, are actually in Separation from the true Church.  
Schism indeed we do say is a Damning Sin, but there may be 
Sherl. Serm. Nou. 4. 1680. Id. vind. of the Def. p. 323.  Divisions, where there is not always the guilt and formality of Schism, etc.  
The principal Acts of Christian Communion, consist in Christian Worship; and, if any Church have so corrupted Divine Worship, that a good Christian must not join in it, we must of necessity abstain from their Communion.  
No Church can oblige a man to believe what is False, or do 
Vind. King's pap. p. 106.  what is Unlawful; and rather than do either he must forsake the Communion of that Church.  
If you ask, by what Authority we Separate? [from the R. C.] 
Id. p. 68  I answer by the same Authority, which makes it Unlawful for us to Profess what we do not believe, and to Practise what we believe God has forbidden.  
Neither abroad nor at home can we purchase Unity of Communion 
Difference of the Case p. 9  at so dear a rate, as to break God's Commandments for it.  
We do Unanimously acknowledge, that if this Church makes 
Id. p. 44.  the Profession of false Doctrine, or the breaking of God's Commandments a condition of her Communion, They that upon this account Separate from her Communion, are before God clear of the guilt of Schism, in so doing.  
When it is a Sin to Communicate, it is not a Sin to Separate. 
Vind of Ch. E. from Sch. p. 34. Doctr. of Sch. p. 66.   
Separation from a true Church is sometimes Lawful, if one cannot remain in its Communion without Communicating in her Sins.  
Suppose a particular Church, tho' Lawfully Constituted and 
Vind. of Ch. E. from Sch. p. 10.  Established under Lawful Governors, should make the Terms of her Communion such as Her Neighbour Churches, could not without Sin and Danger, hold Communion with her; would Separation in this case be adjudged a Schism? Or would it not rather be looked upon as their Duty and Interest to withdraw from her?  
If Schism be considered as a Separation from the Communion 
Id. p. 25.  of some particular Church, then 'tis employed, that possibly there may be such cause given as may justify the Separation; and if so, than the guilt of Schism will lie at the door of the Church which gives such cause, and not at his or theirs who Separate there from— No cause can justify a Separation save only this, when a Church makes the Terms of her Communion such as cannot be complied withal without Sin. And in this Case me thinks it is very plain, that it cannot be Sin to Separate, when it is Sin to Communicate, for no Laws of Men can abrogate or dissolve the obligation of the express Laws of God.  
When we cannot obey our Spiritual Rulers, without disobeying the express Laws of Christ, the reason of our Communion 
Sherlock.  with such a Church ceaseth, because it does not answer, (nay contradicts) the end of Christian Society, which is to have fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. 1 Jo. 1. 3.  
If any Patriarch, Prelate, Church or Churches shall enjoin Sinful 
Bramhal.  Duties to their Subjects— it is very Lawful for their Subjects to disobey them, and for strangers to separate from them.  
As in the Case of Usurpation, the owning of the Lawful King 
Vind. of Ans. to the King's Pap. p. 67.  is a Voluntary Act, but if an Usurper threatens to banish him, if the does not abjure him; upon whom must the blame be laid, upon the Man's voluntary Act, or the Usurpers Voluntary Imposing such a Penalty on those who do nothing but what is Just?— The making such Terms of Communion is a voluntary Act too, and being a thing Unreasonable and unjust, it leaves the blame on the Imposers.  
I held it better to seem undevout, and to hear no men's 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Prayers, than to be forced, or seem to comply with those Petitions, to which the Heart cannot consent, nor the Tongue say Amen, without contradicting a man's own Understanding, or belying his own Soul.  
I had rather be condemned to the Woe of Vae Soli, then to that 
Id.  of Vae Vobis Hypocritis, by seeming to pray what I do not approve.  
If any Bp. Metropolitan or Patriarch, with open face asserts 
Falk. Chr. Loy. p. 269.  manifest Heresy, or false Doctrine, which hath been so declared by approved Councils, the disowning all Communion with him, and subjection to him, even before a Council, is commended by some Canons, as a practice which deserves Honour. And it must be so, where subjection must include Embracing Corruptions.  
Secondly, That Separation from the Communion of Lawful and Canonical Bishops is Schismatical.  
It is the Law of the Gospel and the constant Profession of 
Saywell of Unity p. 340.  the Christian Church, that all Persons, as well Clergy as Laymen, must live in Obedience and Communion with their own Bishops, as long as they profess the Catholic Faith, and uphold such a public Worship, wherein it is Lawful to join, and in the right performance whereof, we may obtain Salvation.  
The crime of Schism does manifestly lie upon those who refuse 
Id. p. 11.  Obedience, to their Lawful Bishops in all just Commands.  
Not only the Greek, Abyssine, Russian, Churches, but the Protestant 
Id. p. 355.  Churches, do all with one consent, condemn them for Schismatics, which separate from the Lawful Pastors of any True Church (—) and set up Churches against Churches, and Communion against Communion, etc.  
It is undoubted, that it has been the constant Doctrine of the 
Id. 388.  Greek, Eastern, Northern and Southern Churches, as well as Roman in all Ages, that Christians ought to be in subjection to their Respective Bishops; and he was held cut off from the Catholic Church, that did separate from his Lawful Bishop, or was Excommunicated by him; and no other Church could receive him, till Repentance and Reconciliation to his Own Bishop, and 'tis the same at this very day.  
I reckon myself bound to obey the Commands of my Lawful 
Faith and Pract. Ch. Eng. man chap. 3.  Governors, both in Church and State, not only for Peace and Order sake, but for the sake of God, who hath Commanded me so to do, and am willing to forego my own Rights often, and deny my own Profit, rather than disobey, or oppose a Command of my Lawful Governors, where I can obey without Sin— God only bids me obey the Church, in such cases as are not defined by the Law of God; but doth not give the Church leave to command any thing contrary to God's Law, nor oblige me to attend to it, or obey it, if it should so command.  
Schism implies the casting off a Lawful Jurisdiction to which 
Vind. of Ch. Eng. from Sch. p. 34. Vind. Def. Still. p. 401.  we were obliged to yield Subjection and Obedience.  
Government and Discipline is necessary to preserve any Society, and therefore obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors is a Necessary term of Church Communion; and let a man be never so sound and Orthodox in Faith and Worship, if he be of a restless and turbulent Spirit and disobedient to his Governors, and their orders and Constitutions, he deserves to be fling out of the Church Communion, if he does not Separate himself, and will be Damned fort too without Repentance.  
Communion with the Bishop is Essential to the Notion and Unity 
Sherl. Vind. of Def. p. 452. Id. 453.  of an Episcopal Church.  
Those only Communicate with their Bishop, who submit to his Pastoral Authority, and partake with him in all Religious Offices, and those who do not, according to the notion of the Catholic Church, are Schismatics, and therefore not of the same Church with him.  
When men consent to be Christ's Disciples, they consent to 
Sherl. def. of Still. p. 254. Id Vind. def. p. 126. Id. vind. def. p. 331.  submit to that Authority Christ has instituted in his Church.  
It has been the constant practice of the Apostles, and all succeeding Ages, to set Bishops and Pastors over particular Churches and to confine their Care and Inspection to them.  
Episcopacy has been the Established Government of the Church of England, ever since the Reformation; and for any Christians to Separate from their Bishops, was always accounted Schism in the Christian Church, unless there were some very necessary reaons to justify such a Separation.  
There is no other way of submitting ourselves to the Authority 
Sherl. 2d. part. Vn. Com. p. 428. Ans. to Prot. Reconciler. p. 258.  of Christ, but by a regular subjection to the Discipline and Government of the Church.  
I know no way of Judging whether any Man be in Communion with Christ, but by his Communion with the Church. There is no visible Communion with God and Christ, but by a visible Communion with the Church.  
Subjection to Christ requires subjection to that Authority 
Id. p. 411.  which Christ has set in his Church, as well as Obedience to his other Laws.  
'Tis plain we disown Christ's Authority when we reject those 
Id. p. 168.  who Act by his Authority.  
An obstinate refusal to obey the Imposition of Lawful Bishops 
Id. p. 381.  and Pastors makes Men Schismatics.  
Whosoever is a Member of any particular Church, and refuses 
Vind. Ch. of Eng. from Sch. p. 22. Thorndike of forbear. p. 15.  all due Obedience to the Pastors and Governors thereof, doth thereby contract the guilt of Schism.  
— As it is Heresy, to departed from the Faith which they [The Apostles] Preached; so is it Schism to departed from the Authority which they left in the Church till the World's end.  
Whoever by virtue of any Authority under Heaven, shall Usurp Ecclesiastical 
Id. Rights of the Ch. p. 278.  Power, shall Usurp the Succession of the Apostles, and take it from them that Rightfully stand possessed of it, upon pretence of Governing the Church by such Laws, as he is really persuaded, but falsely, to be commanded the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, this whosoever shall do, or be accessary to, is guilty of Schism.  
Suppose a Prosperous Usurper in this Kingdom had gained 
Vind. Ans. to the King's Papers. p. 23.  a considerable interest in it, and challenged a Title to the whole, and therefore required of all the King's Subjects within his power, to own him to be Rightful King: Upon this many of them are forced to withdraw, because they will not own his Title: Is this an Act of Rebellion and not rather of true. Loyalty? Schism in the Church is like Rebellion in the State.  
There are some things immediately necessary to the Salvation 
Thorndike's Right of the Church p. 276.  of particular Christians, whether concerning Faith or Good Manners; and there are other things necessary to the public Order and Peace of the Church, that by it Christians may be edified in all matters of the first kind. The denying any point of the first kind, may, for distinction sake, be called Heresy, when a man is resolute and obstinate in it: But in the other kind, it is not false opinion that makes a man a Schismatic, till he agree to destroy the Unity of the Church for it. It can scarce fall out indeed, that any man proceed to destroy the Unity of the Church without some false opinion in Christianity: Yet it is not the opinion, but the Destroying of a true, or erecting of a false Power in the Church that makes Schism.  
Whatever discouragments the Clergy have found, they still 
Faith and Pract. Ch. Eng. Man. c. 7.  Preach up, and persuade Loyalty to the King; and by the Doctrine of Passive Obedience to Temporal Authority, keep People from Rebellion, notwithstanding they have been so often jeered and abused with it: But yet out of modesty seldom insist on the Obedience that is due to the Church and Ecclesiastical Authority, tho' there is as much obedience due to Her, as even to the Church of Rome from her members. 
Cath. Bal. p. 62.   
As the Faith which we have in the Principles of Christianity, is the foundation of all Christian Graces in the Soul, and the inner dispensation of Eternal life; so is Episcopacy the Foundation of all visible Union and Government in the Ecclesiastical Body, insomuch that were there no one Bishop left in the world, the Integrity at least, if not the very Essence of the Church would be destroyed.  
The sum of what has been cited upon this Query amounts to this, viz. 1st, That if any Church makes the terms of Her Communion sinful, by framing new Articles of Faith, or by imposing false Doctrines for true; or by corrupting Divine Worship by Wicked, Idolatrous or Blasphemous Prayers, than she is Schismatical, and those that Separate from her truly Catholic: But if she imposes no false Doctrines, nor no new Articles of Faith, and enjoins nothing in the service of God, but what is innocent, decent, and tending to Edification, than those that Separate from her are a Schismatical, and she a Catholic Church.  
2ly, If any Church disobey the Lawful Commands of their Spiritual Governors, or throw off their Rightful and Canonical Bishops, and Communicate with the Usurpers and Intruders into their Sees, they are Schismatics.  
3ly, If any wholly reject Episcopacy, they destroy the very Foundation of Christian Unity.  
Q. Suppose there be more Bishops than one in a Diocese, with which of them must the People Communicate?  
A. Almost all Heresies and Schisms, that have distracted the 
Vindic. of Prim. Ch. p. 308.  Church, have been no other than so many Defections of the discontented part of the Clergy, and the more Pragmatical part of the Laity from their Rightful Bishop. Non aliunde Haereses obortae 
Cypr. Ep. 55.  sunt, aut nata sunt Schismata quam inde quod Sacerdoti non obtemperatur; Schisms and Heresies spring from no other cause than Disobedience to the Bishop: Ind Haereses obortae sunt, dum Episcopus 
Ep. 69.  qui unus est, Contemnitur: All the disturbance of the Church is purely for want of observing that Precept of the Apostle; Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your Souls, as they that must give account: i. e. Obey those that are Rightfully over you, and submit to them, not choosing yourselves new Teachers, and running after your own fancy: which Ignatius seems to paraphrase, as he is cited by Antiochus. Let 
Ep. ad Smyrn.  the People assemble where the Bishop is present; the Sheep ought not to go wand'ring whither they please, but as the Shepherd leads them. The People ought to follow the Directions of their Bishop, and conclude what he order to be most pleasing to God.  
No City, how great soever, had more than one Bishop: This 
Id. p. 502  is so well known that it would be great impertinence to go about to prove it by Instances— and besides, the Bishops of most Cities if not all, had a considerable Territory belonging to their Jurisdiction, which was commonly the Country lying round about their City.  
In great Cities, there was one chief Ecclesiastical Governor called 
Saywel of Vnits▪ p. 43.  Bishop, to which all both Priests and People were subject and 'twas Schism and no Communion, to do any thing without his Allowance and Direction.  
It was an inviolable Rule among them, [the Africans] that 
unreason▪ Separ. p. 245.  there was to be but one Bishop in a City, tho' the City were never so large, or the Christians never so many.  
One of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever 
Id. p. 240.  happened, might have been prevented, if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City; and that was the Schism of the Donatists— The Novatian Schism began at Rome upon the like occasion.  
To set up one Bishop against another is to set up Altar against 
Id. 249.  Altar, as that Phrase is commonly used in St. Cyprian and St. Austin.  
Our Author [Mr. Hales] proves the Donatists in two lines to 
Long's Ans. to Hales of Sch. p. 107.  be complete Schismatics. 1st, For choosing a Bishop in Opposition to a former. 2ly, For erecting new places for the dividing party to meet in publicly.  
He [Mr. Hales] says truly that all Meetings upon unnecessary 
Id. p. 180.  occasions of Separation are to be styled Conventicles, so that in this sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismatics, and he had before determined them to be Schismatics that do choose a Bishop in Opposition to the former, and that do erect a New Church and Oratory for the dividing party to meet in publicly.  
The Laws and Customs of all Churches do condemn it for 
Saywel of Vn. 193.  Schismatical, for a man to come into another Minister's charge, etc.  
The sum of what is cited on this Query is this, that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Diocese or City, that they that set up a Bishop in opposition to the Rightful Bishop, and make separate Meetings, setting up Altar against Altar are Schismatics; and therefore those that would avoid the guilt of Schism must constantly Communicate, with the First and Rightful Bishop, but never with the Intruder, or his Adherents.  
Q. Are the People that Communicate with Schismatical Bishops and Presbyters guilty of Schism?  
A. A Schismatic is an impious Son, which, having contemned 
Ham. of Schism out of Ignatius.  the Bishops and forsaken the Priests of God, dares constitute another Altar.  
The Schismatics are they, that having left their Bishop, set 
Doctr. of Schism. p. 45.  up for themselves abroad another false Bishop, and all their Adherents are involved in the same guilt, who join with the Schismatics against their Bishops.  
— An essential part of our Communion with our Bishop 
Def. of Dr. St. p. 471.  is to live in Communion only of those Presbyters, who live in Communion of their Bishop, that is, who officiate by his Authority, and are subject to his Directions and Orders. This was a standing rule in Ignatius his time, as is evident from his Epistles, that Presbyters must do nothing in the Church but by the Bishop's consent or order, and those who do, are Schismatics, and those people who adhere to them in it, partake in the guilt of their Schism, etc.  
'Tis notorious in all the Histories and Canons of the Church, 
Saywel of Unity. p. 393.  that never any more than One Bishop at a time was allowed in any of those great Cities [Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc.] (—) And if a Schismatic did sometimes creep in, as the Novatians and Donatists did in troublesome times, they were always condemned by the Church, which did constantly maintain There aught to be but One Bishop in a City or Diocese, and all Priests and Lay Persons ought to be governed by him.  
To assemble and celebrate the Eucharist, besides the Bishop's 
Thornd. Prim. Gou. Ch. p. 117.  appointment, was then [in St. Ignatius his time] the due mark of a Schismatic.  
If the Church unites upon Schismatical Principles, whatever 
Sherl. Ans. to Anonym.  the Bishop does in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church; and if the Bishops be Schismatics, the Church is so too.  
The Church is by St. Cyprian defined to be a People united to 
St. Cyprian.  their own Bishop, and a Flock adhering to their own Pastor, whence you may know, the Bishop always to be in the Church, and the Church to go along with the Bishop; if therefore the Bishop be a Schismatic, so must all the Flock that Communicate with him.  
If any Presbyter, contemning his own Bishop, shall make a 
Long's Ch. Sep. p. 85.  Separate Congregation, and erect another Altar, his own Bishop not being condemned of any Irreligion or Injustice, let him be deposed, as one that is Ambitious, and a Tyrannical person, and in like manner, all that Adhere to him; and let the Lay People be Excommunicated, after the Bishop's third Admonition.  
He who submits to, or complies with the manager of a Schism, 
Falkner's Christian Loyalty. p. 272.  in his prosecution thereof, doth involve himself in the same crime.  
Q. If a Bishop, or other Clergy man, be guilty of any Offence, by whom is he to be Tried and Punished?  
A. Touching the Depriving or Degrading of Bishops, Presbyters 
Field of the Ch. p. 512.  and Deacons, the ancient Canon requires the Concurrence and consent of 3 Bishops for the Censuring and Depriving of a Deacon; of 6 for the Depriving of a Presbyter; and of 12 for the Censuring, Judging and Deposing of a Bishop.  
If a Bishop be Convicted of Heresy or Schism, or some great 
Vind. of Def. p. 128.  Wickedness and Injustice, his Colleagues (that is) Bishops may Depose him, and forbidden his People to Communicate with him, and Ordain another in his stead.  
For one particular Primate or Metropolitan to censure any 
Hills Cath. Balance. p. 86.  Bishop by himself, or to be uncapable of censure in his own Provincial Synods, hath no Precedent in the primest and purest Antiquity. The Canon Apostolical (33) directing, That every Bishop of every Nation give deference to him, that is Chief among them, and to esteem him as their Head, and to do nothing extraordinary without his Cognisance, but every one only to do those things which are expedient to his own Diocese, and to the Country under him. And so neither must the Capital Bishop do any thing without the consent of them all, for thus there will be an Unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.  
Bishops had over their Presbyters and People, Supreme Power 
Faith and Pract. Ch. Eng. m. cap. 1.  under Christ, as to Church affairs, and Accountable only to Christ, and to a Council of their fellow Bishops, often Meeting and Consulting together for the good of the whole.  
A Bishop of the Church of England, by all the Law in the Christian 
Bishop of Lond. Trial. p. 6.  Church in all ages, and by the particular Law of this Land, in case of offence, is to be Tried by his Metropolitan and Suffragans.  
The Bishop of London's Council urged in behalf of the Bishop, 
Id.  for not suspending Dr. S. without a Legal process.  
That absolute Suspension supposes a proof of the Crime, etc. 
Id.  and That where there is an absolute Suspension, there ought to be Citation, Form of Proceeding, Judgement and Decree; and that to Act otherwise is contrary to the Laws of God, of Nature; of all Nations in all Ages, and was never known in the World.  
My Lord,  
I Always have, and shall count it my duty to obey the K. in whatever 
Id. Bp. of London's Letter to my Lord Sanderland.  he Commands me, etc. But in this, I humbly conceive, I am obliged to proceed according to Law; and therefore 'tis impossible for me, to comply; because, tho' His Majesty Commands me only to Execute His Pleasure, yet in the capacity I am to do it, I must Act as a Judge; and your Lordship knows no Judge Condemns any Man before he have knowledge of his Cause, and have cited the Party— From him that will never be Unfaithful to the K. etc.  
To suspend is a Judicial Act, which cannot be done without 
Bp. London's Council.  hearing the Cause. When the King commands a Judge, he commands him to Act as a Judge.  
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not declare the Bishop of London suspended, till he had been fully heard.  
The Prince of Orange in his Declaration, represents the proceed 
P. O. Declaration.  against the Bishop of London, as one of the great Grievances he came to redress; The Commissioners (says he) suspended the Bishop of London, only because he refused to obey an Order that was sent to him to suspend a worthy Divine; without so much as Citing him before him to make his own Defence, or observing the Common forms of Process.  
The substance of what is said in answer to this Query is, 

1. That a Clergyman cannot be regularly deprived but by Bishops.  
2. That a Clergyman cannot be suspended but by a Legal Process.  
3. That a Bishop cannot be tried or deprived but by his Colleagues, that is, Bishops.  
4. That those that are deprived, without a Hearing, or by Incompetent Judges, cannot be so properly said to be Deprived as violently Thrust from their Places; and therefore it will follow,  
5. That a Bishop being not Regularly Deprived, is, to all intents and purposes, the Canonical Bishop of his See, and a Priest the True and Lawful Pastor of his Flock; and the people consequently own obedience to Them, and cannot forsake their Communion without incurring the guilt of Schism.    
Q. Were not the Protestants in Q. Mary's days guilty of Schism, in making Separate Meetings under the then Deprived Bishops?  
A. I willingly grant that in times of manifest Corruptions and 
Long's An. to Hales of Schism p. 147. Reform. justified p. 6.  Persecutions, such as the Roman and Marian were, Private Meetings are Lawful and Necessary Duties; because if men do forbid what God has Commanded, it is better to obey God than Man.  
'Tis plain that the Schism is on the side of the Papists, who upon pretence of Papal Authority, did withdraw themselves from the Communion of their own Bishops, [after an Universal agreement and concurrence in the Communion, of the Church of England for ten or eleven years together] and make a formal division in the Church, which was before united in Peace and Truth.  
The Popish Bishops, that were set aside in Q. Elizabeth's Reign, 
Id. p. 14.  did possess the places of Lawful Bishops, yet living, or United themselves to such as did possess them, therefore they were Schismatical, and no Lawful Bishops of the Church of England. For as soon as these Lawful Bishops were turned out, others were put into their places, and not only so, but contrary to all rule and orderly Government in the Church. For the most certain fundamental Constitution of the Church in all Ages; and the constant Order of all Societies (which is always tacitly supposed, tho' not formally observed) is That while Particular Churches keep to the Faith and Unity of the Catholic Church, as ours had done, all things ought to be managed by the Archbishop and Bishops of the Province, and so by the Chief Governors and main Body of the Society, or else things cannot regularly be done.  
'Tis confessed that 14 or 15 Bishops were turned out, or went 
Id. p. 17.  away in Q. Elizabeth's days, but according to our Author's own Argument, they were Schismatics and no Lawful Bishops, because they came into the places of Lawful Bishops, while they were alive, or else were Ordained by, and Communicated with such Schismatics. I add they Usurped their places by turning out the Metropolitans, and Major part of the Bishops of each Province, and so could have no Lawful Authority, or Jurisdiction.  
The true Right and Authority of the Church was in those 
Id. p. 18.  Lawful Bishops, that were made in K. Edward's days, and that was the True Church of England which did adhere to their Constitutions.  
They [Q. Mary's Bps.] were no Lawful Bishops, because they 
Id. p. 20.  either did Schismatically invade the places of the Lawful Bishops, or else were willingly Consecrated, and did join in Communion with those Schismatical Bishops: When the Queen [Eliz.] therefore did set them aside, she did but dispossess men, who had no just Right, and remove those by her Civil Authority, who had no Power, but what they had by Force, and the Secular Constitution.  
All else but Thirlby, were ordained by, or Communicated with 
Id. p. 25.  them during their Schism and Usurpation, and therefore neither the Ordainers, nor Ordained had any Right or Jurisdiction in the Church of England.  
That which is Essential, and the Authority and Power to execute 
Id. p. 27.  the sacred office of a Bishop, or Priest in their respective Charges, is derived from the Bishops of the Province; and after great violence and disorder, from as many, or the major part of them, which survive.  
Every Bishop and Priest orderly constituted in his place, does 
Id. ibid.  act by the Power and appointment of the Catholic Church, and they contemn the Catholic Church, that desert and disturb them in the performance of their Office. Hence we may understand our Saviour's meaning, when he says, If he neglects to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, and a Publican: which in the first place does require us to hear our own particular Parish Priest, and Bishop, whilst they are constituted, and live in the Unity of the Church, but principally it does oblige us to hearken to the Catholic Church. So that if our own Pastors turn Heretics, or set themselves up by undue means, and not according to the Order of the Church, they are not to be harkened to, but we must according to our Saviour's Command, Hear the Church, and not those Pastors that will not themselves Hear and Obey the Church.  
The Popes Usurped Authority, and his Prohibition of joining 
Saywel of Unity. p. 307.  with our English Bishops, made the first Schism, and is the hindrance to keep them from now joining in Communion with us.  
For the first 10 years of Q. Elizabeth, the Papists did Communicate 
Faith and Pract. Ch. of Eng. man. c. 1.  with us, till the Bull of Pope Pius IU. An. 1569/70. tho' our Reformation was then fully settled. So that they are bound to answer it, why they join not still in Communion with us.  
We can say, the Pope never had any settled and quiet Possession, 
Faith and Pract Ch. Eng. man. Chap. 1.  and exercise of Power here, at least for any considerable time together, as is at large evident from what Mr. Prynn and others have Collected; and all our Statutes of Provisors, and Premunire's do show how little hold here the Pope was by our Government allowed, or owned to have. And tho' many did Appeal to Rome, it was against Law; and therefore that gives the Pope no more Right here, than many People's being Traitorous, and paying Homage to an Usurper, doth annul the Right and Title of the Lawful Prince.  
The Church of England Bishops are guilty of no Schism, from the Church of Rome; their order is undoubted, and their Succession 
Reform. Justified p. 29.  uninterrupted, and so their Title and Authority is as firm and unquestionable as any upon earth; and they must be Schismatics before God and the Catholic Church, that do not submit to them, and join in their Communion in all Lawful things.  
If we look over the ancient Canons of the Church, we shall find two things very plain in them.  
1 That the Notion of a Church was the same with that of a 
Mischief Separ. p. 29. Can. Nic. Can. 6. 15. 16. Constan. c. 6. Chalced. 17, 20, 26. Antioch. c. 2. Codex Eccl. Africa. c. 53. c. 55. Conc. Gang. c. 6. Conc. Constan. c. 6. Conc. Carthag. c. 10, 11. St. Cypri. Ep. 40. 42. Theod. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 22. 1. 2. c. 24. c. 17. Vincent. c. 16.  Diocese; or such a Number of Christians as were under the Inspection of a Bishop. Or, 2ly. That those Presbyters who rejected the Authority of their Bishop or affected Separate Meetings, where no fault could be found with the Doctrine of a Church, were condemned of Schism. So the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus, who withdrew from the public Congregations on pretence of greater Sanctity and Purity, in Paphlagonia, were condemned by the Council at Gangrae; So were those who Separated from their Bishops, tho' otherwise never so Orthodox, by the Council at Constantinople, and the Council at Carthage; wherein before S. Cyprian had so justly Complained of the Schism of Felicissimus and his Brethren, who, on pretence of some disorders in the Church of Carthage, had withdrawn to the Mountains; and there laid the foundation of the Novatian Schism. But when false Doctrine was imposed on Churches, as by the Arian Bishops at Antioch, than the people were excused in their Separation; So at Rome when Felix was made Bishop; and at Sirmium when Photinus published his Heresy; but I do not remember one instance in Antiquity, wherein Separation from Orthodox Bishops and setting up Meetings without their Authority and against their consent was acquitted from the Sin of Schism.  
The substance of what is contained in the Answer to this Query amounts to this, viz.  
1. That K. Edward's Bishops were True and Canonical Bishops. And the Popish Bishops in Q. Mary's days Intruders.  
2. That those that adhered to K. Edward's Bishops in Queen Mary's days, altho' deprived, were the True Church, and Consequently those that forsook their Communion were the Schismatics.  
Q. Whether a Particular Church, (suppose the Roman) being Schismatical, yet keeping possession of all the Churches, may be said to Separate?  
A. Yes. For Private Meetings, in such a case, commence Churches, 
Hales.  and the Churches become Conventicles, according to the Definition given of a Conventicle above. viz. That a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismatics.  
If Rome has, by the many Additions, etc. erred, she may be said 
Ans. to Reason and Authority. p. 66.  to have left, and gone from, or be separated from that First, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, without making an open Schism or Schismatical Separation.— So far then as any Church now in being shall departed from the Doctrine of the Ancient, Catholic Church, and profess great and many errors, and broach new Doctrines, unknown to the Primitive Churches, and lay mighty stresses upon them, so as to make them necessary for Communion here, and to Salvation hereafter, such a Church may be said to Departed or Separate itself, from that Ancient, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  
It is true, That they who first desert and forsake the Communion 
Bramhal Just. Vind. p. 10.  of their Christian Brethren, are Schismatics; but there is a Moral Defection, as well as a Local.  
In a word, he that forsakes the Assemblies of Catholic Christians is a Schismatic, not he that goes not to a Church: for wherever Christians, tho' in a Den or Cave of the Earth, worship God, in the Unity of the Church, there is the Church of God.  
Q. Are the Dissenters Schismatics?  
A. Yes doubtless, For they not only set up separate Meetings in opposition to Bishops, but renounce all Episcopal Authority, and Usurp the Power of Ordination, which did always belong to the Order of Bishops.  
As for the Government of the Church, we are assured partly 
Letter concerning the necessity of Regulat. the Press▪ p. 18.  from Scripture, and partly from the Earliest Antiquity, That the Order of Bishops and Metropolitans, rests upon Apostolical Institution. Both Timothy and Titus, in the judgement of the most Learned Presbyterians, were Superior to the rest of the Clergy, within their Districts, at least in Jurisdiction, if not Order.  
— The Bishop presided over a City, and the adjacent Villages 
Id. p. 19▪  and Territories; where a Temporal Magistrate was likewise placed. As the Metropolis of every Province had its Proconsul in the State, so it had its Archbishop or Metropolitan in the Church. And when the Government of Patriarches prevailed, it was formed after the same Model, either in Imitation of the Vicars or Lieutenants that presided over a Diocese, composed of several Provinces; or at least in Imitation of the Praetorian Prefects that had several Dioceses under their Jurisdiction.  
All those that set up Altar against Altar, and hold Separate 
Saywel of Unity. p. 318.  Congregations contrary to the Law of this Church, are to be held as Schismatics, and were condemned for such by the ancient General and Particular Councils, and all the Catholic Fathers and Martyrs, and thought not sit to be received into Christian Communion, or accounted lively members of the Catholic Church.  
As 'tis a high crime to Affront a Judge duly Commissionated, 
Id. 395.  so it is no less than Rebellion for an able Lawyer, without a Commission, to assume to himself the Office and Authority of a Judge. And why it should be in Temporal Judges, and not in Spiritual appointed by God, as the Bishops are in the opinion of this Lord Chief Justice, [Hales] I cannot see; I am sure 'twas ever thought so by all sober Christians, till our unhappy Rebellion nursed People up in Schism and Disobedience.  
Were it [Episcopacy] but an Human Ordinance of yesterday, 
Thorndike prim. Gou. of Chs. p. 197.  established by due course of right, let me be bold to say, that if Aerius withdrew his Submission to it, he must come within Epiphanius' list of Heretics: not understanding an Heretic in St. Augustin's sense, to be none but he that will not believe some point of Doctrine necessary, as the means of Salvation, to be believed: but, according to the latitude of the Word, taking all to be Heretics that make Sects, and Assemble themselves a part besides the Church of God Lawfully Settled.  
As for Episcopal Ordination that was accounted as necessary, in the primitive Church, to the making a Bishop, Priest or Deacon, as Baptism to make a Christian: And unless the Dissenters can produce a better, that is, a more ancient Charter than the Bishops have, which I am sure they can never do, the sole power of Ordination must be still in them, and those that pretend to it must be Usurpers, and Consequently Schismatics.  
Dr. Sherlock says, but by what Authority I know not, That the 
Vind. of some Prot. Princ. p. 108.  Church of England does not deny, but that in case of Necessity, the Ordinations of Presbyters may be Valid.— But he says, with respect to the Dissenters, that the case of Schism is a different thing— and I believe, says he, Our Author himself will not say that Schismatical Presbyters may take this power, or that their Ordinations are valid, if they do. And this is the Case between us and the Dissenters: They ordain in a Schism; and tho' necessity may make an irregular Act valid, yet Schism will not.  
The Novatians were Episcopal and so were the Donatists (says Mr. 
Vindic. of the Prim. Ch. p. 330.  Baxter) and yet how have they been judged of for their Schism I need not tell: They are very much to blame that say the Presbyterians or Independents troubled the Primitive Church: It was impossible for them to be troublesome before they were at all: It seems all the Sects and Schisms of that time thought they had no right to pretend to be a Church, unless they had Bishops: But these Anti-Episcopal Separatists were reserved, it seems, for the last times, as the severest Curse, and Judgement that could befall the Church.  
Those Episcopal Schismatics indeed divided the Church, but These quite Dissolve it.  
It has been the Tradition and Doctrine of the Christian 
Saywel of Unity p. 324.  Church in all Ages, even from the Apostles time to this very day, that no Ordinations are valid or aught to be made, but by Bishops, to whom the greatest Authority of governing the Church is committed.  
I admire this [Episcopal] Government and Institution, because 
Faith and Practice of a Church of Eng. man Cap. 1.  under it I am in no doubt of the Validity of the Ordinations of our Ministers, Or of the Validity of the Sacraments by them Administered: For we have our Orders by a continued Succession from the Ancients, and so from the Apostles, which is the only ordinary way, that I know of, for a Man to be Commissionated to act in Christ's Name.  
I suppose no man will deny that all Ordinations in Schism, 
Thorndike's Rts. of the Ch. p. 147. Review of Mr. M. Hs. Notion of Schism. p. 50.  are Mere Nullities, tho' made by persons rightly Ordained, because against the Unity of the Church.  
We believe with St. Jerom, that the power of Ordaining belongs only to the Bishop, and your [Dissenters] Ordinations made by Presbyters are all Void and Null; and, till you can prove the Contrary, we take you for no more but a parcel of Lay-intruders into those holy Functions to which you have no right, (those of you only excepted who have been Episcopally Ordained.)  
In the first place, I must put him in mind, That as no Man 
Id. p. 51. Mat. 28. 18. Jo. 2. 21.  is to meddle with the Sacred Offices (Except he be called of God) no Man to preach except he be sent: So no Man is to call or send as from God, but he that is authorised by him for that purpose. Neither can I see any Reason, why a Man may not as well be a Minister of Jesus Christ, without any Mission at all, as by the Mission of those persons who never were sent themselves.  
I believe there never was any case of Absolute Necessity for Lay-Ordinations; 
Id. p. 53.  but if possibly such should happen as the Gentleman mentions, [of a Company of Laymen being cast upon an Island, or remaining in some Country, when their Pastors are all killed, or turned Heretics] I am apt to believe that Bishops and Ministers duly ordained might be had from other Countries, and if not, methinks it would be reasonable and fit, that we should first see what God would do in such Cases, before we presume to do any thing of ourselves, for which we have no Scripture warrant.  
Basil is so resolute upon his prerogative, that he will not endure 
Vindic. of the Prim. Ch. p. 550.  they [Chorepiscopi] should ordain as much as the Inferior Clergy, as Deacons, Subdeacons, Readers, and several others, which the Church of that time reckoned among the Clergy, without his consent; and if they do, let them know (says he) That whosoever is admitted without our Consent, shall be reputed but a Layman: What would he have said if they had pretended to ordain Presbyters or Bishops in opposition to them? The Bishops of the Church of England desire no more than St. Basil assumed, That none should be reputed Priests or Deacons that were ordained in their Dioceses without their Consent, and that by simple Presbyters, who were never Chorepiscopi, or had any Character to distinguish them from other Presbyters. Therefore the Case ought not to be reckoned so hard, as it is Commonly represented by the more moderate Nonconformists, who pretend this point of Re-ordination the only Bar that keeps them out of the Church, since there was never any other Church, not any in Ancient times would have received them upon any other terms: And they must have remained Nonconformists under Basil, Athanasius and all the Ancient Bishops, whose names are, and always have been had in Veneration with all Christians; not one of these would have ever been persuaded to own a Pastor that his Presbyters had ordained in opposition to him, nay hardly could they have been prevailed with to admit such as any other Bishop should ordain within their Diocese; So extreme punctilious they were in this matter; and there is hardly any one thing that caused so frequent and dangerous contentions between them as the point of Ordination.  
Q. May Orders given in a Schism be made afterwards valid?  
A. Thomas, as was said above, all Ordinations in Schism are 
Thorndike's Right of the Ch. p. 148.  mere Nullities, and though made by persons rightly Ordained, yet we find such Ordinations made valid, by the mere decree of the Church, without Ordaining a new, as the Meletians in Egypt, by the Council of Nice, in Epiphanius and the Church Histories; and as Pope Melchiades, much commended for it by St. Austin, offered, to receive all the Donatists in their own ranks, besides divers others that might be produced.  
The only reason why some things, though they be ill done, yet 
Id. ibid.  are to stand good, is, because the power that doth them extends to them, but is ill used. So when the power is Usurped, as in all Schism, or when that is done, which the Law makes void, it can be to no effect. Therefore when the Act of Schism is made valid, it is manifest, that the Order of Bishop and Presbyter, is conferred in point of Right, by the mere consent of the Church, which by the precedent Ordination was Conferred only in point of Fact, being a mere Nullity in point of Right.  
— It hath been often practised by the Church, to receive, 
Id. of Forb. p. 69.  not only Schismatics, but even Heretics also, (that is, Such as had received orders of those, that parted from the Church, upon an Error of Faith) in their respective Orders. But always upon Condition of Renouncing the Cause of their Division; whereupon they were to receive the Blessing of the Church, by prayer with Imposition of hands. The reason was because neither is Baptism in Schism effectual to Salvation, nor Ordination in Schism effectual to Grace, by Ministry of any Office in Schism. But being Renounced, there remains no cause, why their Ministry should not be effectual to their People; Their Baptism and their Ministry to their own Salvation; supposing it sincerely renounced. Therefore the reason why they who are Ordained by Presbyters cannot be received in their respective Orders, is peremptory; Because the Schism, Consisting in ordaining against Authority, cannot be renounced, unless the Ordination be voided. For so long as the Ministry may be 
Rev. of Mr. M. Hs. New Notion of Schism p. 47.  Usurped upon such Ordination, so long is the Schism on foot.  
I can see no reason why the line of Ordination may not pass thro' a Schismatical Church; for although by Schism people are out of the Church, and while they Continue so, cannot enjoy the benefit either of Ordination or Sacraments; yet to say, that both are absolutely destroyed, and Nullified; so that a Schismatic loses the Chracters, and can neither be a Christian nor a Bishop (i e) not the subject of Apostolical power, till he be again Baptised and Ordained, is an Assertion beyond all that I could ever yet meet with. The Meletians were Schismatics, and yet those ordained by Meletius were received into places where others died etc.  
I think that Orders and Regularity of Episcopal Succession 
Ans. to Seu. captain. Queries. p. 19  will suffice to make them Lawful Bishops, who for corrupting the Doctrine of the Church; shall not be allowed to be Good ones.  
Q. Whether Toleration will excuse from Schism?  
A. An Act of Parliament would deliver the Dissenters from 
Vind. Def. of Dr. St. p. 457.  Temporal Punishments, and might deliver them from the Sin of Disobedience to Civil Governors; But the guilt of Schism will remain still, unless he [Mr. H.] thinks the Donatists were not Schismatics, when Julian the Apostate with an uniting design, granted a General Toleration. So that this project may secure the Estates, but cannot secure the Souls of Dissenters; Schism will damn men, though they should get it established by Act of Parliament.  
There is nothing more or less in a Toleration, than a Suspensiou 
Norris Charge of Sch. p. 26.  of the Penal part of the Law, This is all that it Can do, and perhaps more than it ought. For I believe there aught to be no such thing as a Toleration, and that 'tis more than either the Church or State can Rightfully grant.  
We do not derive the Grounds of Obligation to Ecclesiastic 
Id. p. 80.  Communion from the Authority of the Civil Law, (tho' that must be allowed to add a considerable weight to the Obligation) but also, and chief from that of the Divine Law; which I conceive to be as positive and express in requiring Unity and Conformity of Worship, as in requiring any Religious Worship at all.  
No Licence given, no Toleration granted, no Exemption from 
Blackhalls Serm. on Jo. 6. 66. p. 14.  Temporal Penalties in case of Separation allowed by men, is sufficient to excuse from the guilt of Schism those that Separate from the True Christian Church, whereof they were Members, or to render their Schism no sin.  
Human Lawgivers may give leave to their Subjects to be of any 
Id. p. 15.  Religion, or to be of no Religion; but if they do, they can't make it Lawful in itself, either to be Atheists or to profess a false Religion, or to forsake the Communion of the True Church; for to believe a God and to worship publicly, and to worship him in the Assemblies of the Faithful, are Duties that are laid upon us by a higher than any humane Authority; and therefore no humane Authority can discharge us from them.  
The Law can take away and discharge us from no Obligation, but that which its self laid on us; so that all the meaning of the largest and most unlimited Toleration that the Law can grant, is no more than this viz, a Declaration that Men shall not be liable to any Temporal Mulcts or Penalties, or be any ways punished by the Civil Power, upon the account of any Differences in Religion, or for being of no Religion at all; but if antecedently to the establishment of any Church by the Civil Power, and if antecedently to the enacting any Penal Laws to oblige men to hold its Communion, it was Schism to separate without cause, from that Christian Church, whereof we were Members, and such Schismatical Separation was a Sin before God, then so it will be still, notwithstanding any Licence or Toleration that can be granted by the Secular Power.  
Toleration is not only a means to encourage those that are already 
Saywel of Unity. p. 137.  engaged in Schism, to continue so, but by experience is found the most effectual way to multiply new Swarms of Schismatics etc.  
When a particular Church enjoys a Civil Establishment, it receives, 
Letter about Regulating the Press. p. 22.  as it were, a new Authority; in as much as it becomes a Civil Right or Property: So that unless its Constitution is Materially vicious and sinful, it's a high piece of Injustice to destroy or infringe any of its Established Rights or Immunities. But yet since the Magistrate is only the Guardian, not the Founder of a National Church, (its Original Authority resting on certain positive Laws and Sanctions enjoined by a Power Superior to that of the Magistrate, even that of God Himself) wherever a Church in any Province or Nation, professeth the True Religion by an Orthodox Faith, and a pure worship under Lawful Church Governors and Pastors, that is the True National Church, in opposition to all Dissenting Sects and Parties; tho' it wants the Authority of a Civil Establishment.  
It is indisputably evident that the Christian Church is one Society, 
Id. p. 16.  or Body of Men united to CHRIST, and each other in certain External, as well as Internal and Spiritual Bonds of Union.  
It's certain one great design of Christianity, is Unity; or to range 
Id. p. 23.  all the Parts and Members of the Church of CHRIST into an Holy Building: and therefore if the Magistrate is Constituted a Guardian of the True Religion, all his offices of Succour and Protection must be directed to this end; I mean the Bonds of Catholic Unity, throughout his whole Dominions. Without this, the Great ends, and Proposals of so pure and holy a Religion, cannot be accomplished; and therefore whatever Indulgences or Exemptions the Christian Magistrate may rightfully grant to Erroneous Judgements, or Consciences, acted with simplicity and a pious Disposition; he cannot upon the Laws and Oeconomy of the Gospel, or any Authority derived to him from thence rightfully give a Positive establishment, within the Districts of the same Government, to two Opposite Communions or Altars of worship; especially when one of them is founded in a Revolt, from a Pure and Orthodox National Church. This is the very reverse to a Protector and Defender of the True Religion.  
So great a Sin did the Ancient Father's account Schism, before 
Apologet Vind. of Ch. Eng. p. 92.  the happy Union of the Church and Empire, when the Meetings of the Schismatics were as much Tolerated by the State, as the Meetings of the Catholics; and upon the same principle Donatism and Arianism were accounted as damnable sins every jot, under the Reigns of those Emperors, who granted Toleration to them, as under the Reigns of those who made Laws against them. Nay all the Laws which Constantius and Valens made in favour of Arianism, and for the Establishment of it, did not alter its damnable nature in the judgement of the Catholics; neither indeed is the obliquity of Schism alterable by Humane Laws and Constitutions, as being a Transgression of a Divine Positive Law, which God hath made for the preservation of the Body Politic of his Church, to which Schism is as destructive in its Nature, as Rebellion is to the State.  
Q. Whether Persecution or Force will Excuse from Schism?  
A. If the Church of England be a truly Catholic Church, 
Id. p. 91.  as the Divines of all Reformed Churches abroad will tell them [the Dissenters] She is, than they must be guilty of Schism, which is a Separation without a just Cause from the Church, as a Church, without any regard to the State. For Schism or Separation, without a just Cause, is a pure Spiritual Crime, and was reckoned a Damnable sin, before the Church Christian was united to the Empire, as also in those unhappy Intervals of Persecution, when the Church and Empire were disunited again. For Example, it was a damnable sin when St. Paul charged the Ephesians to keep the Unity of the Spirit etc. It was a damnable Sin when he told the Corinthians, That they were all Baptised by one Spirit into one Body, and that, as the Natural Body was made one by the Union of many Members in it, so also was the Body, meaning the Body Politic of Christ. It was a damnable Sin, when St. Ignatius taught the Churches, that nothing should be done without the leave of ●●e Bishop, or in opposition to him, and that, that was only a valid Eucharist which was administered by him, or by one licenced and appointed by him. And that Makers of Schism could not inherit the Kingdom of God. It was a damnable sin, when St. Cyprian called private Meetings, in Opposition to the public Conventicles of the Devil; and said that private Altars were no Altars; and that if a Schismatic should die for Christ, he could be no Martyr, nor have any right to the Crown of Martyrdom; for which he alleges the words of the Apostles, Tho I give my Body to be burnt, and have not Charity, it profits Nothing etc.  
When great Exigencies force men to do any thing which otherwise 
Id. p. 51.  they would not do, they are said to do it unwillingly, and to act against their Judgements and Inclinations; and particularly when for fear of ruining and Exterminating Penalties, which humanly speaking, are intolerable, men conform to any Religion, which otherwise they would disown; though as to outward Conformity and Communion, they are of it, yet they are not for it in their hearts. I Confess men ought to endure any thing, rather than to conform to any Religion, which they believe to be false, or subscribe to any Confession, which they believe not to be true, but yet we see the Frailty of humane Nature is such, that extreme severity will make them comply, against their Wills with a Religion they certainly know, and firmly believe to be false.  
No humane Law can make that Lawful, which God has forbidden; 
Vind. Ans. to the Kgs. Papers. p. 98. Id. p. 106.  nor that Unlawful which he has Commanded.  
No Church in the World can lay an obligation upon a Man to be dishonest, that is, to profess one thing and do another; which is Dissimulation and Hypocrisy. And no Church can oblige a Man to believe what is False, or do what is Unlawful; rather than do either he must forsake the Communion of that Church.  
Touching the Worship of God, since the Divine Establishment of 
Falkner's Christian Loyalty. p. 40.  the public Christian Service, is contained in the Gospel, no Authority upon earth hath any right to prohibit this. And those Christians, who rightly Worship God, in the true Catholic Communion, according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church, have a right to hold such Assemblies for the Christian Worship, as appear useful for the Churches good, though this should be against the Interdict of the Civil Power.  
Seeing Church Communion is a Duty laid upon us by God; it plainly 
Blackall Serm. p. 17.  follows, That no Humane Authority can release us from our Obligation to it.  
Sometimes Persecution itself is the most prolific Soil for the 
Letter about Regulating the Press. p. 14. Thorndi. Rt. Ch. 1. 5.  True Religion to shoot forth and flourish in: Christianity had not only its first Foundation in it, but we are assured, received great Increases from it.  
The primitive Christians frequented the service of God, when they were in danger of the Laws, because, that which the Laws forbade, was their Assemblies.  
The main point of that Charter which makes the Church a 
Id. p. 6.  Society is the Right of Assembling, and holding such Assemblies, without warrant, against all Law of the world that forbids it.  
The Christian indeed is obnoxious to the power of the Prince, 
Reflections on the Hist. pt. of Church-Governt. p. 50. Id. ibid. Thorndi. Rt. of the Ch. p. 233.  but Christianity is without the reach of his Sword.  
Passive Obedience is our principle, and if this renders the Legal Establishment of our Religion more obnoxious to the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate, yet it better secures our Common Christianity.  
The Head of every State is so absolute; over the Persons that make the Church, that the Independent power thereof, in Church matters, will enable it to do nothing against, but suffer all things from the Sovereign. And yet, so absolute, and depending on God alone, [is the Church] in Church Matters, that if a Sovereign, professing Christianity should not only forbid the profession of that Faith, or the exercise of those Ordinances, which God has required to be served with, but even the Exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power, which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church, it must needs be necessary, for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church, not only to Disobey the Commands of the Sovereign, but to use that Power, which their Quality, in the Society of the Church, gives them, to provide for the Subsistance thereof, without the Assistance of Secular Powers. A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the Ancient Church, in all those actions, wherein they refused to obey their Emperors, seduced by Heretics, and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them, to the prejudice of Christianity: Particularly in that memorable refusal of Athanasius of Alexandria, and Alexander of Constantinople, to admit the Heretic Arius to Communion, at the instant command of Constantine the Great. Which most Christian action whosoever justifies not, besides the appearance of favour to such an Heresy, he will lay the Church open to the same ruin, whensoever the Sovereign power is seduced by the like. And such a difference falling out, so that, to particular persons, it cannot be clear, who is in the Right, it will be requisite for Christians, in a doubtful Case, at their utmost perils, to adhere to the Guides of the Church, against their Lawful Sovereign, though to ●o other Effect, than to suffer for the exercise of Christianity, and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity.  
If it be here objected that this seems to strike at the King's 
Ob.  Supremacy etc. It may be answered that,  
Min. Tho Kings and Princes are not properly Officers and Governors 
An. A plain and fam. Disc. conc. the Cath. Ch. p. 6.  a distinct, Church, as a Church, it being not a Civil or Secular, but of Christ's Spiritual Society; yet to them is to be given the external management of this Society, a power to settle its outward Policy, and to be the Moderators and Governors of it: Upon this account the Great Constantine styled himself a Civil Bishop, as being chief concerned in the guidance and direction of the outward affairs of the Church. The Bishops and Pastors of the Church have their Ordination and decree their Commission from an higher Power, even Christ; but they Act and Exercise it under the Protection of the Supreme Magistrate.  
Our Writers divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal, the 
Reflect on Hist. pt. of Ch. Gou. pt. 5. p. 21.  inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience; or External, that which is practised in Exterior Courts; That proceeds by Spiritual Censures; This by force and Corporal punishments; That is appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Secular power; This is Originally inherent in the Civil Supreme, and from him derived to Ecclesiastical Governors. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, when said to be annexed to the Crown, aught to be understood in the latter sense.  
We of this Church depend upon the King and Parliament for 
Ans. to several Capt. Queries. p. 26. Id. p. 32.  the Legal Establishment of our Religion, but not for the Truth of it; the former is changeable, because men are so, but the latter is not so, because God changeth not.  
To destroy the Legal Establishment of a Religion is one thing, and to destroy the Religion is another, for all the Sacredness, that humane Law can give to a Religion is a Legal Sacredness, and no more, or if you please a Legal Establishment.  
The Church of England thinks no Acts which are Purely Spiritual 
Reflect. on the Hist. pt. of Ch. Gou. p. 18.  want the King's Concurrence; her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid Independently on all humane Authority. Her Charter she derives immediately from Christ. etc.  
The King is our Supreme Governor under God, but we know 
Answ. to several Capt. Qu. p. 37. Mason.  of no Supreme Governor that is to be obeyed absolutely, without any limitation whatsoever, but God himself.  
The King's supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters doth not imply the power of the Keys, which the King has not.  
By the Supremacy we do not attribute to the King the power 
Andrews.  of the Keys, or Ecclesiastical Censures.  
We never gave our Kings the power of the Keys or any part 
Bramhal.  of either the Key of Order, or the Key of Jurisdiction, purely Spiritual.  
Tho the Church is not endowed with any Coactive Power, by 
Thorndike Rt. of the Ch. p. 4.  Divine Right, yet by Divine Right, and by Patent from God it is endowed with a power of holding Assemblies for the Common service of God, before any Grant of the Powers of the World, and against any Interdict of them, if so it fall out.  
The State is endowed with no Ecclesiastical Right, though it hath 
Id. p. 41.  great Right in Ecclesiastical Matters.  
As no State stands by the Gospel, so, no Right, settled by the 
Id. p. 42.  Gospel, can belong to any State, or Person as a Member of any State.  
The Church subsisted 300 years before any State professed 
Id. p. 43.  Christianity, whatsoever Rights it used, during that time, manifestly it ought therefore still to use and enjoy.  
The whole Right of Secular Powers in Ecclesiastical Matters is 
Id. 168. Vid. Letter about Regulating the Press. p. 12, 20, 22, 24, 29. Reflections on Hist. pt. of Ch. Gou. p. 24.  not Destructive but Cumulative, that is, That it is not able to defeat or Abolish any part of that Power, which by the Constitution of the Church is settled upon Ecclesiastical Persons, but stands obliged to the Maintenance and Protection of it.  
The Power, by which the King Visits and Reforms, is not Spiritual, but Political; That a Power is not given him to Declare Errors, but to Repress them; That the Determination of Heresy is by Act of Parliament limited to the Authority of Scriptures, four first General Councils, and Assent of the Clergy i● Convocation; That the King hath not all the Power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Authority may be Lawfully exercised (for he has not the Power of the Keys) but a Power given him to reform all Heresies by Civil Authority, which the Church can do by her Spiritual. That it is impossible it should be proved that this Power of visiting and Reforming is a necessary Invasion of the Office of Spiritual Pastors, because when the Prince doth it by them, Commanding them to do the work, and exacting of them a discharge of their Duty, he doth this without Usurping their Office, and yet doth it by a Power, distinct from and Independent on theirs. And Lastly, that the 
See Letter about Regulating the Press. p. 12.  Prince is obliged to take care that all Acts of Reforming be Executed by their Proper Ministers, because else he transgresses the Power prescribed in this Statute [25. Hen. 8.] So to reform Errors as may be most to the pleasure of Almighty God.  
The Clergy did indeed [in Hen. 8 time] bind themselves not 
Id. p. 18.  to Promulge and Execute any Canons without the King's leave; but the Execution, of which they abridge themselves, is such as has Influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject, and therefore necessarily required the Concurrence of the Supreme Civil Power.  
It is confessed that the extreme of Raising the Ecclesiastical 
Id. p. 31.  Power too high, in the times of Popery, had now produced another of Depressing it too much. But this was the Infelicity of the Clergy, not their Crime.  
It is certain that before the Empire was Christian, the Church 
Burscough Episc. p. 12. Saywel of Unity. p. 138.  was governed by its proper officers, as a Society distinct from the State, and Independent on it.  
Who ever did account it Schism in the Gospel sense, and as the word is now used amongst Christians, to disobey the unjust Commands of the Civil Magistrate? Were Christ and his Apostles Schismatics? Were all the Primitive Christians Schismatics till Constantine's time? Nay, were there not Schismatics all that while the Church was a Society that had Laws and Government contrary to the Laws of the Secular Princes? For does not St. Paul tell the Corinthians that there were Schisms among them, and do we not find the Novatians accounted Schismatics, and many others long before Constantine's time? Nay moreover, were not the Arians Schismatics under the Reign of Constantius and Valens, though they had the Edicts of the Emperor to favour them, which were then of as good Authority as our Acts of Parliament are now with us? Or if we should ever have a Popish Parliament, that should command us to go to Mass, and abolish our present Constitutions, should we be Schismatics for not obeying them? I hope not, there's no such matter— Christ has Pastors and Teachers in his Church, and has promised to be with them to the end of the World, and commanded all good Christians to obey them— The Church did subsist before the Magistrates favoured it, and may continue again, though Kings and Parliaments should leave of to protect it.  
We only are the Poor, Tame, Dispirited, Drowsy Body, that 
Municip. Eccles. p. 119.  are in love with our Fetters, and this is the only Scandalous part of our Passive Obedience, to be not only Silent, but Content with an Oc— n of our P—rs which are not Forfeited, nor forfeitable to any Worldly Power whatsoever.  
The Sovereign Power of the Church consisting in the Sword 
Thornd. Rt. of the Ch. p. 40.  of Excommunication, upon which the Society thereof is founded, it is Necessarily manifest, that this power is not lost to the Church, nor Forfeit to the State that Professeth Christianity, and undertakes the Protection of the Church. For the Church and Civil Societies must needs remain Distinct Bodies, when the Church is engrafted into the State, and the same Christian Members of both, in regard of the Relations, Rights and Obligations, which is the same Persons, remain Distinct, according to the Distinct Societies, and Qualities of several Persons in the same. Therefore; as no Christian, as a Christian, can challenge any Temporal Right, by his Christianity, which, the State, wherein he is called to be a Christian, gives him not: So on the other side, no Man, by his Rank in any State, is invested with any Power, proceeding from the foundation of the Church, as it is the Church.  
So far as Excommunication concerns barely the Society of the 
Id. p. 237. Vid. Falkner's Chr. Loyal. p. 319.  Church, any Person, Capable of Sovereign Power is liable to it, upon the same terms as other Christians are, because, coming into the Communion of the Church, upon the same Condition as other Christians, the failing of this Condition, must needs render the Effect void.  
But, if we consider, either the Temporal force, by which it 
Vid. Cath. Bal. p. 110, etc.  comes to Effect, or the Temporal Penalties, which attend on it, to These, which cannot proceed, but by the will of the Sovereign, it is not possible that he should be liable.  
Princes, as well as any other Persons, must Submit themselves to 
Falkner's Chr. Loyal. p. 321.  the Power of the Keys, in the Undertaking the Rules of Repentance, so far as they are needful for procuring the favour of God, and obtaining the benefit of the Keys by Absolution.  
The Pastoral Office of the Guides of the Church, doth extend 
Id. 225. Vid. Cath. Bal. p. 118.  itself even to Kings, with respect to the conduct of their Souls; but yet this doth not exempt them from being under the Regal Sovereignty.  
The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows, we confess, from 
Animadv. on 8 Thes. p. 41.  their Ordination; but the Actual Exercise thereof in public Courts after a Coercive manner, is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes.  
As for Causes purely Ecclesiastical, the Bishop being Supreme in 
Vind. of some Prot. prin. p. 88 and Vind. Def. p. 183.  his own Diocese, there can be no Original Right of appeal from him, for there is no appeal from the Supreme: He has a free power in the Government of his own Diocese, and must render an account of his Actions to Christ, who is the supreme Lord of the Church as St. Cyprian tells us.  
While the Clergy Faithfully discharge their office, the Prince 
Animadv. on. 8 Thes▪ p. 52.  ought to Protect them; and if for this they suffer, no doubt but they are Martyrs.  
When the Civil Power will not own the Church, The Ecclesiastical 
Falkner Chr. Loyal▪ p. 45.  Governors, by their own Authority, may establish necessary Rules for Order, as in the Primitive times.  
Bishop Taylor tells us from Fulgentius, that when Frazamund King of Bisac in Africa, had made an Edict under pain of Death, that no more Bishops should be Consecrated, designing by that device to have the Catholic Faith rooted out of his Dominions; the Bishops of the Province, no way affrighted at the Edict, met together and Consecrated as many as were wanting, considering that those who were worthy of a Mitre, need not fear to do their Duty, when by so doing they are sure to receive a Crown of Martyrdom.  
If any such [Heretical or Infidel] Prince should design to dissolve 
Hill's Cath Balance p. 127.  our Succession, we have a Canonical right to preserve our Orders, and can but suffer Penalties, which may Oppress, but not Null or Vacate the Validity of our Ordination.  
No Temporal Christian Powers have any Authority in themselves 
Id. p. 121.  to Usurp, Extinguish, Pervert, Altar or Retard, but only to Inspect and Assist the regular operations of the Powers Hierarchical within its own bounds. So that whatsoever Offices thereof are Fundamental to the Catholic Faith, Charity, Union and Government of the Universal and each particular Church, and were received and practised for such in all Ages before the Empire became Christian, are not to be violated by any Acts of State. For if such violations were accounted Persecutions in Heathen Emperors and Princes, what can they be accounted in Christian one's? Of these Fundamental Rights therefore I shall subjoin some Momentous particulars▪  
1. It was a Primitive and Fundamental Power and Duty of 
See Municipium Ecclesiasticum printed 1697.  Bishops to convene in Synods without restriction.  
2ly. All Ecclesiastical Rights are so Spiritual, that they cannot be by Allowance and Approbation of God or his Church vested in any one in form of a Temporal Right, but only on this Condition, that the parties entrusted with them, continue in the Unity of the Catholic Church, and their own Provincial Bishops, as Prelates of it, having immediate care of their Souls.  
What Princes have no Rightful Authority to do, that they may 
Municipium Eccl. p. 100  irresistibly do upon an uncontrollable Domination and Impunity. Upon which, when they presume to repress our Rights and Liberties, if it be in matters Necessary, they are to be disobeyed in Fact, and submitted to as to their Legal Processes without resistance.  
The Church is Subject to all Commonwealths, where it is 
Thornd. prim. Ch. gov. p. 89.  maintained, in Temporal matters: In those which concern the Soul, whom shall we think our Lord leaveth her in charge with, but those whom he trusteth with the Keys of his House?  
Our Church acknowledges the King to be Supreme in all Causes, 
Ans. to several Capt. Qu. p. 36.  and over all Persons Ecclesiastical. viz. that no Quality in the Church, nor Cause of the Church exempts a Subject from the Secular Laws, and the Sword of Justice; which may be very true, as it undoubtedly is, yet all manner of Obedience in Religious matters shall not presently become due to the King. For when Sovereigns require the Subjects to do things contrary to Religion, if their Subjects give but one manner of Obedience to their Laws, which goes with us under the Name of Passive Obedience, it saves at once their Acknowledgement of the Sovereign's Supremacy over them, and of God's Supremacy over all. So that we are not obliged by our Oath to become Calvinists, etc. nor, in a word, to be of the King's Religion, but to submit to his Authority, let his Religion be what it will, etc.  
If by [the Parliaments] changing the Church of England, you mean, 
Id. p. 25.  that Parliaments can make the Religion, professed by the Church of England, to become a false Religion, when their Inclinations are once varied from us, than I tell you, that the Church of England is not changeable by English Parliaments, nor by all the Powers of the Earth: for this matter is fixed to their hands, and can never be unfixt to the end of the World.  
No Ordinance of Secular State can deprive our Church of its 
Hill's Cath. Bal. p. 99  essential Rights given us from God, but only lay Temporal Punishments on us, for the use of them, without their permission. Which if it be absolutely necessary for us at any time to do in Opposition to the State, Our Ecclesiastical Acts are not Null, but valid to all effects Purely Ecclesiastical, and we can but suffer, and despise the Penalty.  
The Romanists triumph that we have no Power to meet in 
Id. p. 122▪  Convocation without Royal Licence, nor at Liberty when there, to dispute one Question without the King's Allowance, nor are our Conclusions valid without the King's Ratification, whether Catholic, Heretic, Heathen, Turk or Jew, on pain, of hampering by Praemunire's, etc. But hear it is to be remembered, that these are Impositions of the State, for which the Church is not bound to advocate if they are Persecutions: but if men would be just, they would pass the most favourable interpretations on public Sanctions, and herein conclude, that these Statutes were intended; not for Persecution, but for Caution only against those extravagancies, which the Church had abused its freedom to, the Kings always graciously promising us, on request, opportunity, to Convene, and discuss our Matters, as to us shall seem Convenient, that we might have no cause to think that their Laws are intended for Persecution. And for the King's Ratification it is justly necessary, not merely to an Ecclesiastical effect, but that our Censures, for breach of these Canons, may be seconded upon the Contumacious by the Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo, etc. It being no reason that the King should be the Church's Hackney without any consent of his own.— But if any Prince should Pervert these advantages to a Persecution, we must then do our duty, and fear no Sufferings.  
We hold our Benefices by humane Right, our Offices of Priests 
Bramhal Vindic. Ord. p. 77.  and Bishops by Divine Right and Humane Right. But put the case we did hold our Bishoprics only by Humane Right, is it one of your cases of Conscience, that a Sovereign Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing, which they hold by Humane Right? If one man take from another, that which he holds justly by the Law of Man, he is a Thief and a Robber by the Law of God.  
The substance of what has been said upon these two last Queries amounts to this, 

1. That Toleration may excuse a Schismatic from the Penalty, but not from the guilt of Schism.  
2. That Communicating with Schismatics, because Tolerated, makes the crime less dangerous, but not less sinful.  
3. That, tho' Persecution or extreme Severity in Governors may make some men through humane frailty, to comply with a Schismatical Church, yet that will not excuse them from Schism in the sight of God; because they ought to obey God rather than Man.  
4. That, tho' the Prince be Supreme in Ecclesiastical Causes, yet he cannot alter Religion at his pleasure, or enjoin a Sinful Worship; and if he does 'tis not Sin, but a duty to disobey him.  
5. The Bishops and Governors of the Church in such a case, are bound to defend the Rights of the Church against him, as the Primitive Christians did against the Heathen Emperors.  
6. That all, even Kings, are liable to Church Censures.    
Q. Whether a Prince, being Excommunicated by the Church, may be Resisted, Deposed, or Murdered by his Subjects.  
A. It is contrary to the nature of Excommunication, tho' in the 
Falkner Christian Loyalty p. 316.  highest degree, that any person, and especially a Sovereign Prince, should thereby lose those Temporal Rights which are not founded in their relation to the Church. Indeed in Christian Kingdoms there are ordinarily some Temporal Penalties, and abatement of Legal Privileges inflicted upon the persons Excommunicate: But this is not the natural Effect of that sentence, but is added thereto by the Civil Government and Sovereignty, under which such persons do live. And therefore no such thing can take place with respect to Sovereign Princes, who have no Temporal Superior to annex this as a Penalty.  
Sovereign Princes are not liable to the Sentence of Excommunication, 
Id. 318.  in the same manner with Christian Subjects.— A Sovereign is capable of losing and forfeiting his relation to the Society of the Christian Church, as well as other persons; because as Mr. Thorndike (Rt. of the Ch. Ch. 4. p. 236.) observes he, as well as others, comes into the Communion of the Church, upon the terms and conditions of Christianity; and a failure in the condition must make the effect void— The effect of Excommunication is such, that it sometimes prohibits Converse among private persons; except in such Relations, as do not depend upon the Society of the Church, and therefore remain entire, notwithstanding the Separation, from that Society; as of Parents and Children, Husband and Wife, Master and Servant. And upon this Account, no Subject can, by virtue of Excommunication, be prohibited Converse with and discharge of all Duty and Respect to his Sovereign; because this is that which he owes him by the bond of Allegiance, and the Laws of Nature, Humane Society, and Civil Polity.  
As for the Objection, That Excommunicate Persons are not to be 
Thornd. Rt. of the Church. p. 238. Vid. Cath. Bal. 110. 111. and p. 20.  conversed with, by St. Paul's Rule, it is answered by all Divines, That it ceaseth, in such Relations (for example of Parents and Children) as more Ancient than the Society of the Church, which it therefore presupposeth: and so is to cease, in things necessary to Civil Society) which Christianity, as it presupposeth, so it enforceth, and not overthroweth.  
The Church of England always Declared against, absolutely Condemned, 
Oath of Alleg.  and utterly Detested, Abhorred and Abjured, that Damnable Doctrine and Position, as Impious and HERETICAL, That Princes who are Excommunicated by the Pope [or any other Bishop] may be Deposed or Murdered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever.  
Not only those Assertions which directly contradict the Articles 
Falkner Christ. Loyal. p. 326.  of our Creed, but those also which Oppose the Necessary Rules and Precepts of a Holy life, which are a Considerable part of the Christian Faith and Doctrine have generally been esteemed HERETICAL Doctrines in the Church of God.  
In the Council of Constance That Assertion, That an ill Governing 
Id. p. 329.  Prince may Lawfully or Meritoriously be killed, by his Subject or Vassal, was condemned as erroneous in Faith and Manners, and rejected as HERETICAL.  
Those who in Communion with the Church of England, embrace 
Id. p. 322.  that True Christian Doctrine, which was taught in the Primitive and Apostolical Church, are as far from being concerned in the crime and guilt of Heresy, as Loyal Subjects are from being Chargeable with Rebellion.  
Among all the HERESIES this Age has spawned, there is not 
Pref. to Vind. Ch. and State of Scot  one more contrary to the whole design of Religion, and more destructive of Mankind, than that Bloody Opinion of Defending Religion by Arms, and forcible Resistance upon the Colour of preserving Religion. The Wisdom of this Policy is Earthly, Sensual and Devilish, Savouring of a Carnal, Unmortified and Unpatient Mind that cannot bear the Cross, nor Trust the Providence of GOD.  
Have we some that deny the King's Supremacy, and hold it lawful 
Long's Char. of Sep. p. 36.  to Depose and Murder Kings? We own these Tenets and Practices to the Church of Rome.  
A Protestant Rebel (said the Blessed Martyr K. Ch. 1st) in the same degree of Rebellion with a Papist, hath far more to answer, as having more light, and it being more expressly against the Religion he professeth, whereof it hath hitherto been a Maxim (though it be now taken for Apocryphal Doctrine) not to take up Arms against their Prince upon any Pretence whatsoever.  
Our Lawgivers piously declare, That, By the Murder of our 
Letter about Regul. Press. p. 45.  late Dread Sovereign, the Protestant Religion hath received the greatest Wound and Reproach, and the People of England the most insupportable shame that was possible for the Enemies of God and the King to bring upon us. 12. Car. 2. c. 30.  
I do humbly offer to your Lordship's deliberate thoughts these 
Tillotson's Letter to my Ld. Russel in Newgate July, 20. 1683.  following Considerations concerning the Points of Resistance.  
First that the Christian Religion doth plainly forbid the Resistance of Authority.  
2ly. That though our Religion be Established by Law, (which your Lordship urges as a difference between our Case, and that of the Primitive Christians) yet in the same Law which establisheth our Religion it is declared, That it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms, etc. Besides that there is a particular Law declaring the Power of the Militia to be solely in the King. And that ties the hands of Subjects, though the Law of Nature and the general Rules of Scripture had left us at liberty; which I believe they do not, because the Government and Peace of Human Society could not well subsist upon these Terms.  
3ly Your Lordship's opinion is contrary to the Declared Doctrine of all Protestant Churches, and though some particular Persons have taught otherwise, yet they have been contradicted herein and condemned for it, by the Generality of Protestants, and I beg your Lordship to consider how it will agree with an avowed asserting of the Protestant Religion, to go contrary to the General Doctrine of Protestants etc.  
It is so notorious, that it needs not proof, that our rigid 
Dr. Pellings Good old way p. 115. Buchanan, Gilby, Goodman.  Sectaries have held it Lawful, not only not to Obey wicked Kings (whom they call wicked) but also to resist them, to take Arms against them, to have no further regard to them than if they were the most simple subjects within their Realms, to Excommunicate them, to Depose them, to Vn-king them, to take their Crowns and Thrones from them, and to Banish or Imprison them: For according to Buchanan 
De jure Regni.  and his whole Tribe, the Band being broken between the People and the King, he loseth all his Power and Authority which he had by Compact from the people. This is Jesuitism with a witness, or else we have been unjust in Charging this Doctrine upon the Jesuits.  
That the Authority of Supreme Lawful Magistrates is Divine 
Id. Serm. 30. Jan. 78. p. 13, 14.  is, and ever hath been, the plain and honest Doctrine of the Church of England. And I should have wondered how any wise man should not see it in the Homily against Rebellion, but that I do consider, that that Homily is a Looking-glass, wherein those, who have been Traitors, cannot but see their own guilt and Deformity, and therefore do not care to look at all into it.  
He that lifts up his hand against the Lord's Anointed strikes 
Id. p. 9  at the Face of God himself.  
Our Church doth not only teach [Nonresistance] as her own 
Vind. Ans. to the Kgs. papers. p. 89.  Doctrine; but which is more effectual, as the Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles and of the Primitive Church.  
If there can be no clear way of reconciling the Terror menaced by St. Greg. Nazianzen's Father, Bp. of Nazianzum against Julian's Captain of Archers, sent to rob and overthrow the Church of Nazianzum with the Rules of Christian Patience, yet perhaps there may be to reconcile it with Loyalty; for Julian was a Rebel against his Emperor Constantius— So having forfeited all Right of Succession to Constantius by Rebellion, and not being elected by the Lawful Army of Constantius, he was no other than as Oliver Cromwell had been in England, if all the Royal Family and Relations had been extinct. So that if it were not done like a Martyr, calmly to permit the Wolf to raven as he hoped, yet it was no opposition to any Lawful Prince, or His Commissioner, but an Usurper and his Elf: And for any thing I know, prudential and Venial, if no more than so, if not also laudable. And on this ground the Solemn Liturgies used openly against him, and the Commendations bestowed on him that Killed him, though one of his own Army, may be justified, not upon the Account merely of persecuting Christianity, had he been a Lawful Prince, but for that he was an Usurper only of the Empire, no Lawful Emperor according to the Rules of Imperial Election. etc. a Mere Oliver Cromwell and Tyrannical Intruder etc.  
The substance of what is said in answer to this Query is this,  
1. That Christian Princes, though they are liable to Church Censures, yet they are not to Temporal Penalties, as Deposition, Exile, Death.  
2. That the Doctrine of Resisting and Deposing Lawful Princes, upon pretence of Excommunication, or any other pretence whatsoever, is Damnable and Heretical, contrary to the Laws of this Realm, and contrary to the Doctrine, not only of our Church, and all Protestants, but of Christ and his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians.  
3. That the Crown [in Hereditary and Successive Monarchies] 
Faith and Practice of Ch. Eng. man. cap. 6.  descending from Fathers to Children, whether Males or Females, is not liable to be Disposed, Alienated, or Sold; nor doth it depend on any Election, or Choice of the People.  
4. That Monarchy hath at least as good a Title to all its Powers, Rights, and Privileges, as any of its Subjects can have to their Honours, Properties and Estates, and if Subjects lose no Temporal Rights by Excommunication, certainly Princes ought not.  
Q. Whether the People are not obliged to Communicate with the Established Church, if Superior in Number to any other Communion, and more firmly United?  
A. If the Established Religion be Corrupt in Doctrine and Worship, as in Popish Countries, or Schismatical, as in some Protestant Kingdoms and States, they ought not to Communicate with them, tho' their Numbers be never so great, and they never so closely United. For if it be sinful to Communicate with a false, or Schismatical Church (as it certainly is) its being established can never make it no Sin.  
It is not the great Number of Church Members in any Diocese, 
Apologet Vind. Ch. Eng. p. 37.  Province or Patriarchate, but the Cause and Nature of the Communion that makes a True Church.  
— As I observed before, it is not the Number of Communicants, 
Id. p. 39  but the Cause or Soundness of Communion that makes a true Church▪ and therefore were there both for Kind and Number, ten times as many more Opposite Sects and Communions, as there are in this Nation, and Bishops at the Heads of them all, yet upon Supposition that the Church of England is sound and Apostolical in Doctrine Worship, and Discipline, that small number, adhering to her Communion, must be the True Church. Nay if all the Bishops of England, but One, should fall away from the Church of England, that One Bishop, and the flock adhering to him, would be the True Church of England, and as True and Catholic a Church, as if there were not one Dissenter in the Land. 
Ans. to several Capt. Quer. p. 12. Id. p. 16.   
Truth is to be followed with a Few, if there are but Few the follow it; but thou shalt not follow a Multitude to do evil.  
Truth is the same and changeth not, whether they be Few or Many that profess it; and our Religion stands not in a Multitude of Pretenders, but in a Holy Doctrine and a Holy Practice, whic● all aught to follow, even when the most do not.  
He who denies that the Major part of the Guides of the 
Reflect. on Hist. part of Ch. Gou. pt. 5. p. 96.  Jewish Church erred, must also deny Christ, since by such Church Authority he was rejected. He who will determine the Prince to Judge always with the Majority of Church Guides obligeth him in Elijah's time to establish Baalism; and at other time's Calf-Worship.  
If truth be always on the side of the greatest Number, 
Blackhalls Serm. p. 6.  which was the True Church in Abraham's time, when he was of a Religion by himself? Was it in his small family, or amongst the Idolatrous Nations, that dwelled round about him; or which was the True Church in all that long tract of time from Moses to our Saviour? was it not Confined to a very small spot of Land, even when it was at its largest extent? And that again Contracted to a much less compass in Elijah's time, when there were not in ten of the Tribes of Israel, above 7000 men who had not bowed the Knee to the Image of BAAL. 1 Kings. 19 18.  
Again if that be always the True Church, which is the Largest, 
Id. ibid.  time was when the Arian Heretics were the true Christian Church, and the Orthodox Professors of Christianity (who were but a very few in Number in Comparison with them) were Consequently miserably deluded, and rank Heretics.  
In the Text we are told, that many of our Lord's Disciples 
Id. p. 5.  (probably not fewer than 5000) went away from him at once, and (as far as appears by the History) there were only 12 that remained with him, a very small number in comparison with the great Multitude that went away; and yet there can be no doubt, but that these were the True Church, and that they which went 
Vind. pr. Ch. p. 151. The Protestant Religion vindicated from the charge of Singularity and Novelty in a Sermon preached before the King at Whitehall by Dr. Tillotson▪ April. 2▪ 1680.  away were Schismatics.  
Multitude may render a Sect Formidable, but 'tis but a poor Argument of Right.  
Suppose we were by much the Fewer: So hath the Church of God often been, without any the least prejudice of the Truth of their Religion. What think we of the Church in Abraham's Time, which for aught we know was confined to one family, and one small Kingdom, that of Melchisedeck King of Salem? What think we of it in Moses' Time, when it was confined to one People wandering in a Wilderness? What of it in Elijah's Time, when besides the Two Tribes that worshipped in Jerusalem, there were in the other Ten but Seven Thousand that had not bowed the Knee to Baal? What in our Saviour's Time, when the whole Church consisted of Twelve Apostles, and Seventy Disciples, and some few followers besides? How would Bellarmin have despised this little Flock, because it wanted one or two of his goodliest Marks of the True Church, Universality, and Splendour? And what think we of the Christian Church in the Height of Arianism and Pelagianism, when a great part of Christendom was overrun with these Errors, and the Number of the Orthodox was inconsiderable in comparison of Heretics? But what need I urge these instances? As if the truth of Religion were to be estimated and carried by the Major Vote; which, as it can be an Argument to none but Fools, So I dare say no Honest and Wise man ever made use of it etc.  
The Revolt [to Donatism] in all parts of Africa, was so general 
Apologet. Vind. p. 20  that the Catholic Communions looked more like Conventicles, than the Catholic Church.  
It is not bare Union, but the things in which a Church is united, 
Id. p. 45.  that must truly recommend and justify it to the Christian world, and prove it to be the Church of God.  
I believe there never was a more perfect Union and Agreement 
Id. p. 46.  in the Church of Rome [or in any other Church] than among the Israelites which worshipped the Golden Calf; nevertheless it was no Schism to divide from them, because they United in a Sin. Their Union was their Crime.  
The Corahites were as firmly United under Corah, as the True 
Id. p. 47.  Church was under Moses and Aaron— The ten Tribes were as firmly united at Bethel, as the two were at Jerusalem; they had Number, as well as Union, to plead, but, notwithstanding both their Number and Union, they were but a great Schism, because they united in Innovations, contrary to the will of God.  
There hath been at several times as strict an Union among 
Id. 47.  Heretics and Schismatics, as among the Catholics.  
The Novatians in particular were remarkable for their Concord, Unity and Unanimity. So were the Arians generally all of one Communion, and very Unanimous against the Homousian Doctrine, and yet they were but a great prevailing Schism when they were at the highest, and had almost gained the whole Christian World.  
From these examples 'tis plain that in passing Judgement upon 
ibid.  Churches we are not to look at the Union, so much as the Cause in which they are united. We are to Consider if their Doctrine and Discipline be Apostolical, and their Terms of Communion truly Catholic, and if they be so, than their Union in them is Holy and Laudable, and such as makes them the true Churches of God. A Concurrence of these things is the genuine Badge of a truly Catholic and Apostolical Church.  
The worst Fraternities have sometimes the firmest Union; as 
Id. p. 55.  we of this Nation very well remember the Time, when those of the Great Rebellion boasted, that God had united the Hearts of his People in his Cause, as one Man; nevertheless those pretended People of God, whose Hearts and Hands were so United, that we could not break their Bonds of Union asunder, were no better than a Band of Rebels, and their Cause downright Rebellion against God, and the best of Princes, though they acted in it as if they had been all informed with one Common Soul. The like hath often happened in Ecclesiastical Societies: The Samaritans, who had neither Sadduces nor Phraisees, nor Essens nor Herodians, nor Cabalists nor Carraites among them, for that reason had a firmer Union among themselves, than the Church of the Jews had, and yet they were not the True Church. So among the Ancient Christians, The Novatians lived in perfect Peace and Unity among themselves, when there were many Feuds and Contentions among the Catholics: which shows that bare Unity is not a good Test whereby to try Churches.  
The Sum of what is said upon this Query is,  
That 'tis Soundness in Doctrine, Discipline and Worship that makes a True Church, and not Number and Union.  
Q. Whether a well-meaning Christian may not now and then, or Occasionally Communicate with a Schismatical Church?  
A. We must not give countenance to the Church Assemblies 
Sanderson's Case of the Liturgy p. 190. Vind. Def. of D. St. p. 5.  [of Schismatics] by our presence among them, if we can avoid it.  
Now if there be but one Catholic Church all the World over, than every Separation is a Schism on one side or other; for where there are two Separate Churches, one, if not both, must be Schismatical, because there is but one Church: And if the Unity of this Church consists in one Communion, which exacts a joint discharge of all the Duties of a Church-relation, in Hearing, and Praying, and Receiving the Lord's Supper, etc. together, then to forsake the Church and meet in private Conventicles, in Distinct and Opposite Communions, for Religious Worship, is Separation; and when it is Causeless, is a Schism.  
You cannot be in Communion with two Churches which are in 
Sherl. Resol. of some Cases.  a State of Separation from each other— for to be in Communion with a Church is to be a Member of it, and to be a Member of two Separate and Opposite Churches, is to be as contrary to ourselves, as those Separate Churches are to each other.  
Wherever there are distinct and Separate Communions and 
Def. of Dr. Still. p. 235.  Churches, which do not own Church-membership with each other, but, though they live in the same place, yet divide into several distinct Congregations, under different Governors and Opposite Orders and Rules, there is certainly a Schism on one side or other: where there are two distinct and opposite Communions, one of them must be Schismatical, because there ought to be but One.  
To assert that there are more True Churches than one (how large 
Def. of Still. p. 63.  or narrow soever the bounds of it be, which were not very large in the first Institution of a Church, and may be reduced again to a narrow Compass, by a general Apostasy) is to justify Schism by a Law; for then there may be Distinct Churches, and Distinct Opposite Communions without Schism, which is the most Schismatical Principle in the World, if Christ have but One Church and One Body.  
It is impossible to join in Communion with such men without 
Ans. to Protest. Recon. p. 332.  Judging and Censuring those whom I believe, in those very Acts of Worship, in which I join with them, to be either Superstitious or profane, and therefore tho' such men should worship in the same Church, or Religious Assemblies, yet they do not worship in One Communion.  
It is hard to understand, if occasional Communion be Lawful, that 
Mischief of Separ. p. 56.  constant Communion should not be a Duty.  
Q. Whether Salvation may be had out of the Church?  
A. It is Universally agreed that there is no Salvation to be had 
Sherl. disc. of Nat. Vn. and Communion etc. p. 41. Lowth's Catechism.  out of the Catholic Church.  
Infidels, Jews, Turks, etc. that never were in the Church; Heretics that have forsaken or Corrupted the Faith, that was once delivered to the Saints; Schismatics that have divided themselves; and Excommunicate Persons that are Cut off from the Communion of the Church, without Reconciliation, cannot be saved. For most certain is that Rule of St. Cyprian and St. Austin, He shall not have God to be his Father, that will not have the Church to be his Mother.  
We cannot run our Spiritual Race unless we be in the Church, 
Sherl. Dis. of Nat. un. and come. of Cath. Ch. p. 28.  for there is no Prize, no Crown to run for out of it. And therefore those who lose, as well as those who win the prize must be in the Church and Members of it.  
Catholic Communion is our Union in one Body, and Communicating 
Vind of Prot. Prin. p. 34.  in this one Body is the exercise of Catholic Communion, which those who do not, if there be not a just and necessary Cause for it, are Schismatics for all that, whatever their Faith and Worship be; and Schism is a Damning Sin.  
To disobey our Governors, the Bishops and Pastors of the 
Long's Char. of a sep. p. 90.  Church, etc. hath been ever in the Church of God accounted Schism, and that Schism Damnable.  
We [Church of England and Rome] are thus far agreed, that 
Preface to Vind. Ch. E. from Sch.  Schism and Heresy are dangerous sins, destructive of the Peace and Order, the well being at least, if not the Being of God's Church, and such sins, as without a true and timely Repentance, will unavoidably and eternally ruin those that are guilty of them.  
The Being and Wellbeing of the Church are incompatible 
Apolog. Vind. etc. p. 93.  with Schism, and it is not only Evil because God hath forbid it, but God hath forbid it, because he knew it was Evil and pernicious in its Nature to his One Catholic Church.  
Wilful Schism is in all Cases a Damning Sin. 
Vind Def. p. 401. & 415. Ans. to Prot. Rec. p. 192. Vind. Def. p. 389. Sher. Ans. to Anonym. Vind. Def. p. 60▪ Sherl. Vind p. 111.   
Wilful Schism puts men out of the State of Salvation.  
Christ has made Schism a Damning sin to give Authority to the Church.  
Separation from the Church of England is a Schism, and Schism is as damning a Sin, as Idolatry, Drunkenness or Adultery.  
The Church which is the Schismatic, according to the language of the Primitive times, is out of the Catholic Church Extra Ecclesiam foris.  
All Ministerial Gifts are for the Edification of Christ's Body, which supposes, that their Efficacy, and Influence is confined to the Communion of the Church, and does not reach the Conventicles of Schismatics.  
The Increase and Edification of Christians is in the Unity of 
Id. Ibid.  the Church, and Consists in the increase of Brotherly Love and Christian Charity, Virtues which cannot be learned in a Schism. etc.  
Christ's Church was never enlarged yet by the preaching of Schismatics, 
Ans. to Pro. Reconciler p. 419.  which divides and lessens the Church, but will never enlarge it.  
There is no doubt, but the Spirit of God is departed from 
Long's Char. Sep. p. 13. Hellier's Treatise of Schis. p. 55.  him, who is departed from the Unity of the Church.  
Schismatics have not the kind Influences of the H. Spirit, whereby the Church is governed. Whence not only all their Gifts, but all their Good works are utterly spoiled and come to nothing. As a part cannot retain its sense and life, when it is out off from the Body; as the Branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in the vine; as a Rivulet is soon dried up when separated 
Jo. 15. 4.  from the fountain; as a Ray cannot subsist, when taken away from the Sun; so neither can a Schismatic Reap any profit 
St. Cyp. de Vnit. Eccl.  from his Gifts or Good works, when separated from the rest of the Church of Christ.  
Some are not sensible that it is any great harm to go amongst them [i e Schismatics] to pray with them, or to hear the Gospel 
Id. p. 57  Preached. But to join with them in those, otherwise, Holy offices, is the way to become partakers of their sins, Their Sacrifices shall be to them as the Bread of Mourning, all that Eat thereof shall be polluted. Where two or three are gathered together in Christ's Name, there is He in the midst of them; not when they are gathered against his Name, and against the other Members of the Church. Such men's Prayers are not only ineffectual but execrable.  
Their Prayers and Preaching and other parts of Divine worship 
Id. p. 58.  being performed in Opposition to the other Members of the Church, are turned into sin; and They Come together, as the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11. 17.) in a Division of Theirs, not for the Better but for the worse.  
The efficacy of the Prayers of the Church, depends upon the 
Thorndike's Rt. of the Ch. p. 120. Id. Disc. of Forbearance. p. 27.  Unity of the Church.  
It is agreed upon by the whole Church, that Baptism in Heresy or Schism, (that is, when a Man gives up himself to the Communion of Heretics, or Schismatics, by receiving Baptism from them) though it may be True Baptism, and not to be repeated, being given in the Form of the Church; yet is not Available to Salvation; making him accessary to Heresy or Schism, that is so Baptised.  
We being many are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers 
Sherl. vind. p. 109. 1 Cor. 10. 17.  of that one Bread; and upon this account it is called the Communion of the Body of Christ— And therefore the Body of Christ cannot be received in a Schism. For where there is a Schism, it is no longer one Bread and Body, nor the Communion of Christ's Body when it is divided into different and Opposite Communions. That which is the Common Bread of all Christians must be received in Unity and one Communion; for it loseth its Nature, Virtue, and Efficacy in a Schism.  
If our Saviour would not allow any man to offer any Sacrifice 
Id. p. 110.  to God, who had a private quarrel with his Brother, till he had reconciled himself to him, how unlikely is it, that God will hear the Prayers of those men who are at variance with the Church of God, and divide the Communion of it?  
Schism indeed we do say, is a damning sin; but there may be 
Sherlock's Serm. Nou. 4. 1688. p. 22.  Divisions where there is not always the Gild and Formality of Schism; and we hope this is the Case of all good men, who separate from the Church, thro' some invincible prejudices and prepossessions.  
— If men be sincerely honest and do fall into Schism, thro' an 
Ans. to Prot. Reconciler p. 153.  Innocent mistake, God will be merciful to them, which secures the final happiness of Good men.  
The substance of what has been said in Answer to these two last Queries is this, 

1. That if Christ has but One Church, out of which Salvation is not ordinarily to be had, than all Christians are obliged, as they tender the Salvation of their Souls, to keep entire Communion with that One Church, and not to run, for fear, Worldly interest, or wantonness, from the Church to the Conventicle, and from the Conventicle back again to the Church.  
2. That if neither Prayers, Preaching nor Sacraments have any Efficacy or Virtue, unless administered in the Unity of the Church, Nay if they are pernicious and Execrable, it behoves all Dissenters to forsake and renounce all their Schismatical Meetings, and to reconcile themselves to the Church.  
3. That if those only, who thro' Ignorance and prejudice, or the like, Communicate with Schismatics, may, and that by God's Extraordinary Mercy too, be saved, than those who are guilty of Wilful Schism, or, wantonly gad from the Church to Schismatical Conventicles, and are therefore really members of no Church, are in a desperate Condition.    
SIR,  
According to my promise, I have given you the Opinions of some of our Eminent Episcopal Divines upon all your Queries; and could have added many more if needful, and upon the whole you will find that they are fully agreed, that those who forsake either the Communion of Lawful, and Canonical Bishops, and set up others in Opposition to them; or wholly reject the Order, are notwithstanding any Dispensation, Exemption, Toleration, or even Legal Establishment, Complete Schismatics.  
To conclude, Communion is the Strength and ground of all Society, whether Sacred or Civil: whoever therefore they be, that offend against 
Long's Answer to Hale p. 84.  this Common Society, and Friendliness of men, and Cause Separation and Breach among them, if it be in Civil occasions, are guilty of Sedition or Rebellion; if it be by occasion of Ecclesiastical Differences, they are guilty of Schism.  
Therefore let you and I and all Good Christians and Loyal Subjects pray, as our Church in her Litany directs, from all Sedition, privy Conspiracy, and Rebellion; from all false Doctrine, Heresy and Schism, Good Lord deliver us. And Let us beseech Almighty God that he would be pleased to bring into the way of Truth all Such as have erred, and are deceived; to strengthen such as do stand; to comfort and help the weakhearted; to raise up them that fall, and finally to beat down Satan (the Author, and Abetter of Schism and Rebellion) under our feet— I am,  
SIR, Yours &c.   

Postscript.  
SIR,  
UPon the Review, I find myself obliged to beg your pardon for two things. The one, for not Answering your Queries in the same Order as you proposed them, and for adding one or two of my own. The other, for making my References so very short. ` As for the First, I shall presume upon your pardon, because it was done with a good design, viz. to make the whole more clear and intelligible. As for the other, I think I have atoned, by sending you, together with the Abbreviations, the Titles at length of most of the Books, the Booksellers Names, the Years when Printed, and the Author's Names, where they are set to the Books; and, where they are not, the Names of the supposed Authors, in Crotchets, as you'll see by the following Catalogue.  
Feild of the Ch. Of the Church five Books by Richard Feild etc. the 
Fol. ●  2d. Edition, at Oxford, imprinted by William Turner etc. 1628.  
Ham. of Sch. The 2d. Vol. of the Works of the Reverend and Learned H. Hammond D. D. the 2d. Edition London printed for R. Royston and R. Davis in Oxford 1684.  
Bishop Lon. Try. A true Narative of all the proceed against the Ld. Bp. of London in the Council Chamber at Whitehall, by the Lords Commissioners appointed by his Majesty to inspect Ecclesiastical affairs. London, Printed and are to be sold by Randal Tailor near Stationer's-Hall. 1689.  
Dr. Lloyd's Serm. on Act. 2. 42. A Sermon preached before the King 
Quarto▪  at Whitehall Nou. 24. 1678. by William Lloyd D. D. and Dean of Bangor and Chaplain etc. London, printed for H. Brome 1679.  
Still. Misc. Separ. The Mischief of Separation, a Sermon preached at Guildhall Chapel, May 2. 1680 before the Lord Mayor by Ed. Stillingfleet, D. D. Dean of St. Paul's, etc. London, printed for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard, etc. 1680.  
Still. unreason. Separ. The Unreasonableness of Separation: or an impartial account of the History, Nature and Pleas of the present Separation, etc. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Paul's etc. London, printed for H. Mortlock. 1681.  
Differ. Case. The Difference of the case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome, and the Separation of Dissenters from, etc. by Dr. Claget. London, printed for Tho. Basset and Fincham Gardiner. 1683.  
Prot. Resol. Faith. Protestant Resolution of Faith, in Answer to three Questions, etc. by Dr. Sherlock, London, printed 1685.  
Ans. to the Kgs. Paps. An Answer to some Papers lately printed concerning the Authority of the Cath. Church in matters of Faith and Reformation of the Church of England [by Dr. Stillingfleet] London, printed for R. Chiswell. 1686.  
Vind. of Ans. to the Kgs. Paps. A Vindication of the Answer to some late Papers concerning the Unity and Authority of the Cath. Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England [by Ed. Stillingfleet D. D.] London, printed for R. Chiswell. 1687.  
Apologet. Vind. Ch. Eng. An Apologetical Vindication of the Church of England: in Answer to those who reproach her with the English Heresies and Schisms, or suspect her not to be a Catholic Church, upon their account [by Geo. Hicks D. D.] London, printed for Walter Ketilby, 1687.  
Vindic. Ch. Eng. from Sch. A Vindication of the Church of England from the foul Aspersions of Schism and Heresy unjustly cast upon her by the Church of Rome, pt. 1st. [by Mr. Altham] London, printed for Luke Meredith. 1687.  
Plain fam. Disc. A plain and Familiar Discourse by way of Dialogue betwixt a Minister and his Parishioner, concerning the Cath. Church, in three parts etc. by a Divine of the Church of England [Dr. Freeman] London printed for R. Clavel and B. Took 1687.  
Ans. to Reas. and Author. An Answer to a Book entitled Reason and Authority: or the Motives of a Late Protestants Reconciliation to the Cath. Church, etc. in a Letter to a Friend [by Dr. Bainbrigg] London, printed for Brab. Aylmer. 1687.  
Animadvers. 8 Thes. Animadversions on the Eight Thes. laid down, and the Inferences deduced from them in a Discourse entitled Church Government. Part 5. lately printed at Oxford [by Mr. Atterbury] Oxford, printed at the Theatre Anno. 1687.  
Reflect. Hist. pt. Ch. Govern. Reflections on the Historical part of Ch. Government, part 5. [by Mr. Smadge,] Oxford, printed at the Theatre, Anno. 1687.  
Reform. justif. The Reformation of the Church of England justified according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, and other General Councils, and the Tradition of the Cath. Church, being an Answer to a Paper reprinted at Oxford, called [The Schism of the Church of England] demonstrated in four Arguments, etc. [by Dr. Saywell] Cambridge, Printed for Ed. Hall, 1688.  
Discourse Nat. Unity. etc. A Discourse concerning the Nature, Unity, and Communion of the Cath. Church wherein most of the Controversies Relating to the Church are briefly and plainly stated pt. 1st. by Will. Sherlock. D. D. and Master of the Temple. London, printed for William Rogers 1688.  
Several Capt. Quer. Several captious Queries concerning the English Reformation first proposed by Dean Manby, etc. briefly and fully Answered by Dr. Claget. London, printed for James Adamson. 1688.  
Cath. Bal. The Catholic Balance; or a Discourse determining the Controversies concerning, 1. The Tradition of Cath. Doctrines. 2. The Primacy of St. Peter and the Bishop of Rome. 3. The Subjection and Authority of the Church in a Christian State, etc. [by Mr. Hill of Killmanton in Somersetshire] London, printed for R. Clavel 1687.  
Sherl. Serm. Nou. 4. 88 A Sermon preached before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, at the Guildhall Chapel on Sunday Nou. 4. 1688. by W. Sherlock D. D. Mr. of the Temple. London, printed for Will. Rogers, 1689.  
Vindic. some Prot. Princ. A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church Unity and Cath. Communion from the charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome [by Dr. Sherlock]  
Ans. to Anonym. A Letter to Anonymus, in Answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church Communion.  
Rev. M. H's. new notion. Sch. A Review of M. H's. new Notion of Schism, and the Vindication of it. London, printed for E. Mory, 1692.  
Hellier's Treat. Sch. A Treatise concerning Schism and Schismatics, etc. by Hen. Hellier D. D. fellow of CCC. Oxon. London, printed by R. Smith for John Crosley Bookseller in Oxford. 1697.  
Blackall visit. Serm. A Sermon preached at Brentwood in Essex Oct. 7. 1693 at the Visitation, etc. by Offsp. Blackal. 2d. Edition. London, printed for W. Roger's 1699.  
Necess. Regul. Press. A Letter to a Member of Parliament, showing the necessity of regulating the Press, Oxford printed 1699.  
Thorn. Weights and Meas. Just Weights and Measures, That is, the present State of Religion weighed in the Balance and measured by the Standard of the Sanctuary, according to the opinion of Herbert Thorndike. The 2d. Edition. London, Printed for J. Martin. 1680.  
Def. unreason. Separ. A Discourse of Church Unity being a Defence 
8vo.  of Dr. Stillingfleet's unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to several late Pamphlets but Principally Dr. Owen and Mr. Baxter, by a Presbyter of the Church of England. [Dr. Sherlock] London, printed for R. Chiswel. 1681.  
Vindic. Def. unreason. Separ. A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob etc. by the Author of the Defence. London, printed for R. Chiswell. 1682.  
2d pt. unreasonable Separ. The Unreasonableness of Separation: The 2d. part: or a further impartial Account of the History, Nature, and Pleas of the present Separation, etc. [by Mr. Long] London, printed for Dan. Brown at the Black Swan and Bible, without Temple Barr. 1682.  
Vindic. prim. ch. A Vindication of the Primitive Church and Diocesan Episcopacy in Answer to Mr. Baxter's Church History of Bps. etc. [by H. Maurice D. D.] London, printed for Moses Pitt. 1682.  
Ans. to Prot. Reconciler. A Vindication of the Rights of Ecclesiastical Authority being an Answer to the 1st. part of the Protestant Reconciler by Wm. Sherlock D. D. Mr. of the Temple. London, printed for Abel Small. 1685.  
Falkner's Christ. Loyal. Christian Loyalty: or a Discourse wherein is asserted that just Royal Authority, etc. by Wm. Falkner preacher at St. Nicholas in Lyn Regis. London, printed for Walter Ketilby 1679.  
Vindic. Ch. and State of Scotld. A Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws of the Church and State of Scotland in four Conferences, etc. By Gilbert Burnet Professor of Theology in Glasgow. Printed by Robert Sanders printer to the City and University 1673.  
Bram. Just Vind. A just Vindication of the Church of England, from the unjust Aspersion of Criminal Schism, etc. By Bp. Bramhal. London, printed for John Crook 1645.  
Thornd. Rt. of the Ch. A Discourse of the Right of the Church in a Christian State: By Herbert Thorndike. London, printed for Octavian Pulien 1649.  
Thorn. of Forbear. A Discourse of the Forbearance or the Penalties which a due Reformation requires. By Herbert Thorndike, etc. London, Printed for James Collins, 1670.  
Doctr. Sch. Doctrine of Schism fully opened and applied to gathered Churches, etc. By the Author of Toleration not to be abused by the Presbyterians. London, printed for James Collins and sold by Abish. Brocas in Exon. 1672.  
Long's Char. Separatist. The Character of a Separatist; or Sensuality the ground of Separation. By Tho. Long B. D. and Prebendary of St. Peter's Exon. London, printed for Walter Ketilby 1677.  
Long against Hales of Schis. Mr. Hales' Treatise of Schism Examined and Censured by Tho. Long. B. D. and Prebendary of Exeter. London, printed for Walter Ketilby 1678.  
Faith and Practice Ch. Engl. man. The Faith and Practice of a Church of England man. London, Printed for W. Ketilby 1688.  
Thorndike prim. Ch. Gover. Of the Government of Churches a discourse pointing at the Primitive form. Printed by Roger Daniel Printer to the University of Cambridge. 1641.  
Norris Charge Sch. Charge of Schism Continued [by Mr. Norris] London printed for Sam. Manship at the Black Bull over against the Royal Exchange. 1691.  
Saywel of Unity. Evangelical and Catholic Unity, maintained in the Church of England: or an Apology for her Government etc. By William Saywell D. D. and Master of Jesus Coll. in Cambridge. London printed for Robert Scott and Awnsham Church-hill. 1682.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 9 line 13. r. Roman. p. 33. l. 12. for distinct, r. of Christ's Church. l. 13. for of Christ's Church, r. distinct. p. 36. l. 2. for of, r. off. p. 37. l. 18. for Bisac, r. Brisac. p. 45. l. 4. r. himself. Marg. p. 43. r. Hill's Cath. Bal. p. 107.