A TREATISE CONCERNING Schism and Schismatics; Wherein the Chief Grounds & Principles Of a Late SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH of ENGLAND, ARE Considered and Answered. By Henry Hellier, D.D. Fellow of C.C.C. Oxon. LONDON, Printed by Richard Smith for Jo. Crosley Bookseller in Oxford, MDCXCVII. A TREATISE CONCERNING Schism, etc. THERE have been many Discourses published about Schism since the late Revolution, and most of them by Men averse to the present Government; who have quoted divers Sentences out of the ancient Fathers, which they say, make against us; although they will serve, according as the case is differently stated, either of one side or the other. They call us who do approve of the present Government, Schismatics; and themselves the Church of England, who have separated themselves from it; accusing us of Immoralities in our Prayers; of all the mischiefs that are done in the Wars; of setting up Anti-Bishops; concluding that we are without the Church, and that there is no Salvation to be had among us in the ordinary way. Wherefore it can be no unseasonable work to inquire into the nature of Schism impartially, and into the ways whereby Men may become Schismatics, in order to the clearing such as are innocent from this Offence, and to the charging it in the right place, and on the Persons that are truly guilty of it. And seeing our Adversaries have taken so much liberty of Speech against us, as after they have called us Schismatics, and said we are in a state of Damnation, to boast of and print Catalogues of their Books unanswered; It is but reasonable that any Man on our part should be heard also, that hath a mind to speak, without being blamed only for writing against them, much less for indifferent stating of the case; for they have given sufficient cause for both: But this latter is the thing which I principally intent to do; namely, to give a state of the Case, or to consider the rational part of the Subject; which seems hitherto to have been most neglected, although it is of the greatest use. For if the nature of Schism in general, and the ways whereby Men do become Schismatics, are once well understood, it will be easy to explain the Sentences commonly quoted out of the Fathers, and to make use of them if we please, against our Adversaries; or it will be lawful to reject them, although there will be no need of that; for there are none of them that I know of, which, after a Man hath duly considered of the Subject, will seem to favour them. Therefore to make a general Discourse on this Subject, and also to include particular matters within as short a compass as conveniently may be, I shall endeavour to show. 1. What Schism is, and how the Members of the Church may become guilty of it. 2. I shall speak something also of the sinfulness and inconvenience of it, to the intent that we may avoid it. 1. Let us consider what Schism is, and how the Members of the Church may become guilty of it. As for the word Schism, it signifies properly the cutting or cleaving of a solid Body, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; hence it is translated to denote diversity of Opinions and Professions, in those that once appeared at least to be agreed in them; for they that never were united, cannot be said to be cut asunder. And according to this metaphorical Acceptation, Schism is a breach of Unity in any Society whatsoever: But common use and custom hath applied it only to that which divideth the Unity of the Church. Yet not the bare Separation, but giving the cause of Separation, makes the Schism. Wheresoever a Schism is, each Party is divided or separated from the other, but each Party is not in a state of Schism; that is, doth not give the cause of Separation, unless it so falls out, as it sometimes may, that both of them are in fault, neither doing its part towards the maintaining of Agreement, so far as is necessary to be preservation of Unity, in order to one common end. Now, as many ways as there are, for the Members of the Church to profess themselves united one with another, with relation to matters concerning them, as they are the Church and Congregation of Christian People: So many there are also for one or more Members to become Schismatical, by breaking off that Union in outward profession, which is a Duty incumbent on them, I speak of Union which relates to Matters concerning them, as they are Members of the Church: Whence, not every passionate Heat, not every Quarrel, not every Suit of Law, not every War, not every Faction or Sedition among the People doth make a Schism. I speak also of Union in outward Profession: For, tho' there is an internal Union and Communion of all God's faithful People, in regard they have the same Faith, and the same Hope, and do practice the same Christian Virtues; and in default of these, or any one of these, a Man in some sort cuts himself off from those faithful People, and from the Portion which doth belong to them, and so the secret Infidel, and the secret Sinner, may be said to be separated now; for they are none of Christ's, and shall hear that Sentence in the separation of good and bad Men hereafter, Depart from me, for I know you not: Yet this is a matter not peculiarly belonging to Schism, but common to it with every other Sin, and therefore, in that Sense I shall not now consider it, but only as it is a Breach of external Communion, and Separation as to outward Profession; although this may be committed as well as any other Sin in the Mind also, by a Man's intending or purposing to leave the outward Communion of the Church, when perhaps he hath not as yet actually done it. Now, as the outward Unity or Communion of every Society appears in the apt Order of the Members one with another, and Demeanour one towards another, according to their respective States and Conditions, as in one House, one City, one Kingdom: So does the Unity of the Church consist in men's acting according to their just Relations, as Members of the Church, in keeping fair Correspondence, and retaining a due Agreement in Doctrine of Faith and Morals, and in Discipline; that is to say, Church-Government, and the things that belong to it, as being requisite to the due Administration and right Management of it. And this Unity is consistent with several things, seemingly dividing Persons as Members of the Church, and that partly even in the aforesaid respects; with diversity of Spiritual Gifts and Functions; with diversity of Opinions, as to Matters of Religion; with Ecclesiastical Disputes and Contentions; with various Judgements and Resolutions, as to particular Circumstances and Cases relating to Moral Actions; with Canons and Constitutions of divers kinds; with difference in Ceremonies, or other parts of Discipline in divers Countries, or divers Parts of the same Country, according to the several Exigencies of Affairs, and according to the Discretion or Approbation of the Governors Civil or Ecclesiastical, as it doth concern them. All these things may be, and yet the Church continue still the same, as the Queen in a Vesture of Gold-wrought about with divers Colours. Yea, Church-Censures may go on, and Persons be Excommunicated; and yet, unless they wilfully continue under Excommunication, no Schism be made; because they do not cut themselves off from the Church, but are cut off by others; and therefore are not as Schismatics, A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, T●. 3.11 Condemned of themselves, as the Apostle speaketh. Schism therefore is a wilful breaking off of that outward Unity, which one or more Members ought to maintain with the rest. A Schismatic or Schismatics are, that one, or those many Persons, who do publicly refuse to act according to his or their just Relations, as Members of the Church, in the station wherein they are placed. Or, to speak more briefly, a Schismatic is that Member of the Church, which disowns and cuts itself off from the rest; either contemning and rejecting the other Members, 1 Cor. 12.21. as if the Eye shall say to the Hand, I have no need of thee; or again, The Head to the Feet, I have no need of you: Or else encroaching and breaking in upon the Rights of other Members, as if the Foot shall say, V 15.16. because I am not the Hand, or not the Head, I am not of the Body, and will not be of the Body: Or Lastly, refusing to communicate its Office to the rest, not distributing to the Necessities of the Saints, not suffering and rejoicing with the other Members, the Members not having the same Care according to their different places and capacities one for another, 1 Cor. 12.25. according to the Expression of the Apostle. To know therefore who is a Schismatic, and who not, it will be necessary to consider, in some general Terms at least, the Relations wherein Men may be, and the several Causes or Pretences of separating, with regard to such Relations, declaring withal, so far as in a short Discourse of this Nature conveniently may be, which are unlawful, and which are good and sufficient. And First, As there is an Unity in general, which ought to be maintained by all Christian Churches throughout the World, they being all reconciled to God in One Body, Eph. 2.16. 1 Cor, 12.13. and Baptised into One Body, and made to drink into One Spirit, and being called One Body, 1 Cor. 10.17. 1 Cor. 12. 2●. whereof our Lord is the Head, Eph. 4.15, 16. from whom the whole Body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every Joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the Body, unto the edifying of itself in love. So there may be a Breach made of this Unity by any particular Church, and thereby whole Churches may become Schismatical. Whole Churches in respect of the whole Body of Christians, have such Relation, as single Members have, with Regard to any particular Church: They therefore, as well as single Members of particular Churches, may fall into Schism, when either in express Terms, or by necessary consequence, they break off their Communion and Friendly Correspondence with the rest; which may be done several ways, 1. By professing a different Faith: Or, 2. Different Agenda or Morals. 3. By different Church-Government; either as to the Species or kind of Government, or as to the manner of exercising of it. 1. They may become guilty of Schism, by professing a different Faith, or appointing different Creeds in any Material Point from other Churches: For Christian Communion doth not require, but forbidden us to have Fellowship with those who do not hold the Truth, as to the Substantials of Christian Religion. The Body of Christ hath but One Faith; and considering that the main Points of Faith have such Influence upon our Lives and Actions, and are of so high importance to every one of us, we ought to Contend earnestly for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, Jud. 3. and to withdraw our selves from those who teach otherwise, 1 Tim. 6.5. and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 6.3. and to the Doctrine which is according to Godliness. Not but that Christians may differ, and dispute, and err about Matters of less Moment, or ways of explaining the True Faith not so clearly delivered, without either actually separating themselves from the Church, or deserving to be cut off from it, except they do oblige Men to concur with them, and to profess a Belief of their Errors: For than we may, and aught to departed from them; it being not lawful for any one, to profess he believes that to be true, which at the same time he takes to be an Error, even in a matter of the smallest moment. 2. They may become guilty of Schism, by making wrong Professions de Agendis, or concerning Morals: For none ought to concur with any Man, or any number of Men, in that which is immoral. Concord is only commendable in that which is good, not in that which is evil. To profess an Immorality, is not only to do an immoral thing, (the profession of it being a sinful Act) but it is worse than doing the same immoral thing that is agreeable to such Profession: It is a sin committed with deliberation, greater than commonly precedes the Act of Sin; it makes us persevere and continue in sin; it tends to the seducing and destroying others in a more eminent degree than the Act. If any Man therefore shall teach Doctrines manifestly contradictory to any part of the Moral Law; if a Man says, instead of, Honour thy Father and Mother, Thou shalt not honour thy Father or thy Mother: Instead of, Let every soul be subject to the Higher Powers; Let some men not be subject to the Higher Powers, and maintains this Doctrine in Opposition to the Members of his own or other Churches, he is a Schismatic. But he that allows of those Precepts, and knows not who is his King, or who is his Father, is mistaken in the Person, not in the Commandment; or at most, he is only mistaken about the Laws of the Land, which (tho' they do oblige in Conscience when known, yet) it is not every Man's business, nor doth lie in every Man's power perfectly to understand: And an Error in these, does not always imply a misunderstanding the Commandments of God. He that errs in Explication of some Moral Points; as, in showing, How a Man must honour his King or his Father, or in setting the Bounds and Measures of Obedience to them; or in such a matter as I am now about, in stating the Case of Schism, is not presently to be esteemed guilty of Schism: For a Mistake, though professed in Matters less principal, either of Faith or Morals, unless it makes void the general Commandment, or some plain Article of Faith, will not make a Man a Schismatic. If it did, considering how little some do understand how to explain the Articles of their Faith, how apt those that have a competent understanding of them; are to differ in their manner of explaining them, how various men's Notions are about several Points of Casuistical Divinity, and Commentaries on Morals contained in the Commandments; and how difficult it is to suppose, that Men will be agreed in every Circumstance of them, the Church would always abound with Schismatics, and there would be no remedy for it: Such things therefore are to be born with in all Communions, as being unavoidable in this Life, where we are subject to Errors, and our Knowledge is only in part; unless the Doctrines be of very ill and dangerous consequence, obstinately taught, and earnestly pressed upon us, and our Concurrence required in them, as a Condition of Communion. But what shall be interpreted Concurrence? He that hears a Man preach false Doctrine in the Church, or read an Homily, wherein something is said against his Opinion; or he that hears something in the Common-Prayers, or in the Pulpit-prayer before Sermon, which by reason of some Circumstances he does dislike, cannot be said to concur in all Doctrines so taught, or in all Prayers so put up: And therefore, it is not a sufficient Cause to make a separate Congregation, that we dislike the Title given to the King, or any other Person there mentioned; nor are these immoral things in their own nature, but on the account of Circumstances of men's doing them against their Consciences, etc. And indeed, I do thus far agree with our new Separatists, That whosoever thinks the King to be an Unjust Possessor, and to keep the Rightful One out of the Throne, ought not to be so much as present at our Public Fasts, Thanksgivings, etc. whilst he continues under that Error, because no Man ought to act against his Conscience: But even such an one hath not sufficient reason to forsake our Communion altogether, unless he be forced to give consent to something that he thinks unlawful, offered up in the Public Prayers, which a Man's bare presence doth not always imply: For then almost all those things that I excluded in the beginning of this Discourse, would produce a Schism. We shall not have a Dispute about a Prince's Title, a Civil War, or War with a Foreign Nation, or so much as a Suit of Law, or Quarrel with our Neighbour, or a Design thwarting his in the common Transactions of Human Life; but there will follow also among us different Apprehensions and Opinions concerning the justice or injustice of them; and consequently, concerning certain passages in our Public Prayers which relate to them; and thereupon we may think it unlawful to say some words, or at least to take them in the same sense that others commonly do, and so make a Schism: And when there is a Division of the Church, whereby New Pastors and Governors are introduced, and lay claim to the same Dioceses or Parishes, how shall it be reconciled, although the Differences that occasioned it should be brought to an end? How many would our Divisions be, if all the Factions that ever were in the State, should have made a Schism in the Church also? But these indeed are Matters which are not simply immoral in their own nature, but only by reason of Circumstances relating to particular Persons; neither do they tend to the Overthrow of the Church's Faith or Morals; nor are they of long continuance; but as particular Persons or their circumstances alter, cease of themselves. And therefore such Prayers, if not very many and frequent, aught to be tolerated, even by those by whom they may not be said, to avoid a greater Evil, viz. The Destruction of the Church, and lasting Depravation of Piety and good Morals, the natural consequences of Separations made from the Church upon the account of them. Much less may we separate ourselves from all those who are any way guilty of immoral Actions, as some * The Novatians, Donarists, etc. Schismatics pretended to do of old: But I think we have had none such among us of late, unless they may be esteemed of this Number, who hold themselves obliged to separate from us, only † See the Unreasonableness of the new Separation, p. 1. because we have taken Oaths which they account unlawful. A Separation from all bad Men, is not only unreasonable, but in this Life, impossible. Hence the Church of Christ is compared in H. Scripture to a Floor, Mat. 3.12. on which is Wheat and Chaff; Luc. 3.17. to a Net, which receives Fishes good and bad; to a Marriage Feast, Mat. 13.47, 48 to which many are called, but few of them are chosen; to a Fold, having in it both Sheep and Goats; Mat. 22.14. to a Great House, wherein are not only Vessels of Gold and of Silver, Mat. 25.32, 33. but also of Wood and of Earth; and some to Honour, 2 Tim. 2.20. and some to Dishonour: Wherefore we may not pretend to separate ourselves from all those that do immoral things; for then, as the Apostle says, We must needs go out of the world. 1 Cor. 5.10. Nor if Men do such things, must they thereupon be accounted Schismatics, or to have departed from the outward Communion of the Church? But if they make them Terms of Communion, or persist so long in them, as to give a just occasion of Church-Censures upon them, and wilfully remain under those Censures. Lastly, by Agenda, or Morals, I would not be understood, to mean that only which is obligatory in its own nature, but that also which obligeth on the account of Divine Institution, as the Sacraments; by diminishing from which, or adding to them, Men break the Unity of the Church of God, and make it unlawful for others to join with them. They trespass indeed against Faith and Morals also, taking away from Men the Seals of God's Covenant, the Tokens of his Favour, the Pawns and Pledges of the Performance of his Promises, appointed by himself for the quickening of our Faith, and sacrilegiously robbing God of the principal and most memorable Part of his Worship, whereby we declare in most Solemn Manner, a Belief of his Promises, and vow Obedience to his Commands, whereby we put on the Badges and distinguishing Marks of our Christian Calling. These are therefore the strictest and highest Bands of Union, from which St. Paul in divers places infers the Unity of the Church: We being many, are one Body and one Bread; for we are all partakers of that one Bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. And again, By one Spirit we are all baptised into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be Bond or Free, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit, I Cor. 12.13. And both these kinds of Schism; namely, such as are constituted by professing Errors in Faith or Morals, do imply Heresy also, and may be called by either Name, according to our different Consideration of them; as they do imply false Doctrine in Matters necessary to Salvation, obstinately persisted in, Heresy; as the are accompanied with Separation from the Church, or do give a just Cause of Separation, Schism. Heresy and Schism are seldom long asunder. There are few Heretics but will endeavour by separate Congregations to propagate their Heresy; or Schismatics, but will frame to themselves some New Doctrine, the better to justify their Separation from the Church, as * On. Tit. 3. St. Jerom observed. The Apostle seems to use both these Words in the same Sense, 1 Cor. 11.18, 19 I hear that there be Divisions (the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be also Heresies among you, &c, And certainly every Heretic, openly professing and maintaining his Heresy, whether he is able to get a separate Congregation or not, may be called a Schismatic; and a Schismatic persisting in his Schism, will be very apt to fall into Heresy, according to the forecited Passage of St. Jerom. 3. Whole Churches, as well as single Persons, may incur the Gild of Schism, by their differences about Church-Government; sometimes as to the Species or kind of Government, and sometimes as to the manner of exercising it. Sometimes by a different Species or kind of Government: As for Instance; When they do recede from Episcopacy, and break wilfully the Line of Apostolical Succession: For in so doing, they cause probably great Disorders within themselves, and in other Churches also, by losing the Bands of Union among themselves, and hindering good Correspondence with other Churches, by taking away the chief Pillars and Supporters of that Correspondence, and tacitly disappointing their sort of Government, tempting some of them to dislike it, and to endeavour a Change for that which is likely to prove much worse instead of it, as on many other accounts so particularly, because it hath not the Examples of the best and purest Ages to maintain it. But tho' Churches may sometimes be Schismatical on this account, yet they are not always so in this Case: For there may be a just Cause of breaking off that outward Succession, where the Profession of the true Christian Faith, and of good Morals, must be otherwise utterly wanting; the preservation of which, is declared in the Holy Scriptures necessary to Salvation, not the manner of Government so declared; consequently, this cannot be equally necessary to all People. This, in case of a general Corruption, or sometimes on the Account of the Members of the Church being dispersed abroad, perhaps cannot be had: And must Men Continue in such Corruption, for fear of breaking off Succession? Or fall into a state of Damnation, for not being able to preserve it? What Uncertainties will some men's Doctrine make all the Advantages we can receive from Christianity, and finally our Salvation to depend upon? Sometimes on the Goodness of a a King's, sometimes of a Bishop's Title, and sometimes on the Regularity of Succession. How unreasonably are Men condemned, whom God hath not condemned, and declared to be in the state of those that never heard of Christ, even although they do perform all the Gospel Conditions? Only because they have not among them a certain Order, which is not absolutely necessary to the Being, *— What hath perished of the Outward From or Body of Government, being lost without any fault or guilt of theirs, (their Infelicity, which they could not prevent, and not their Crime voluntarily brought upon themselves:) This sure will never be looked on by God as any dangerous want of Order, or as that which shall be any way chargeable upon them. Order is required to the Wellbeing, not necessary absolutely to the Being of a Church; and orderless or secret Society of Brethren, may be a Church still, as any number of Converts in a City, before the Apostle, which was gone to some other City, had yet placed any Governor over them. Dr. Hammond's Second Defence of the Treatise of Schism, Ch. 6. S. 11. but only to the Wellbeing of the Church. It is not where commanded, although it seems indeed to the approved of by our blessed Saviour in the Apocalypse ‖ ● Rev. ch. 2. , and is plainly enough made out to have been instituted by the Apostles, and hath been found by Experience a very strong Band of Union, in respect of the Universal Church, and particular ones too, where it hath had its just Authority: Not but that the Succession in some places hath failed, or been interrupted, (I do not except the Church of Rome itself, which doth boast so much of it) and may fail again; or we may departed from it when it cannot consist with Succession of true Faith and good Morals, without an utter and irrecoverable loss of the Advantages of the Christian Religion, the Church of Christ, or the ordinary hopes of Salvation. And although no Man ought to assume to himself a Power of Governing the Church of God, but stay till it is regularly conferred upon him; yet, where there is a general Deficiency and Apostasy from the Profession of the true Faith and sound Morals, and they who are to confer this Right, are themselves corrupted also, and will not give this Power to any that are willing to reform it; in such extraordinary cases of general Apostasy, (which, how far it may possibly reach, I will not here dispute) Persons, Priests at least, who have Gifts and Abilities for it, have a sufficient Call to interpose themselves, and are not to be blamed, but highly commended for making use of it. Sometimes again, there may be a Schism made by the ill Exercise of Church-Government; by a Churches refusing to hold Communion with the rest, or unjustly censuring and excommunicating them, or disobeying General Councils, the Representatives of the whole Church, in matters which they have a lawful Power to determine; by usurping too great Authority over the rest; by assuming the Name of Catholic to itself, in opposition to all other Churches; by making such unreasonable Terms of Communion, as that others shall not be able to communicate with it; by encouraging and upholding Persons excommunicated, or deservedly declared Schismatics by other Churches; by wilfully continuing in Faults, and under just Excommunication incurred thereupon; by refusing to keep friendly Correspondence with other Churches, as in Communicatory Letters, (which are in order to the well governing of the Church) and the like. And it is about the Exercise of Church-Government, that Schism is generally conversant: All Schisms of particular Members of the Church, considered as distinct from Heresies, are about Church-Government; and commonly about the Exercise of it, being occasioned either, 1. By Superiors contending for Power; or, 2. Misemploying their Power; or, 3. By Inferiors Disobedience to the Power. 1. By Superiors, Civil or Ecclesiastical, contending for Power: The Civil Governors usurping that which belongs to the Ecclesiastical, or the Ecclesiastical that which belongs to the Civil, or the Ecclesiastical Governors contending with one another; For the Contention of Civil Governors, considered only as such, i. e. about their own Rights and Titles, will not constitute a Schism, nor give a just occasion for a Separation; although some have lately, as it seems, taken occasion to make a Schism on the account thereof, whose Principles are partly considered in that which went before, and will be farther in that which follows, according as they shall be found under their proper Heads. 1. It may be committed by Civil Governors, invading the Power and Authority of the Ecclesiastical: For although it be true, that every one of the Clergy is subject to the Civil Governors; I mean, to that one or more Persons in whom the Supreme Power is lodged: Yet there are some parts of their Office, which no King or Prince can assume to himself; as The Power of the Keys, the Power of Ordination, of administering the Sacraments, of officiating as Priests in the Public Worship of God, and other such like; which if they undertake without being lawfully called thereunto of God, they are guilty (among other sins) of the sin of Schism; and we may say unto them, as the Priests did to Vzziah, when he went to burn Incense upon the Altar; It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn Incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense, 2 Cor. 26.18. II. There is a Schism made when Ecclesiastical Governors deny the Authority of the Supreme Civil Powers; for they have the care of the Church also, being Custodes utriusque Tabulae, and appointed to be nursing Fathers of the Church. Our Obligation to every Human Law is derived from the Divine; and seeing Religion is the support of all Government, and the foundation of all Justice * Quod in Religionem Divinam committitur in omnium fertur injuriam, l. 4. ● de Hereticis. and Peace, it cannot but belong to their care. They therefore that shall deny them that Power, which is annexed to their Imperial Dignity; To reform Abuses in the Worship of God, and in the Clergy; to constitute Bishops and Pastors; on occasion, to depose or deprive them; to call together and to preside in Councils; to dispense with their Canons, to rescind or alter them as they see a just occasion: All which things Christian Kings have done, and that upon good grounds. If these are indeed the Powers of the Sovereign, as it may be proved † You may see all this very well proved in Grotius, de imperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra. And good part of it is owned by the Author of Christian Communion, p. 26, 27.29. and elsewhere. they are, then, they who deny them these Powers, and assume the same to themselves, are Schismatics: Such are therefore the Papists, who by virtue of their Ordination, pretend to be gotten out of the power of Princes, and independent on them; yea, to be above them, and to govern them in temporalibus in ordine ad spirituale bonum, ‖ Bellarminus de Rom. Pont, lib. 5. cap. 6. Papa potest mutare regna, & uni auferre, atque alteri confer, tanquam summus Princeps spiritualis, si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem. ibid. by which Claim they show the unreasonableness of all the rest, in effect confessing that to the right management of the Spiritual, there is a necessity of an overruling Temporal Power, which they would therefore get unto themselves. III. Ecclesiastical Governors become Schismatics, by contending for Power among themselves: As for Example; When one Bishop lays claim to the Diocese of another, setting up himself, or suffering others to set him up an Anti-Bishop, erecting Altar against Altar, according to the ancient Phrase. And in some Elections indeed it hath been difficult to know who was the Anti Bishop; and the Emperor upon such an occasion, hath caused † The Case of Bonifacius and En●●lius, Baron. Ann. 419. §. 15. both of the Contenders to departed out of the City; yea, after having called a Synod * Henricus Secundus in italiam cum magno exercitu veniens, habitâ Synedo, cum Benedictum nonum, Sylvestrum tertium Gregorium sextum tanquam tria teterrima menstra abdicare se inagistratu coegisset, Syndegerum Bambergensem-Episcopum, cui Clementi secundo appellatio fuit Pontificem create. Platina de vitis Pontif. 155. Pont. Clemens Secundus, Syndegerus antea vocatus, Bambergensis Episcopus in Synodo Pontifex creature, annuente Henrico Secundo vel impo●ante, &. co●●n●e potius. ●●●m 156. Pont. , he hath deposed at one time three, that have pretended a Right to the Papacy, and created a fourth instead of them, to preserve the Peace of the Church. But there is not always the same difficulty to know who is the true Bishop: As for instance; If a Bishop resigns or gives up his Diocese, and after the vacancy thereof another be put in his room, he cannot afterwards come back and lay claim to a Diocese so given up, any more than to one that he never presided over at all: And therefore, in that case it is plain enough, that he is the Schismatic, or the Anti-Bishop, that comes to put in any such claim. And a Bishop is under the same Circumstances, who is put out of his Diocese by sufficient Authority, and is under the same guilt of Schism, if he comes to make a second claim to the same Diocese. For it is very clear, that if he be deprived by a sufficient Power, he is in the same condition, as if he never had been their Bishop. Such an one therefore, who has been so deprived, if he shall return and say to the People; I am your true Pastor still; you ought to obey, not this Man that hath succeeded, but me; He is justly to be esteemed a Schismatic, and so are consequently all they that do defend him, and adhere to him. I know there have been two things urged, and are chief insisted upon, in defence of a Separation of this nature; 1. * This is the Sum of what is objected in the first Part of Christian Communion. That Bishops, though deprived to Temporalities, are not divested of their Spiritual Power; that it is their Duty, expressed by their Titles of Watchmen, Messengers, Shepherds, etc. in holy Scripture to make use of that their Power, in order to the Extirpation of Immoralities; which according to the Opinion of those who hold the present King to be only King de facto, and the other to be King de jure (whom they suppose to be the major part) must necessarily, as they say, follow, by praying for the King de facto, the unjust Possessor, as they understand it, against the King de jure, the rightful King, in the public Prayers, especially on the more solemn days of Fasting, Thanksgiving, etc. 2. They (having * Christian Communion, pag. 8. professedly waved the Question about the King's Title) do urge, that the Deprivation of Temporalities merely by a ‖ This objected in the Second Part. Lay-power is invalid. † This is inferred from the fomer Principles in the Third Part. Therefore the old Bishops retain still their Right, the others are Anti-Bishops and Schismatics that are set up against them. As to the First of these Objections, I answer, 1. That the Author who makes it, seems to have misunderstood the Treatise called The unreasonableness of a new Separation on the account of the Oaths, etc. which he quotes in divers places and deservedly commends. Wherefore I shall repeat something out of it. An Usurper is one, The Unreasonableness of a new Separation, etc. pag. 30. who comes in by Force, and continues by Force. A King de jure is one, who comes in by lineal Descent, as next Heir, and whose Right is owned and Recognized by the Estates of the Realm. A King de facto is one, who comes in by consent of the Nation, but not by virtue of an immediate Hereditary Right; but to such a one being owned and received by the Estates of the Realm, the Law of England, as far as I can see, requires an Allegiance. So then a King de facto doth not signify an unjust Possessor, for he is King jure optimo; By such a Right as supersedes the bare right of Inheritance not recognized by the Estates of the Realm; By such a Right as all the Laws which make our Allegiance due to a King de facto do confirm, by such a Right as implies sometimes, and particularly in the present Case, an express and free Consent of the People by their Representatives, which is better than a tacit Consent implied in Prescription, (which in these days is the only thing that can make Succession a good Title, considered as distinct from other Titles) or a forced Consent, i. e. Consent subsequent upon Conquest, which only doth make Conquest a good Title. 2. As for any other meaning of a King de facto, I shall not concern myself with it, but only take notice, that, whether Men call the present King, King de facto, or de jure, if they hold him to be their Sovereign to whom Allegiance is due (which can never be due from the same Person to two opposite Kings at once,) the Prayers for his Preservation, Victory over his Enemies, etc. do not contain any Immoralities but only that which is their bounden Duty, and that which is employed if we should use no other than the Apostles own words, Praying, For Kings, and for all that are in Authority; 1 Tim. 2.2. that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty. Nor is then the using, but the omission of such Prayers on days by their Superiors appointed for solemn Meetings rather to be esteemed an Immorality. 3. But if Men should use those Prayers against their Consciences, and profess they did so, (which it is to be hoped few or none do) or if they should be guilty of other open and acknowledged Immoralities, must He that is not Bishop of the Diocese come thither to reform them? Then for the Extirpation of Immoralities, which are to be found more or less in every Diocese, any Bishop might invade the Diocese of another, saying he came to take away Immoralities, to teach Men their duty, etc. And though the Commission of the Apostles, when the Labourers were few, was indefinite over all the World, and that of Bishops and Pastors is so in some sort now, in regard they are according to their Places and Stations to give assistance to and promote the Edification of the whole Church of Christ, and are in that sense Bishops over all the Church; yet they are to be under certain Orders and Rules and within bounds, such as may be consistent with the good Government and Peace of the Church; and therefore not to make their Dioceses as large as they please, or go a A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. disorderly beyond their own Precincts or proper Districts. Whence it was justly forbidden (if not by express b Act. 20.28. Tit. 1.5. Scripture, as some think yet) by the Canons called c Can. Apost. 14.35. Apostolical, by the two first General d Conc. Nic. Can. 6, 7.8. Conc. Constantinop. Can. 2. Councils, by the Council of Antioch e Can. 13.22. , and by the Imperial Laws, f ●. 14 & l. 36. C. de Episcopis, & Clericis. , that one Bishop should g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. see Zonaras. Invade the Diocese of another; whereby in understood doing the Episcopal Offices therein without h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. consent of the Bishop of the Place; when he is not i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B●●●●mon in Can. 2. Constantinop. gone off, or deprived; without being appointed k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by other Bishops so to do; not being in l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Barbarous Nations where Bishops and Pastors are wanting. Without some of which Reasons specified and excepted by the Councils prohibiting them, no Man therefore ought to return back to officiate in a Diocese of which he is deprived, notwithstanding any pretence of Immoralities. Fourthly and Lastly, Schism is a great Immorality, and hath many others evidently consequent upon it, so that if by such proceed they make a Schism (the just Imputation whereof I know not how they can avoid) then instead of bringing Men out of, they bring them into Immorality, and therefore by their Titles of Messengers, watchmans, etc. they are obliged not to return. It may be, 'twill be said that these Dioceses are their own, and that they come to recover their own Rights. But 1. If these were indeed their Rights, they cannot by thus returning hope to recover them, neither are they capable by the present Establishment of having them, although the others should be willing to resign or deliver the Dioceses up to them. 2. Where the 'Cause is wanting or insufficient, viz. that of ill Morals, this latter, of Right, by a true lover of Peace will be parted with of Course. John 10.11. The good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep, much more is he content to part with the profits of his Pastoral Office to do them good. And as the true Mother of the Child, in the Case brought before Solomon, would rather suffer her Child to go to another Woman then let it be divided: So will a true Pastor, rather suffer his Flock to go to any other Orthodox Bishop, than let it be crumbled and broken into Factions only for the sake of him. The pretended Mother of that Child might have made her excuse with the Schismatics of our days, that she had rather her Child should be cut in pieces, than guilty of an Immorality in Honouring a false Mother, and withholding due Honour from the true One. And yet she that had not that Scruple was the best Woman, and the true Mother of the Child as Solomon judged; and the Scripture approves his Judgement. And this would be such another Immorality as the Authors of these late Books of Schism talk of in paying Allegiance to one whom Men might mistake to be their King. But they wave the question about the King's Title, as I said before, and insist on the invalidity of a Lay-deprivation the next thing to be considered; by way of answer to the second Objection. This Deprivation does not take away the Power conferred on them in Ordination, but only of having such and such Dioceses or parts of the Kingdom to officiate in; which why the Supreme Civil Power, whether lodged in one or more Men, should not be sufficient to do, is altogether unintelligible. The distribution or division of a Country into so many Dioceses is not Jure Divino, but depends on the discretion and determination of the chief Governors of the Church, i. e. in a Christian Country, of the Supreme Legislative Power; to the Preservation whereof it is necessary to have them well marked out and fixed, and to the well-being of the Republic. Bishops are Subjects, and Kings may demand Allegiance of them; and in case of refusal, if they have the whole Legislative Power, they may forbid them living in any part of their Dominions. Such Power is necessarily annexed to, or rather implied in the Imperial Dignity; from which our blessed Saviour by his Gospel detracted nothing, nor designed to uphold his Disciples or Apostles against it; for his Kingdom was not of this World. And though the Church did subsist at first without the assistance of Heathen Emperors, yet Kings, when they embraced the true Faith, became Members of the Church as well as any other Believers, and are therefore as much obliged to act according to the Station wherein they are placed: As did the Jewish Kings notwithstanding that the Church, in Egypt and Babylon, did subsist without them; and as did the first and best of Christian Emperors; And among the rest of those Powers, that of depriving Bishops hath been one. And this Power hath been exercised here among us, with the Approbation of the Church of England, and consonantly to the Articles, Homilies and Canons thereof. And among the Reasons of Deprivation the not acknowledging the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes was none of the least; which yet is not so much as to deny his Civil Authority also, which is the present * See the Vindication of their Majesty's Authority to fill the Sees, etc. Case. Indeed, if we consider the Supreme Power only as having so much Authority as is absolutely necessary to preserve the Civil Government, and to secure the outward Peace of the Kingdom, we must own that it can judge also, what shall be reasonable Security of any Subjects being true to the Government; and that Ecclesiastical Persons as well as others, for want of such Security given, may be deprived of places of trust, or places where they may have considerable influence on the People, lest they should pervert them to disaffection. Cujus rei facilis est probatio etc. Grotius De Imperio Summar. Tot. circa Sacra, Cap. 10. § 33. Hence follows a Power of removing Bishops from their Sees upon such occasions; which that it belongs to the Sovereign, Grotius thinks is a very easy matter to prove. For he that hath power to banish a Man out of all parts of the Country or Kingdom, hath by * Hoc enim illi inest; a● cujus totum est in Potestate, ejus in Potestate pars non esse non potest. Idem ibid. Consequence a Power of forbidding him to exercise there the Episcopal Office. This he can do as the same Grotius observes, not only by way of Punishment, but also by way of Caution, if he finds the People tumultuous on the account of any Pastor, though without the Pastor's fault. And such Deprivation may be made not only without, but even against the Consent of a Synod; of whom Kings are so far from being obliged to ask the question, whether they shall have their Subject's Allegiance or no; that they are rather obliged, especially here in England, not to ask or inquire of them; because it is a Violation of of the Laws of the Land, and an injury done to the proper Judges of Allegiance. And although in Cases of Heresy or Schism (when there are matters of difficulty to be decided) it is very fit and proper, and agreeable to the most ordinary and usual practice of the Church to call Synods; Yet even in those Cases they are to be convened only at the Sovereign's * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. Proaem. lib. 5. Doce— quis Imperator hane Synodum jusse●●… Congregari? Hieron. Apolog. adv. Ru●●i●●● lib. 2. appointment, and when they are come together, they are all of them under the same Circumstances of Obedience to the Civil Power, as they were singly before; obliged to the same Duties, and liable to the same Penalties upon refusal of them. How then can this be a matter of Ecclesiastical Cognizance, or how can it belong to them to determine it? Examples of Emperors deposing Bishops without as well as with a Synod are many, and that even in the Case of Heresy, which doth most properly belong to the determination of a Synod, and which they are best able to judge of; not but that in plain Cases, or Cases before sufficiently declared Heresy, this may be done without them, even as Kings in the Old-Testament, broke down the Images, destroyed the high Places, and put down the Idolatrous Priests by their own Authority; which Kings under the New-Testament having the entire Legislative Power, do not come short of. Thus Christian Emperors have deposed Heretics, and their Power to do so seems anciently to have been generally acknowledged on all hands. All Parties seem to have been sensible thereof. Sometimes the Emperor threatened to depose them, and sometimes put it in Execution, without any ones gainsaying. To him Bishops brought their a Theodorit, lib. 5. c. 23. Complaints against such other Bishops as they desired to have deposed; Him they sometimes b Leo. 1. Ep. 99 praised for using this Power; His Power they c Flavianus in Theodor. loco citato. acknowledged, though against themselves; In his Sentence, though sometimes unjust, they acquiesced d Socrat. lib. 2. c. 12. . And this is more than to depose them on the account of State-Crimes, or for default of Allegiance. last; As this is agreeable to Ancient Practice, so it is the constant and concurrent Sense of all the old Reformers, and till of late it hath been denied, I think, by none but Papists, and some of the worst and maddest of Enthusiasts. And thus Men may become guilty of Schism by contending for Power. Whereby we may also discern, how Persons in other Relations, according as they happen to be concerned in some of these Circumstances, may become guilty of the same fault. 2. They may be Schismatics by misemploying their Power, and so cutting themselves off from those that are under them. For there is no Place so high as to make a Man incapable of this fault. Nor may Inferiors only be guilty of it in respect of their Superiors, or Superiors in respect of one another, but Superiors in respect of their Inferiors also. The Head may say to the Feet, I have no need of you, as well as the Feet to the Head, we have no need of thee. Wherefore the Supreme Civil Powers, if they shall set up and pull down Persons at pleasure, encouraging, increasing, promoting Schismatics, deposing or highly discouraging those that are Orthodox: Ecclesiastical Governors, Bishops and Pastors, if they shall do the like; if they shall refuse to communicate with their Flock, unjustly excommunicate them, forbidden them Communion in express Terms, or by Consequence exclude them by unjust Impositions and unreasonable Terms of Communion, are guilty of Schism. 3ly. Men are Schismatics by disobedience to Power, and that this may belong in some sort to any Member of the Church, Pag. 13. yea, or to any particular Church, hath been observed already; also that the Common People may have a share in and partake of the guilt of Schism in most of the Cases already mentioned, is not to be doubted; but I am taking notice only of what hath been as yet omitted, and comes nearest to being peculiar to the Common People. And that is Disobedience to their Lawful Governors in Spiritual Matters. Yet not all Disobedience is Schismatical, (for then every Transgressor of Canons might be called a Schismatic) but such as is Cum Rebellione quadam, as the * Aquinas 22. Q. 39 Art. 1. ad Zum. Schoolmen express it; when Men design thereby to signify openly desert them, 2. Tim. 4.3. and heap to themselves Teachers after their own Lusts, having itching Ears; when they disown and disclaim their Authority; when they presume to invade the Bishops, Priests or Deacons Office without being lawfully called, climbing into the Sheepfold another way, instead of entering in at the Door; when they refuse to Communicate on reasonable Terms, or separate themselves because they will not conform in Public Assemblies to your Superiors Injunctions as to Ceremonies, etc. which last I see not how they can excuse from Schism, except in two Cases only. 1. That the Things commanded and appointed by them are unlawful in themselves; in which Case, without all question, it is their duty to disobey them, and rather to separate from them, than to comply and concur with them in that which is sinful. Or 2ly. If they be not unlawful in their own Nature, but indifferent, as being no where forbidden; yet if they are unlawful in respect of some Circumstances, as if they should be so many and so extremely inconvenient, as to hinder Men in their chief design of Worshipping God in their Assemblies, and Men have no other way of getting themselves relieved. But this, some Improprieties of Speech, or insignificant Ceremonies, if not too many and frequent, can never hinder. Yea, a few of them need not take off the least degree of Devotion in Men of Charity or Understanding. Moreover if such excuses as these, viz. having better words, more significant Ceremonies, or none at all, were of any value, they never would be wanting, nor would there be a possibility of keeping Order, Unity, or Peace in any Church whatsoever. Our blessed Saviour, beside his Precepts of Love and Charity, hath provided no means to prevent such Cavels as these are, neither is it possible. men's Fancies never did, never can agree in all these Particulars; nor can any one perhaps at all times agree with himself. And therefore I shall not here spend any more time upon them. From what hath been said, it appears, that there are ways, and those more perhaps than I have yet enumerated or can reckon up, whereby Men may become guilty of Schism in all Estates and Conditions. Whence it is not without cause that the Fathers, when they are speaking about Schism, do represent it so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S Ignatii Epist. ad Philadelph. c. 7. It is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clement. Ep. ad Corinth 1. cap. 47. Episcopatum autem tenere non posset etiamsi Episcopus prius factus, a Coepiscoporum suorum corpore & ab Ecclesiae unitate descisceret. Cypr. Ep. 55. Qui se ab Ecclesiae vinculo atque a Sacerdotum Collegio separat Episcopi nec potestatem potest habere, nec honorem, Id. ibid. An esse sibi cum Christo videtur qui adversus Sacerdotes Christi facit? qui se a Cleri e●●s & plebis Societate discernit. Id. De unitat. Ecclesiae Ed. Oxon. p. 116.— Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis, & Deum metuens, a peccatore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificia miscere, etc. Id. Ep. 67. Ed. Oxon. variously, sometimes as a Separation from the Bishop, sometimes from the Priests, sometimes from the Deacons, and sometimes from the common People; as doth S. Cyprian himself. Whence we may see how little weight there is in that Saving commonly quoted out of his 66. Epist. Scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse & Ecclesiam in Episcopo, & si qui cum Episcopo non sint in Ecclesia non esse; as to the uses which have been lately made of it. And in all the Cases, the Schism proceeds from one or more Members, not having a due care and concern for the rest, or from not having an equal Care according to their respective States and Conditions. And therefore the Apostle in the place before quoted, 1 Cor. 12.25. doth intimate that there would be no Schism in the Body, if all the Members did take the same care one for another. Lastly, We may observe, that every particular Schism is an injury to and a Schism in respect of the whole Church; as every division of any one Member of the Body is by consequence against the whole Body; which is not sound, complete, and entire, except it be so in every particular Member of it, or if but one of the Members is broken. Therefore, as our Saviour says concerning the doing or denying any charitable Act, Mat. 25.40, 45 Insomuch as you did, or did it not to one of the least of these, you did or did it not unto me: So we may say, where a Schism is made in any particular Church; In as much as you have made a Division in this particular Church, you have separated yourselves from Christ the Head, and made a Rent in the whole Body. But perhaps Men would not be so apt of themselves, or so easily prevailed upon by others to Separate themselves from their Brethren, did they duly consider, how great a Crime, of how ill and dangerous consequence to the Church in general, to themselves and others, this of Schism is, which therefore I shall take some Consideration of; and it is the second thing I proposed to speak to: Wherein I do not design to make Reflections on any one Party more than another, but only to consider the nature of this Sin indifferently to whomsoever it may belong. St. Paul, who, as I observed before, useth Heresy and Schism promiscuously, as did also the Primitive Christians for some time after him, Gal. 5.20. 1 Cor. 3.3, 4 reckons it among the works of the Flesh. Whereby he signifies that it is not commonly on a bare Mistake, or Misapprehension of Things, nor out of Zeal for Religion; but upon some worldly Designs and Interests, that Men do become guilty of it. But whatever the Design may be, a very dangerous and pernicious thing it is. Unity is the Strength of all Societies, Division the Weakness and Infirmity of them. There is no readier way to destroy a Church then to divide it. Every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to Desolation, and a House divided against a House falleth. Wherefore Schism lays the Axe to the root of that Church wherein it is bred, and tends to the utter Ruin and Subversion, first of it; next, if it be in a Protestant Church, of the Protestant Religion, which it hereby lays open to powerful Adversaries; and last of all of Christianity itself. Every particular Schism in some sort reacheth the Universal Church, as I have already shown. So it is against the Gospel and against Christ; Vide. Gregor. Tholos. Syntag. jur. Universi. lib. 33. cap. 11. § 1. and is therefore Crimen laesae Majestatis Divinae, as some do style it. It is against the design of our Saviour's coming into the World; who came to make Peace, not only between God and Man, but also amongst Men. He gave the strictest Commands about it; He contrived the firmest Bands to maintain it. Schism violates these Precepts, frustrates this Design, breaketh these Bands, makes our Saviour's Passion vain, and the Cross of Christ to be of none effect. It makes the Evangelical Writings vain; for the Gospel was written to that intent which the Schismatic disappointeth. St. John says, 1 John 1.3. That which we have heard and seen declare we unto you that ye, may have fellowship with us, and truly our Fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. A good Shepherd gathers the Sheep together; the Schismatic makes it his business to scatter them. It gives Scandal to those that are without. The Divisions of Christians in general do give offence unto the Jews and Pagans and make the name of God Blasphemed among the Gentiles, and the Divisions among Protestants to make our Reformation Blasphemed amongst the Papists. It causeth Atheism and Infidelity, when each part says there is no Salvation to be had in the contrary Part; dissolute Persons persuade themselves that there is none in either. And while some Men are crying, Lo here is Christ, and others, Lo he is there, such as might otherwise have a Mind to enter into the Church know not whither to come. It makes all Virtues in general not to thrive so well, in that Church where there are Divisions; it disturbeth that Joy and Peace which are the Fruits of the Holy Spirit of God; it takes off much from that comfort in Christ, which should be the lot of every Pious and devout Christian. Whence there is not only great Vehemence of Passion, but admirable soundness of Reason in that earnest Exhortation of the Apostle to Unity, Phil. 2.1, 2. If there be any Consolation in Christ, if any comfort of Love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any Bowels and Mercies; fulfil ye my Joy, that ye be like minded, having the same Love, being of one Accord, of one Mind. Whence * St. Augustine and S. Cyprian in divers places. some have called it Sacrilege, not only because it is a Violation of Divine Ordinances and Usurpation of Sacred Offices, but because it seems to be far greater robbery to deprive the Church of the benefit of all these things, then to take the Silver or Gold out of the Temple. It shows want of Charity or Love, as of God so also of our Brethren, on such easy terms to divide ourselves from them; too hardly to Judge them; too highly to Esteem ourselves; too little to bear with them; to be too ready to grieve them; not to have compassion on their Necessities and Wants in Spiritual matters; not to be willing to give them our assistance as Members of the same Body should do to one another. Wherefore the Apostle after having Described the Nature of Schism in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 12. spends one whole Chapter more in praise of Charity; and setting forth its Adjuncts and Properties, doth touch upon those things which seem in the Schismatic to be more especially wanting. 1 Cor. 13, v. 4, 5, 6, 7. Charity suffereth long and is kind; Charity envieth not; Charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no Evil, rejoiceth not in Iniquity, but rejoiceth in the Truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. But the Schismatic is not only Uncharitable, and thereby injurious to his Neighbour, but bringeth many and great Inconveniences upon himself, by cutting himself off from the Church of God, whence he is Condemned of himself, as the Apostle speaketh, Judas. v. 19 and Separating themselves they have not the Spirit, saith St. Judas. They have not the kind Influences of the Holy 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 cut off from the Body, as the Branch cannot bear Fruit except it abide in the Vine; John. 15.4. as a Rivulet is soon dried up when separated from the Fountain; as a Ray cannot subsist when taken away from the Sun: St. Cyprian. de unitate Ecclesiae. So neither can a Schismatic Reap any profit from his gifts or good works, when Separated from the rest of the Church of Christ. The Apostle speaketh as to both of them in the beginning of the forementioned Chapter, concerning Gifts; Though I speak with the Tongues of Men and Angels, though I have the gift of Prophecy and understand all Mysteries and all Knowledge, and though I have Faith so that I could remove Mountains, and have not Charity, I am nothing. Again, concerning good Works; Though I bestow all my Goods to feed the Poor, and though I give my Body to be Burned, and have not Charity, it profiteth me nothing. Some are not sensible that it is any great harm to go amongst them, to pray with them, or to hear the Gospel Preached. But to join with them, in those otherwise Holy Offices, is the way to become partakers of their Sins. Hos. 9.4. Their Sacrifices shall be unto them as the Bread of Mourning, all that eat thereof shall be Polluted. Where two or three indeed are gathered together in Christ's Name, Mat. 18.20. there is He in the midst of them; but 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. The Communion of Christ is but one. Among his Disciples there is Peace. We must not Communicate with those who break that Peace, lest we become partakers of their evil Deeds, and make the Breach wider by Encouraging of them. They are without the Church; and we must not be with them. For we cannot be within and without at the same time. Mat. 12.30. He that is not with me is against me, and he that Gathereth not with me Scattereth, saith our Saviour. Their Prayers and Preaching, and other parts of Divine Worship being performed in Opposition to the other Members of the Church, are turned into Sin; and they come together, 1 Cor. 11.17. as did the Corinthians in a Division of theirs, not for the better but for the worse. Thus we see how Schism is a work of the Flesh against Christ's Kingdom, against the Gospel, against the Protestant Religion, against Virtue in general, against all the Apostolical Rules of Charity, very pernicious to the Church, very hurtful to the Schismatic himself, and of dangerous Consequence to all that go after him. All things therefore are to be endured before we make a Schism, even Immoralities themselves, where we are not made to concur with them, when it doth not belong to our Office to Reform them, when it doth not lie in our Power to Reform them without breaking in upon other men's Rights, and doing Immoral Actions ourselves. And then certainly we are much more obliged to lay aside private Advantages, not to seek our own, to let fall particular Quarrels for the sake of the Church of Christ. And if our Governors should deal hardly by us, and require difficult things of us in Divine Worship, not frustrating the main end of the Worship itself; if some Words are improper, if some Ceremonies are uncouth, yet not hindering us from serving God with a pure Heart, we ought to bear with them. Charity beareth all things. It is a large Expression, taking in all things that are tolerable. Surely these indifferent things. And in a latter Schism here among us, Men seem to be hard put to it to find a Cause of Separation, when Protestants are forced to take up old Confuted Popery to ground it upon. If they had never so just a State-quarrel on the account of a Popish Prince, one would think they should scarcely part with the Principles of their own Religion for the sake of him. To conclude then with the Apostles Words, Phil. 3.16. Let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same thing; Rom. 14.19. Let us follow after the things which make for Peace, and thi●… wherewith one may Edify another; Eph. 4.2, 3. With all Lowliness and Meekness, with long Suffering, forbearing one another in Love; Endeavouring to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace; Rom. 16.17. And let us Mark them which cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which We have Learned, and avoid them. FINIS.