A TRACT CONCERNING SCHISM AND Schismatics: Wherein is briefly Discovered The Original Causes of all Schism.  
By the Ever-memorable Mr. JOHN HALES, Of Eton College, etc.  
LONDON: Printed in the Year MDCC.   

A Tract concerning Schism.  
Heresy and Schism, as they are commonly used, are two Theological Scare-crows, with which they who use to uphold a Party in Religion, use to fright away such, as making Inquiry into it, are ready to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either erroneous and suspicious; for, as Plutarch reports of a Painter, who having unskilfully painted a Cock, chased away all Cocks and Hens, that so the Imperfection of his Art might not appear by Comparison with Nature; so Men willing for Ends to admit of no Fancy but their own, endeavour to hinder an Inquiry into it by way of Comparison with somewhat with it, peradventure truer, that so the Deformity of their own might not appear: But howsoever, in the common Manage, Heresy and Schism are but ridiculous Terms, yet the Things in themselves are of very considerable Moment; the one offending against Truth, the other against Charity, and therefore both deadly, when they are not by Imputation, but indeed.  
It is then a Matter of no small Importance, truly to descry the Nature of them, and they on the contrary strengthen themselves, who through the Iniquity of Men and Times are injuriously charged with them.  
Schism (for of Heresy we shall not now treat, except it be by Accident, and that by occasion of a general Mistake, spread through all the Writings of the Ancients, in which their Names are familiarly confounded:) Schism, I say, upon the very Sound of the Word, imports Division; Division is not but where Communion is or aught to be: Now Communion is the Strength and Ground of all Society, whether Sacred or Civil; whosoever therefore they be that offend against the common Society and Friendliness of Men, if it be in Civil Occasions, are guilty of Sedition and Rebellion: If it be by reason of Ecclesiastical Difference, they are guilty of Schism. So that Schism is an Ecclesiastical Sedition, as Sedition is a Lay Schism: Yet the great Benefits of Communion, notwithstanding in regard of divers Distempers Men are subject to, Dissension and Disunion, are often necessary: For when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for Truth, and Acts either unlawful, or ministering just Scruple, are required of us to be performed, in these Cases, Consent were Conspiracy; and open Contestation is not Faction or Schism, but due Christian Animosity.  
For the opening therefore of the Nature of Schism, something may be added by way of Difference to distinguish it from necessary Separation; and that is, that the Cause upon which Division is attempted, proceed not from Passion or from Distemper, or from Ambition or Avarice, or such other Ends, as Humane Folly is apt to pursue, but from well weighed and necessary Reasons, and that when all other Means having been tried, nothing will serve to save us from guilt of Conscience, but open Separation; so that Schism, if we would define it, is nothing else but an unnecessary Separation of Christians from that part of the visible Church of which they were once Members. Now, As in Mutinies and Civil Dissensions there are two Attendants in Ordinary belonging unto them; one the Choice of one Elector or Guide, in place of the general or ordinary Governor, to rule and guide; the other the appointing of some public Place or Rendezvous, where public Meetings must be celebrated: So in Church-dissentions and Quarrels, two Appurtenances there are, which serve to make Schism complete. First, in the Choice of a Bishop, in opposition to the former, (a thing very frequent amongst the Ancients, and which many times was the Cause and Effect of Schism.)  
Secondly, The erecting of a new Church and Oratory, for the dividing parts to meet in publicly. For till this be done, the Schism is but yet in the Womb.  
In that late famous Controversy in Holland, De Praedestinatione & auxiliis, as long as the disagreeing Parties went no farther than Disputes and Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatched; but as soon as one Party swept an old Cloister, and by a pretty Art suddenly made it a Church, by putting a now Pulpit in it, for the separating Party there to meet; now what before was a Controversy became a formal Schism. To know no more than this, if you take it to be true, had been enough to direct you how you are to judge, and what to think of Schism and Schismatics; yet, because of the Ancients, (by whom many are more affrighted than hurt) much is said, and many fearful Dooms pronounced in this Case. We will descend a little to consider of Schism, as it were by way of Story, and that partly farther to open that which we have said in General, by instancing in Particulars, and partly to disabuse those who reverencing Antiquity more than needs, have suffered themselves to be scared with Imputation of Schism above due measure; for, what the Ancients spoke by way of Censure of Schism in General, is most true; for they saw (and it is no great matter to see so much) that unadvised and open Fancy to break the Knot of Union betwixt Man and Man, (especially amongst Christians, upon whom, above all other kind of Men, the Tie of Love and Communion doth most especially rest) was a Crime hardly pardonable, and that nothing absolves Men from the Gild of it, but true and unpretended Conscience: Yet when they came to pronounce of Schism in Particular, (whether it was because of their own Interest, or that they saw not the Truth, or for what other cause God only doth know) their Judgements many times (to speak most gently) were justly to be suspected. Which that you may see, we will range all Schism into two Ranks.  
First is a Schism, in which only one Party is the Schismatic; for where Cause of Schism is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that is the cause of separation, is the Schismatic.  
Secondly, There is a Schism in which both Parties are the Schismatics; for, where the occasion of separation is unnecessary, neither side can be excused from the Gild of Schism.  
But you will ask, Who shall be the Judge, what is necessary? Indeed, it is a Question which hath been often made, but I think scarcely ever truly answered, not because it is a Point of great depth and difficulty truly to assoil it, but because the true Solution of it carries sire in the tail of it (for it bringeth with it a piece of Doctrine which is seldom pleasing to Superiors:) to you for the present this shall suffice.  
If so be you be anima defaecato, if you have cleared yourself from Froth and Growns, if neither Sloth, nor Fear, nor Ambition, nor any tempting Spirit of that nature abuse you (for these and such as these are the true Impediments, why both that, and other Questions of the like danger are not truly answered) if all this be, and yet you know not how to frame your Resolution, and settle yourself for that doubt; I will say no more of you than was said of Papias, St. John's own Scholar, Your Abilities are not so good as I presumed.  
But to go on with what I intended, and from that that diverted me, that you may the better judge of the nature of Schisms by their occasions, you shall find that all Schisms have crept into the Church by one of these three ways, either upon matter of Fact, or upon matter of Opinion, or point of Ambition; for the first, I call that matter of Fact, when something is required to be done by us, which either we know, or strongly suspect to be unlawful. So the first notable Schism, of which we read in the Church, contained in it matter of Fact; for, it being upon Error taken for necessary, that an Easter must be kept, and upon worse than Error, (if I may so speak) for it was no less than a Point of Judaisme forced upon the Church; upon worse than Error, I say, thought farther necessary that the Ground of the Time for keeping of that Feast must be the Rule left by Moses to the Jews, there arose a stout Question, Whether we were to celebrate with the Jews on the fourteenth Moon, or the Sunday following? This matter tho' most unnecessary, most vain, yet caused as great a Combustion as ever was in the Church; the West separating and refusing Communion with the East, for many Years together. In this fantastical Hurry I cannot see but all the World were Schismatics, neither can any thing excuse them from that Imputation, excepting only this, that we charitably suppose that all Parties did what they did out of Conscience, a thing which befell them through the ignorance of their Guides, (for I will not say, through their Malice) and that through the just Judgement of God, because through Sloth and blind Obedience Men examined not the things which they were taught, but, like Beasts of Burden, patiently couched down, and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiors laid upon them. By the way, by this we may plainly see the danger of our Appeal to Antiquity, for Resolution in controverted Points of Faith, and how small Relief we are to expect from thence; for, if the Discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church did in a Point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the Truth in a Subject, wherein it is the greatest Marvel how they could avoid the Sight of it, Can we, without the Imputation of great Grossness and Folly, think so poor-spirited Peasons competent Judges of the Questions now on foot betwixt the Churches. Pardon me, I know what Temptation drew that Note from me.  
The next Schism which had in it matter of Fact, is that of the Donatists, who were persuaded (at least pretended so) that it was unlawful to converse or communicate in Holy Duties with Men stained in any notorious Sin; for howsoever that Austin do specify only the Thurificati & Traditores and Libellatioi, etc. as if he separated only from those whom he found to be such, yet by necessary proportion he must refer to all notorious Sinners. Upon this he taught, that in all Places, where Good and Bad were mixed together, there could be no Church by reason of Pollution, co-operating away from Sinners, which blasted righteous Persons, which conversed with them, and made all unclean. On this Ground, separating himself from all that he list to suspect, he gave out, that the Church was not where to be found but in him and his Associates, as being the only Men among whom wicked Persons found no Shelter, and by consequence the only clean and unpolluted Company, and therefore the only Church. Against this, St. Augustine laid down this Conclusion, Vnitatem Ecclesiae per totum mundum dispersae praeceptam non esse disserendam, which is indeed the whole Sum of that Father's Disputation against the Donatists. Now in one part of this Controversy one thing is very remarkable: The Truth was there, where it was, by mere Chance, and might have been on either side, the reason brought by either Party notwithstanding: For tho' it were de facto, false, that pars Donati shut up in afric, was the only Orthodox Party, yet it might be true, notwithstanding any thing St. Augustine brings to confute it; and on the contrary, tho' it were de facto, true, that the Part of Christians dispersed over the whole Earth were Orthodox, yet it might have been false, notwithstanding any thing St. Augustine brings to confirm it. For where, or amongst whom, or how many the Church shall be, or is, is a thing indifferent; it may be in any Number, more or less, it may be in any Place, Country or Nation, it may be in all, and, for aught I know, it may be in none, without the Prejudice to the Definition of a Church, or the Truth of the Gospel, North or South; many or few; dispersed in many Places, or confined to one: None of these do either prove or disprove a Church.  
Now this Schism, and likewise that former, to a wise Man that well understands the Matter in Controversy, may afford perchance Matter of Pity, to see Men so strangely distracted upon Fancy, but of doubt or trouble what to do, it can yield none; for tho' in this Schism the Donatist be the Schismatic, and in the former both Parties be equally engaged in the Schism, yet you may safely upon your Occasions communicate with either, if so be you flatter neither in their Schism: For why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatist, or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman, if occasion so require, since neither Nature, nor Religion, nor Reason doth suggest any thing of moment to the contrary? For in all Public Meetings pretending Holiness, so there be nothing done, but what true Devotion and Piety brook, why may I not be present in them, and use communion with them? Nay, what if those, to whom the execution of the public Service is committed, do something either unseemly or suspicious, or peradventure unlawful? what if the Garments they wear be censured, nay indeed be suspicious? what if the Gesture or Adoration to be used to the Altars, as now we have learned to speak? what if the Homilist have preached or delivered any Doctrine of the Truth, of which we are not well persuaded? a thing which very often falls out; yet for all this we may not separate, except we be constrained personally to bear part in them ourselves. The Priests under Ely had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily Sacrifices, that the Scripture tells us, they made them to stink; yet the People refused not to come to the Tabernacle, nor to bring their Sacrifice to the Priest: For in those Schisms which concern Fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusing of Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act; for not only in Reason, but in Religion too, that Maxim admits of no Release, Cautissimi cujusque Praeceptum quod dubit as ne feceris. Long it was e'er the Church fell upon Schism, upon this occasion, tho' of late it had very many; for until the second Council of Nice, in which irreconcilable Superstition and Ignorance did conspire, I say, until the Rout did set up Image-worship, there was not any remarkable Schism upon just occasion of Fact; all the rest of Schisms of that kind were but Wantoness, this was truly serious; in this the Schismatical Party was the Synod itself, and such as conspired with it, for, or concerning the Use of Images in Sacrifices.  
First, It is acknowledged by all that it is a thing unnecessary.  
Secondly, It is by most suspected.  
Thirdly, It is by many held utterly unlawful. Can then the enjoining of such a thing be aught else but abuse? or can the refusal of Communion here be thought any other thing than Duty? Here, or upon the like occasion to separate, may peradventure bring personal trouble or danger; (against which it concerns any honest Man to have pectus Praeparatum;) farther harm it cannot do, so that in these Cases you cannot be to seek what to think, or what you have to do.  
Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of Schism, arising upon occasion of variety of Opinion: It hath been the common Disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of Faith which God and Scriptures have expressly afforded us, but out of a vain Desire to know more than is revealed, they have attempted to devise things, of which we have no Light, neither from Reason nor Revelation; neither have they rested here, but upon Pretence of Church-authority (which is none,) or Tradition (which for the most part is but feigned,) they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon others, a necessity of entertaining Conclusions of that Nature, and, to strengthen themselves, have broken out into Divisions and Factions, opposing Man to Man, Synod to Synod, till the Peace of the Church vanished, without all possibility of Recall: Hence arose those ancient and many Separations amongst Christians, occasioned by Arianism, Eutichianism, Nestorianism, Photinianism, Sabellianism, and many more, both ancient, and in our time; all which indeed are but Names of Schism: Howsoever, in the common Language of the Fathers, they were called Heresies; for Heresy is an Act of the Will, not of the Reason, and is indeed a Lie and not a Mistake, else how could that of Austin go for true, Errare possum, Haereticus esse nolo: Indeed Manichanism, Valentinianism, Macedonianism, Mahometism, are truly and properly Heresies: For we know that the Authors of them received them not, but invented them themselves, and so knew what they taught to be a Lie; but can any Man avouch that Arius and Nestorius, and others that taught erroneously concerning the Trinity, and the Person of our Saviour, did maliciously invent what they taught, and not rather fall upon it by error and mistake? Till that be done, and upon good evidence, we will think no worse of all Parties than needs we must, and take these Rents in the Church to be at the worst but Schisms, upon matter of Opinion, In which case, what we are to do, is not a point of any great depth of understanding to discover, if so be distemper and partiality do not intervene: I do not see, that opinionum varietas & opiniantium unitas, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that Men of different Opinions in Christian Religion may not hold Communion in Sacris, and both go to one Church. Why may I not go, if Occasion require, to an Arian Church, so there be no Arianism expressed in their Liturgy? and were Liturgies and Public Forms of Service so framed, as that they admitted not of particular and private Fancies, but contained only such things, as in which all Christians do agree, Schisms on Opinion were utterly vanished: For consider of all the Liturgies that are and ever have been, and remove from them whatsoever is Scandalous to any Party, and leave nothing but what all agree on, and the Evil shall be, that the Public Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer. Whereas to load our Public Forms with the Private Fancies upon which we differ, is the most sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the World's end; Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, Reading of Scriptures, Administration of Sacraments in the plainest and the simplest manner, were Matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, tho' nothing either of Private Opinion, or of Church-Pomp, of Garments, or prescribed Gestures, of Imagery, of Music, of Matter concerning the Dead, of many Superfluities which creep into the Church, under the Name of Order and Decency, did interpose itself.  
To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first Beginning of all Superstition, and when Scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended, there Schism began to break in; if the special Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of encumbering Churches with Superfluities, or not overrigid either in reviving obsolete Customs, or imposing new, there would be far less Cause of Schism or Superstition, and all the Inconvenience were likely to ensue would be but this, they should in so doing yield a little to the Imbecility of their Inferiors, a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do; mean while, wheresoever false or suspected Opinions are made a piece of Church-Liturgy, he that separates is not the Schismatic, for it is alike unlawful to make profession of known or suspected falsehood, as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions.  
The Third thing I named for Matter of Schism was Ambition, I mean Episcopal Ambition, showing itself especially in two Heads, one concerning Pluralities of Bishops in divers Sees. Aristotle tells us, That Necessity causeth but small Faults, but Avarice and Ambition were the Mother of great Crimes: Episcopal Ambition hath made this true, for no Occasion hath produced more frequent, more continuous, more sanguinous Schisms than this hath done. The Sees of Alexandria, of Constantinople, of Antioch, and above all of Rome, do abundantly show thus much, and all Ecclesiastical Stories witness no less, of which the greatest that consists of factionating and tumultuating of great and potent Bishops.  
Socrates apologizing for himself, that professing to write an Ecclesiastical Story, he did oft times interlace the Actions of secular Princes and other civil Business, tells us, that he did this to refresh his Reader, who otherwise were in danger to be cloyed by reading so much of the Acts of unquiet and unruly Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in which, as a Man may say, they made Butter and Cheese one of another; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that I may show you a cast of my old Office, and open you a Mystery in Grammar,) properly signifies to make Butter and Cheese, and because these are not made without much agitation of the Milk, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by a borrowed and transmuted signification, signifies to do things with much agitation and tumult.  
But that I may a little consider of the two Heads I but now specified, the first I mentioned was the Prelacy of Bishops in one See. For the general Practice of the Church, since the beginning at least since the original of Episcopacy, as now it is, was never to admit at once more than one Bishop in one See; and so far in this point have they been careful to preserve Unity, that they would not have a Bishop in his See to have two Cathedral Churches; which thing lately brought us a Book out of France, De Monomachia Episcoporum, written by occasion of the Bishops of Langres, who, I know not upon what Fancy, could not be content with one Cathedral Church in his Diocese, but would needs have two, which to the Author of that Work seems to be a kind of Spiritual Polygamy. It fell out amongst the Ancients very often; sometimes upon occasion of difference in Opinions, sometimes because of those who were interessed in the Choice of Bishops; that two and sometimes more were set up, and all Parties striving to maintain their own Bishop, made themselves several Churches, several Congregations, each refusing to participate with others, and many times proceeding to mutual Excommunications. This is that which Cyprian calls Erigere Altare contra Altar: To this doth he impute the Original of all Church-disorders; and if you read him, you would think he thought no other Church-tumult to be Schism but this. This perchance may plead some Excuse; for, tho' in regard of Religion itself, it matters not whether there be one or more Bishops in one Diocese; for Epiphanius reckoning up the Bishops of Rome, makes Peter and Paul the first; and St. Augustine acknowledgeth for a time he sat Fellow-Bishop with his Predecessor, tho' he excused it, that he did so, being ignorant that the contrary had been decreed by the Council of Nice; yet it being a thing very convenient for the Peace of the Church to have it so, neither doth it any whit favour of their Misdemeanour, their Punishment sleeps not, who unnecessarily and wantonly go about to infringe it.  
But that other Head of Episcopal Ambition, concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers Sees, one claiming Supremacy over another, as it hath been from time to time, a great Trespass against the Church's Peace, so it is now the final Ruin of it. The East and West, through the Fury of the two prime Bishops, being irremediably separated without all Hope of Reconcilement. And besides all this Mischief, it is founded on a Vice contrary to all Christian Humility, without which no Man shall see his Saviour; for they do but abuse themselves and others, that would persuade us, that Bishops by Christ's Institution have any Superiority over other Men farther than of Reverence, or that any Bishop is Superior to another farther than positive Order, agreed upon amongst Christians, hath prescribed; for we have believed him that hath told us, that in Jesus Christ there is neither High nor Low, and that in giving Honour every Man should be ready to prefer another before himself; which Saying cuts off all Claim certainly of Superiority, by Title of Christianity, except Men think that these things were spoken only to poor and private Men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them hath an hand in this Heraldry of Secundum sub & supra: All this comes from the Composition and Agreement of Men amongst themselves; wherefore this Abuse of Christianity, to make it Lackey to Ambition, is a Vice for which I have no extraordinary Name of Ignominy, and an ordinary I will not give it, lest you should take so transcendent a Vice to be but trivial.  
Now concerning Schism arising upon these Heads, you cannot be for Behaviour much to seek; for you may safely communicate with all Parties, as Occasion shall call you, and the Schismatics here are all those who are Head of the Faction, together with those who foment it; for private and indifferent Persons they may be Spectators of these Contentious as securely in regard of any Peril of Conscience, (for of Danger in Purse or Person I keep no account,) as at a Cockfight where Serpent's fight, who cares who hath the better? The best Wish is, That both may perish in the Fight.  
And for Conventicles, of the Nature of which we desire to be informed, thus much in general evidently appears, That all Meetings, upon an unnecessary Separation are to be so styled; so that in sense a Conventicle is nothing else but a Congregation of Schismatics, yet Time hath taken leave sometimes to fix this Name upon good and honest Meetings, and that perchance not altogether without good Reason; for without Public Religious Meetings thus it fares: First, It hath been at all Times confessed necessary, that God requires not only inward and private Devotion, when Men either in their Hearts and Closets, or within their private Walls, pray, praise, confess and acknowledge; but he farther requires all those things to be done in Public, by troops and shoals of Men, and from hence have proceeded public Temples, Altars, Forms of Service, Appointed Times, and the like, which are required for open Assemblies, yet whilst Men were truly Pious, all Meetings of Men for mutual Help of Piety and Devotion wheresoever and by whomsoever celebrated, were permitted, without Exception.  
But when it was espied that illaffected Persons abused Private Meetings, whether Religious or Civil, to evil Ends, Religiousness to gross Impiety, as appears in the Ethnic, Elusinia, and Bacchanalia, and Christian Meetings under the Pagan Princes, when for fear they durst not come together in open View, were charged with foul Imputations, as by the Report of Christians themselves plainly appears, and civil Meetings, many times under Pretence of friendly and neighbourly Visits, sheltered treasonable Attempts against Princes and Commonweals.  
Hence both Church and State joined, and jointly gave Order for Forms, Times, Places of Public Meetings, whether for Religious or Civil Ends. And all other Meetings whatsoever, besides those of which both Time and Place are limited, they censured for Routs and Riots; and unlawful Assemblies in the State, and in the Church for Conventicles.  
So that it is not lawful, no not for Prayer, for Hearing, for Conference, for any other Religious Office whatsoever, for People to assemble otherwise than by Public Order is allowed; neither may we complain of this in Times of Corruption, for why should Men desire to do that suspiciously in Private which warrantably may be performed in Public.  
But in Times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions, wherein Religious Assembling is dangerous, Private Meetings howsoever, besides Public Order, are not only Lawful, but they are of Necessity and Duty; else how should we excuse Meetings of Christians for Public Service in Time of Danger and Persecutions, and of ourselves in Queen Mary's Days? And how will those of the Roman Church amongst us put off the Imputation of Conventicling, who are known amongst us privately to assemble for Religious Exercises, against all Established Order, both in State and Church? For indeed all Pious Assemblies, in Times of Persecution and Corruptions, howsoever practised, are indeed or rather alone the lawful Congregations, and Public Assemblies, tho' according to Form of Law, are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition.  
FINIS.