Books Published by Edward Polhill of Burwash in Sussex, Esq, And Sold by Thomas Cockerill at the Three Legs, over-against the Stock-market.  
PRecious Faith considered in its Nature, Working, and Growth. In 8vo.  
Speculum Theologiae in Chricto: Or, a view of some Divine Truths, which are either Practically exemplified in Jesus Christ, set forth in the Gospel, or may be reasonably deduced from thence. In 4to.  
Christus in Cord: Or the Mystical Union between Christ and Believers, considered in its Resemblances, Bonds, Seals, Privileges and Marks. In 8vo.  
A Discourse of Schism.   

A DISCOURSE OF SCHISM.  
By that Learned Gentleman, EDWARD POLHILL, Esq, Late of Burwash in Sussex.  
LONDON: Printed for Thomas Cockerill, at the Three Legs, over-against the Stock-market. MDCXCIV.   

TO THE READER.  
'TIS not the design of this Preface to commend the Author of the ensuing Treatise; his own Works do that sufficiently. He was a very Learned Gentleman, and a Justice of the Peace, of very great esteem among all men in his own Country, where he lived in full and constant Communion with the Church of England. And therefore being no Clergyman either of one sort or tother, he is the more likely to write impartially about Schism; and being no Frequenter of any of the Dissenters Meetings, he cannot reasonably be supposed to be biased in their favour. But yet on the other hand, he was far enough from entertaining any of those Prejudices against their Persons or Assemblies, which it hath been the great endeavour of some to infuse into the minds of all men, but especially of the Magistracy and Gentry. He was zealously concerned for Truth and Serious Religion, not for a Party. On all occasions he showed himself to be one of a truly Christian (that is, of a Catholic) Temper, and was a sincere lover of all good men, of what Persuasion soever. He was fully convinced, and so wilt thou too, if thou diligently perusest and readest the following Discourse, that Bigotry is the dangerous Schism, the guilt whereof a man is not necessarily involved in, or secured from, by the bare being of this or that Party among us.   

CHAP. I.  
The Church-Catholick twofold, The very mystical Body of Christ, or The totum integrale made up of all the Particular Churches. The Unity of the Church a Divine thing: Doth not consist in Human Rites; in a Liturgy; Diocesan Episcopacy, or the Civil Laws of Magistrates. It's true Unity in its internal Essence, and external Communion. A particular Church.  
CHristians, as high motives as they have to Unity, are yet divided, not only by the existence of Schism, but about the notion of it. The Papist charges it on the Protestant; one Protestant charges it on another; and the Reason is, because they differ in their measures of Church-Vnity. Some require more to it than others; the Papist will have the Unity of a Visible Head; some Protestants will have an Unity of Human Rites and Modes: Hence there comes a Schism about Schism. The very notion divides us. In this case it is worth the while to inquire into the true nature of Schism; in the doing of which two things must be premised. Something must be spoken of the Church; and something of the Unity of it.  
First, Something must be spoken of the Church. In the Old Testament we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word derived from Congregating; in the New we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a word derived from Evocating, or calling out. The Jewish Church being shut up in one Nation could meet all together in one place; the Christian Church being spread over the World, cannot indeed meet all together in one place, but they are coetus evocatus, a company called out of the World to the Worship of God. The Church may be considered as Catholic, or Particular. The Catholic Church may be taken, either as the very mystical Body of Christ, or as a totum integrale to all the particular Churches on Earth. As the mystical Body of Christ it is invisible, made up only of real Saints; all of them are internally united to Christ the Head; all are animated by the Holy Spirit; all have the Joints and Bands of Grace; all have the effectual working in their hearts. This is the Church-Catholick in the Creed; this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Assembly of the firstborn, Hebr. 12.23. This is in Clemens Alexandrinus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Congregation of the Elect. Here are not damnata membra, as St. Austin speaks. As Christ's natural Body did consist all of pure Members, so this mystical Body doth consist of true Believers. As in every Member of the natural Body there is an Human Spirit, so in every Member of the mystical Body there is the Spirit of Christ. Such is the Catholic Church, as it is the mystical Body of Christ. But as it is a totum integrale, made up of all the particular Churches on Earth; so it is, as its parts are, visible; and made up of good and bad. Some are living Members, Partakers of the Spirit of Christ; some are dead ones: Some are in internal conjunction with Christ, some are in external only: Some are in the Church really, and before God; some are in it only apparently, and before men. Thus the Church is a Field which hath Wheat and Tares; a Net, which hath good Fish and Bad; a Floor, which hath Corn and Chaff. In Isaac's Family there was an Esau; in the College of Apostles, a Judas; in the visible Church there are foolish Virgins as well as wise; some have only the Lamps of Profession, whilst others have the Oil of Grace. This may serve for the Church-Catholick. Now particular Churches are but parts similares Ecclesiae Catholicae, similar parts of the Catholic Church visible. The Catholic Church is as the whole Tree, Particular Churches are but Branches. That is the main Ocean; these are but Arms, and Creeks of it. To that (as Mr. Hudson observes) the Promises and Privileges primarily belong; to these they belong in a secondary way. That is the first receptacle of Ordinances, these derive them from that. In every particular Church there is (as St. Cyprian speaks) Plebs Pastori adunata, a People joined to a Pastor for the performance of Divine Worship. Here the Word is preached, the Sacraments are administered.  
2dly, Something must be spoken of the Unity of the Church. The Unity of the Church is that whereby the Church is one. There are many Members, but one Body; many Sheep, but one Fold; many Stones, but one Building. The Apostle reckons up many Unities appertaining to the Church. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all. Here is unit as principii, one God that calls the Church: Vnitas termini, one Heaven that is hoped for by it: Vnitas mediorum, one Faith, one Baptism, to join men to Christ, and the Church: Vnitas Capitis, one Lord Jesus, who is the vital Head of the Church: Vnitas Corporis, one Body, in which the Members do all adhere one to another, and to the Head: And unitas Spiritûs, one Holy Spirit to animate and actuate the whole Body.  
The Unity of the Church is not an Human thing, but Divine. The Unity is as the Church is, built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Eph. 2.20. All the Joints and Bands which tie the Church together, are from Christ the Head. As under the Old Testament, God ordained the Loops and the Taches, that coupled the Curtains together, to make one Tabernacle, Exod. 26.6. So under the New, Christ hath ordained the Bands and Ligatures, that couple Believers together, to make one Church: Hence this Unity is styled by St. Cyprian, 
Epist. ad Cornel.  Vnitas à Domino, & per Apostolos tradita: An Unity delivered from the Lord Christ, and by the Apostles; and by St. Austin, Vnitas Christi, the Unity of Christ. 
Contra Cresc. l. 2. c. 31. l. 4. c. 21.  St. Jerom, speaking of the Church of Christ as joined together in the unity of the Spirit, hath this notable Passage. Ecclesia habet urbes legis, 
Com. in Mich. c. 1.  Prophetarum, Evangelii, Apostoloram: Non est egressa de finibus suis, id est, de Scriptures Sanctis. The Church hath its Cities, the Law the Prophets, the Gospel, the Apostles, it goeth not out of its bounds the Holy Scriptures. That only is Unity which is found there. When the question was between the Catholics and Donatists, Vbi sit Ecclesia? Where is the Church; the Columba unica, the Dove that is but one? St. Austin tells them, 
De Unit. Eccl. c. 2, & 3.  that it was to be sought, Non in verbis nostris, sed in verbis Capitis; Not in our words, but in the words of the Head. Jesus Christ the Head knew his own Body: And again, Sunt certe libri Dominici, ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam: There are the Lord's Books, there let us seek the Church: And again, Nolo Humanis Documentis, sed Divinis Oraculis Sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. I will not have the Holy Church demonstrated by Human Documents, but by Divine Oracles. It was the notable Observation of Bessarion, 
Fuit aliquando tempus quo immaculata Dei Spoas● Ecclesia summâ concordiâ tranquillissimâ pace, & intemeratâ veritate fruebatur, cum simplicitatem, & puritatem Evangelicae Doctrinae maximi omnes faciebamus, solis Sacris eloquiis contenti, his inhaerentes, his acquiescentes, in unum ab his collecti ovile sub uno Pastore omnes agentes. Crab. Conc. Florent.  Archbishop of Nice, That then the Church had the highest concord, peace and truth, when it did adhere to the simplicity and purity of the Evangelical Doctrine, contented with the Sacred Oracles, inhereing and acquiescing in them only, collected by them into one fold, and living under one Pastor. The only true Unity of the Church is that which is to be found in Scripture. When men will have an Unity not of God's making, but of their own, it falls out as when a piece of new cloth is put to an old Garment, there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a rent made. The Humane thing that did seem to fill up the Church's Unity, doth make a breach in it. Victor will have one Easter-day, and this little thing rends off the Eastern Churches from the Western. The Unity of a visible Head in the Church is very plausible, yet this is but a piece of Donatism to have the Church only in part Papae. 'Tis (as Gregory said against John of Constantinople) Titulus in discissionem Ecclesiae, a Title to rend the Church in pieces. Nay, the very Roman Church (where it was hatched) is rend by it. Part would have a Council above the Pope: Part would have the Pope above a Council. The Councils of Constance and Basil call the Pope's Schismatics, and the Popes have cast off and reprobated those Councils. Thus those Human things in the Church, which are set up for Unity, turn to Ataxy; and like the Egyptian Reed, pierce and rend that hand that leans on them.  
These things being so, it appears that the Unity of the Church doth not consist in any Human thing. But to instance in some particulars.  
1st. It doth not stand in Human Rites and Observations. In the first Golden Age (in which, as Egesippus saith the Church continued a pure Virgin) there was little or nothing of Ceremony, but much of Unity. Christians were then of one heart, and of one soul, Acts 4.32. In after Ages Human Observations creeping into the Church, they were observed variè & pro arbitrio. 
Euseb. l. 5. cap. 23.  Christians varied in the observation of Easter; some kept Easter on one day, some on another. They varied in their observation of Lent. Some fasted one day, some two, some more, some forty. They varied not only in the number of the days, but in their abstinence. Some eat Fowl with their Fish; 
Socrat. Hist. l. 5. c. 21.  some were contented with dry bread only. They varied also in many other Human Observations, as may be seen in Ecclesiastical Story. In all these there was no unity, 
Soz. Hist. l. 7. c. 19  yet the true Unity was not wanting. They did not put unity in such things, no; the Rule was, Differentia rituum commendat unitatem fidei, The non-unity in Rites commended the Unity of the Faith. The Christians were wont to fast, 
Tert. contra Psych.  ex arbitrio, non ex imperio; out of choice, not out of command. St. Austin, 
Epist. 118.  speaking of the various Customs in the Church, saith, that in such kind of things there was libera observatio; indifferent things remained indifferent; one did not impose them upon another; so there was no breach of Unity. When the question was, whether there should be in Baptism trina or simplex mersio; St. Gregory answered, 
Conc. Tolet. 4. Can. 5.  In unâ Fide nihil officit diversa consuetudo; In one Faith a di verse Custom hurts not. In the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third, Can. 9 it is ordained, That where in one City, or Diocese, 
Crab. Conc. Tom. 2.  there were people of divers Tongues and Rites, sub unâ Fide, there the Divine Offices should be performed, secundum diversitates Rituum & Linguarum Luther, speaking of the Popish Ceremonies, saith truly, Sub Papâ est pompa externae unitatis, sed intus non ●n si confusissima Babylon. Under the Pope is the pomp of external Unity, but within there is nothing but a most confused Babel. It is certain Church-unity doth not consist in Rites; let men fancy what they will, there is but one healing Rule to be found, In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque charitas.  
2dly. It doth not stand in a Liturgy, or prescribed Form of Prayer. The Church for some Centuries was without a Liturgy, but never without Unity. The Liturgies ascribed to St. Peter, St. James, St. Mark, are plainly spurious; there are to be found the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which were not extant in the first Centuries. There mention is made of Temples, Altars, Monasteries, such things as the Primitive Church knew not. 
Apol. 2. prope finem. Tert. Ap. cap. 30.  In Justin Martyr's time the Minister prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to his ability. In Tertullian's he prayed, Sine monitore quia de pectore, without any Prompter but their own heart. 
Epist 34. de Celer.  In St. Cyprian's time the Ecclesiastical Lector was to read praecepta & Evangelium Domini, not a Liturgy. 
Euseb. de Vit. Constant. l. 4. c. 20.  In Constantin's time, had there been a Liturgy, he had not needed to have composed a Prayer for his Army. 
Soc. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21.  In the time of Socrates, among all Forms of Religion, there were not two that consented together in precandi more. Set-forms of Prayer were not introduced into the Church, till the Arian and Pelagian Heresies invaded it, and then to prevent the diffusion of Heretical Poison, Set-forms came in. In the Council of Laodicea, holden about the Year 368. Can. 18. it was ordained, that there should be caedem preces: But this was a Form of the Minister's own composing, as appears by the 23d Canon of the Third Council of Carthage, holden about the Year 399. which appointed that none should use a Form, unless he did first confer cum fratribus instructioribus. After which, in the Milevitan Council, holden about the Year 416. Can. 12. it was ordained, that the Form used should be approved of in a Synod: Still this was a Form of the Minister's own making. It was many years after this before a Liturgy was absolutely imposed on Ministers, that they might not pray by their own Gifts only, but by the prescribed Forms of others. About the Year 800. Charles the Great being Emperor, Pope Adrian moved him to establish a Liturgy by a Civil Edict, and obtained it: And this is said to be Gregory's Liturgy. Thus the Church was much longer without a Liturgy than it can be imagined to have been without Unity. Therefore Unity doth not consist in it.  
3dly. It doth not stand (as I take it) in a Diocesan Episcopacy. There are Bishops in Scripture, but no Diocesan ones. There are Presbyters ordained in every City, but no Bishops ordained to be over them. In Thessalonica there were not one, but many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Thess. 5.12. The Presidency there was in many, not in one. The Bishops at Philippi, Phil. 1.1. being more than one in one city, were no other than Presbyters. The Presbyters at Ephesus are in express terms called Bishops, Acts 20.17, & 28. St. Peter exhorts the Presbyters to feed the Flock of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, acting as Bishops among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. St. Paul would have Titus ordain Presbyters in every City, for a Bishop must be so and so. Tit. 1.5, 7. If the Bishop and Presbyter were not here the same, the reason, which must not be imagined, would be inconsequential. There are the qualifying Characters of a Bishop set down in 1 Tim. 3. and in Titus 1.7. but there is not one of them but is requisite in a Presbyter, not one of them peculiar to a Diocesan Bishop. The Scripture Evidence is very clear, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one. When Aerius brought some of these Scriptures to prove it, Epiphanius, who calls him Heretic, gives only this poor Answer, That in many Churches there were no Presbyters; but who can believe that at that time there were more Bishops than Presbyters; that, when there were more Bishops in one City, there should be no Presbyters at all there. It is a thing altogether incredible. Clemens, 
Salm. in App. ad Primate. fol. 50, 54.  in his Epistle to the Corinthians, makes Bishops and Presbyters all one. Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, mentions only Presbyters and Deacons. In the Epistle ascribed to Ignatius ad Magnesios', a Bishop above a Presbyter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Salm. in App. fol. 57 Com. in 1 Tim. 3.  a novel Institution. St. Ambrose saith, Episcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio est, there is but one ordination of a Bishop and a Presbyter. St. Jerome saith, 
Epist. ad Ocean. & ad Evagr.  Apud veteres iidem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuerunt. Anciently Bishops and Presbyters were the same. Again, 
Com. in Epist. Tit.  That the Bishop was greater than the Presbyter, consuetudine magis quam Dominicae dispositionis veritate, rather by custom, than by any true dispensation from the Lord: And again, that before, Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur. The Churches were ruled by the Common Council of Presbyters. St. Austin saith, that Episcopacy is greater than Presbytery, Secundum honorum vocabula, 
Epist. 19  quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, according to the Titles of Honour which are now used in the Church. Thus it appears that a Diocesan Episcopacy is but Humane, and by consequence Church-unity doth not stand in it. The Reformed Churches which are without Episcopacy, are not without Unity. I conclude this with the Judgement of the Learned Dr. Ward, 
Determ. 109.  who (speaking of the difference in Ecclesiastical Government which is between our Church and those beyond Sea) saith, that it may, and aught to be tolerated, absque fraternae unitatis laesione, without any breach of Brotherly unity.  
4thly. It doth not stand in the Civil Laws of Princes. When Magistrates were Pagans, there was yet a Church, and an Unity in it. When they became Christians, the Unity was the same, the Joints and the Bands were as before, sacred, not civil; from Christ the Head, not from the Magistrate. It's true, the Church hath an external help and guard from good Laws, but its Unity doth not consist in them. Neque quia regna dividuntur, 
De Unitate Eccles. c. 12.  ideo & Christiana unitas dividitur, cum in utraque parte inveniatur Catholica Ecclesia, saith St. Austin, Kingdoms may be divided, but Christian Unity is not; in both parts the Catholic Church is found. Should the Unity of the Church consist in the Laws of Magistrates, than the Laws being dissolved, there would be no Unity; the Laws being altered, the Unity must vary, and turn about to every point, as the Laws do. That which now is Unity, under a contrary Law must be Schism; that which now is a Schism, under a contrary Law may be Unity. Under the Emperor Valentinian, the Orthodox may be the Church; under Valens, the Arrians may be it. Nay, as the Magistrate may be, you shall not know by him where the Church or the Truth is. In that great Schism, when the Bishops of the East and West fell out about the Council of Chalcedon, some would not part with a syllable of it, some utterly rejected it: The Emperor Anastasius, 
Magd. Cent. 6. cap. 8. Evagr. l. 3. c. 30.  Aulicâ Sapientiâ usus, banished some of both Parties, aequale praemium veritas & mendacium tulêre, Truth and Falsehood were alike rewarded. Hence it appears, that the Unity of the Church doth not stand in Humane Laws, the true Unity is founded only in Scripture.  
These things being so, I come to lay down the true Unity. The Church may be considered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its internal Essence, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its external Communion. In the first consideration it hath invisible Bands to make it one; in the second it hath visible ones. The soul of the Church is, (as St. Austin speaks) internal Grace, the Body of it is external Profession and Communion.  
Take the Church in its internal Essence, so its Unity stands in the Holy Spirit, and the Graces of it. There is one body, and one spirit, Eph. 4.4. There are many Members in the Mystical Body of Christ, but they are all but one Body; and why so? They are distant in place and time, yet they are but one Body; distinct Bodies have distinct Spirits, but they have but one Holy Spirit, which unites them not only to Christ the Head, but one to another; so they must be but one Body, because they have but one Spirit to actuate them. Hence St. Austin saith, Non potest vivere Corpus Christi nisi de Spiritu Christi, 
In Joh. Tract. 26.  The Body of Christ cannot live but by the Spirit of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that makes them one living Body.  
Under the Spirit there are three Uniting Graces which make the Mystical Church but one; they are Faith, Hope, 
Enarr. in Psal. 37.  and Charity. Hence that of St. Austin, Si Fides nostra sincera sit, & Spes certa, & Charitas accensa, sumus in Corpore Christi. If our Faith be sincere, our Hope certain, our Charity kindled, then are we in the Body of Christ. Hence St. Bernard observes a triple Virtue in the Primitive Church, 
De ascensi Domini, Serm. 5.  Magnanimity, Longanimity, and Unanimity; the first was from Faith, the second from Hope, the third from Charity. Faith unites all the Members in the Mystical Body to Christ the Head, and so they are one in Capite. Love unites them not only to the Head, but one to another, and so they are one in Corpore. Hope unites them to one centre in Heaven, and so they are one in Termino. In these things stands the Unity of the Church in its internal Essence.  
Take the Church in its External Communion, so its Unity stands in the Holy Ordinances. They continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, Acts 2.42. These are the golden Bands that tie the Church together. As the Church mystical is made one by Graces, so the Church visible is made one by Ordinances: As the same Graces are all over the one, so the same Ordinances are all over the other.  
The same pure word is preached. 
Com. in Psal. 133.  The Church (saith St. Jerome) Non in parietibus sed in dogmatum veritate consistit, It doth not stand in Walls, but in True Doctrines. The Heretics, as the same Father goes on, may have the Walls, but the Church is where the Truth is. The Arians boasted of their Unity, 
Contra Auxent.  but as St. Hilary tells them, it was but Vnit as Impiet at is, an Unity of Impiety. The Unity of Truth is in the Church only; there all have one Law, one Charter; all are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concorporated and copartners of the promise, Eph. 3.6. No body of men hath such a Law or Charter as the Church hath.  
The same Sacraments are administered. These are Seals of the Church's Charter, and Symbols of that Communion which we have with Christ as Head, and one with another as Fellow-members. In Baptism we enter into the Holy Society; in the Lord's Supper we are Fellow-commoners, and eat together as Members of the same Family. 
Contra Faust. Manich. l. 19 cap. 11.  St. Austin saith, That in every Religion men are joined together, aliquo signaculorum consortio, by a fellowship in some Seals. No Society of men hath such Seals as the Church hath.  
The same Prayers in substance are made; though in the Primitive times there was no Common Prayer, or Liturgy in the Church, 
Ignatius, Epist. ad Magn.  yet there was ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Common, that is, a Public Prayer, which in the mouth of the Minister is as it were breathed out by all the people, that the Divine Blessing may come down upon the Word and Sacraments.  
I shall here add nothing touching Ecclesiastical Discipline, because the particular mode of it is not so essential to a Church as the other are.  
To conclude, Where there are lawful Pastors dispensing Holy Ordinances, and a People meeting, and unanimously joining in the use of them, there is a True Church; Hic est fons Veritatis, hoc Templum Dei, hoc domicilium Fidei, as Lactantius speaks, There is the Fountain of Truth, the Temple of God, the Dwelling-place of Faith.  
These things being premised touching the Church, and its Unity; I come now to inquire into the Nature of Schism.   

CHAP. II.  
Schism defined. Seminal or Actual. In the Church, or from it: There may be a Schism without Separation; and a Separation without Schism. The Characters of Schismatical Separation, Voluntariness, want of Charity, Pride, Error, breach of Sacred Unity, for little or no Cause, from the Catholic Church.  
SChism is the Scissure of the Church visible, a breach of the sacred Unity of it without cause. 'Tis a Scissure of the Church, 
De Unitat. Eccles.  a renting, vestem Christi inconsutilem, the seamless Coat of Christ, as St. Cyprian speaks. It was (as St. Austin speaks) signified by the breaking of the net, Luke 5.6. The net at Sea broke, 
Ibi Ecclesia in hocseculo, hic in fine seculi figurata est Austin in Joh. Tract. 122.  propter significanda Schismata, to note out the Schisms of the Church on Earth; but the Net drawn to the Shore broke not, John 21.11. to note out, that the Saints in Heaven are, in summâ pace, in the highest unity. No Schisms are in that blessed Region.  
'Tis a Scissure of the Church Visible. In the Church Mystical there are no Schisms. It's true, the Flesh (which in the Saints warreth against the Spirit) is a Schismatic, and makes such rents in their Souls, that they are in a sort divided from themselves. It is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me, saith Saint Paul, Rom. 7.20. He distinguisheth his corrupt Self from his renewed Self. But yet that Flesh cannot, shall not totally, finally rend them off from the Mystical Body. They may fall into sins, yet those Principles which tie them to the Mystical Body, are not extinct; the Spirit of Grace will not leave them, but raise them up out of their Falls. Hence St. Austin saith, 
In Psal. 88  Si in aeternum caput, in aeternum & membra, If Christ the head be for ever, so are the Members. Schism then is not in the Church Mystical, but in the Church Visible.  
'Tis a breach of the Sacred Unity in the Church, I mean of an Unity founded in Scripture; every breach of that Unity is Schism; but a breach of an Human Canon or Law is not Schism. St. Cyprian (showing the madness of Schismatics) saith, 
De Unit. Eccl.  Quis audeat scindere Vnitatem Dei? Who dares cut in pieces the Unity of God? So he calls the Church's Unity, because it is not Humane. 
Contra Cresc. l. 5. c. 21.  St. Austin saith, It is a great evil to make a Schism, ab Vnitate Christi, not from man's Unity, but from Christ's; and the same Author calls Schism in divers places, 
Contr. Lit. Pet. l. 2. c. 30, 81.  Sacrilegium Schismatis, the Sacrilege of Schism, because the Unity is not Human, but Divine. When the Papists charge Schism upon us, as casting off the Pope the Head of Unity, the Learned Dr. Hammond answers, 
Tract of Schism, 157.  He was never appointed by Christ to be Head; and the Answer is sound, No such Unity was appointed in Scripture.  
Again, 'Tis a breach of the Sacred Unity without Cause. When the Orthodox Christians separated from Arian Bishops, who subverted the Faith of Christ, it was no Schism at all. When the Protestants came out of Idolatrous Rome, it was no Schism, but a Duty. Causa (say the Canonists) non secessio facit Schismaticum, it is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schismatic.  
Schism is either seminal or actual. Seminal Schism stands in the carnal and corrupt Lusts of the Heart; these are the bitter Roots and Springs of Division. Whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not of your lusts that war in your members? James 4.1. Were there no warring Lusts within, there would be no jarring Discords without. The Apostle, speaking of the Divisions in Corinth, saith, Are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Cor. 3.3. Divisions come from the Carnal part in Christians, not from the Spiritual. St. Austin, speaking of Abraham's dividing the Beasts, but not the Birds, saith by way of allusion, 
De Civ. lib. 16. cap. 24.  Carnales inter se dividuntur, Spirituales nullo modo, Carnal men are divided one from another, but not spiritual. The Lusts of men are the great Make-bates. But to instance in some particulars. Pride is an horrible Schismatic; by swelling it breaks into a rapture; by lifting up a man above himself, it divides him from his Brother. The greatest instance of Pride in the World is the Bishop of Rome; he sits, as he pretends, in the Infallible Chair; he hath all Laws in scrinio pectoris; he claims all Power, Sacerdotal and Regal; he styles himself the Head of the whole Church; he is called a God on Earth; his Title is, Dominus Deus noster Papa; and after all this state, he is no less an Instance of Schism than of Pride. He rends himself off from the Church Universal; he will not be a Member in it, but an Head, a Universal Lord over it. The Church must be only in part Papae, and nowhere else. All the Protestant Churches in the World must be cast off as Schismatics, and this abominable Schism must be styled Unity. Again, Self-love is a great Schismatic; it so appropriates all to itself, that it leaves nothing in common; it is such an inordinate uniting of a man to himself, that he cannot be joined to others. That little word (Ego) is a strange divider of all Society. When Novatus fell off from the Church, and became the Head of the Cathari, there was somewhat of self in it. 
Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 42.  The denial of an Episcopal Preferment made him set up a Church for himself; and in that Church, before he gave the Eucharist, he made the Communicants swear by the Body and Blood of Christ not to forsake him. To name but one thing more, Hatred is also an inward Schismatic; it dissolves what Love unites, and sets a man against his Brother, to whom he should be joined in amity. 
De Bapt. l. 1. c. 11.  Origo Schismatis est odium fraternum, saith St. Austin, The hatred of a Brother is the origin of Schism. In the Council at Ephesus, called Concilium praedatorium, the Eutychian hatred broke out sadly against the Orthodox. The Bishops that favoured that Heresy, carried the matter by mere force and violence, crying out, Qui dicit duas Naturas, in duo dividit. He that confesseth two Natures in Christ, divides him into two. Such a desperate thing is Hatred, that it prompts men to divide even unto blood. Such Lusts as these are the roots of gall and wormwood, which bear the bitter fruits of Schism and Division.  
Actual Schism is either a Schism in the Church, or a Schsm from it.  
A Schism in the Church stands in the Differences and Dissensions of the Members in it. We have in the Church of Corinth three instances of it. They differed about the Excellencies of their Teachers. Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's, and I of Cephas, 1 Cor. 1.12. They differed about the manner and time of the Holy Eucharist. They did not wait one for another, the rich contemned the poor, 1 Cor. 11.21, 22. They differed about the variety of Gifts among them; the inferior in gifts envied the superior, and the superior in gifts despised the inferior; the feet envied the hand, and the head undervalved the feet; 1 Cor. 12.15, & 21. And every one of these differences is in these Texts called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Schism in the Church; and the reason is, because every one of them did break the Unity of the Church in Ordinances. When they looked more on the Teacher, than on the Truth, there could not be an entire communion in hearing the pure word, they heard it but partially in the gifts of one, rather than of another. When at the Lord's Supper they did not wait for, but contemn one another, there could not be an unanimous conjunction in that Ordidance. The Eucharist, the Seal and Bond of Union, was as it were rend and torn in pieces. When the inferior in gifts envied, and the superior despised, they could not worship and serve God like those, Acts 2.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with one accord. Those Differences did make a breach upon that Worship that should have been entire. Now here it is to be noted, that every difference among Christians doth not amount to Schism. There was a Paroxysm, a hot fit between Paul and Barnabas, yet no Schism, Acts 15.39. In the Church of Corinth, Brother went to law with Brother, 1 Cor. 6.6. The Apostle blames the difference, but calls it not Schism. Stephen, Bishop of Rome, was against Rebaptisation; Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was for it; 
De unico Bapt. c. 14.  yet there was no Schism; Ambo. in unitate Catholica constituti, saith St. Austin, both remained in Catholic unity. There were differences between Chrysostom and Epiphanius, between Jerom and Austin, yet it would be hard to charge them with Schism. The Lutherans differ from the other Reformed Churches in some lesser Truths; but because they agree in fundamental Articles, there is not properly a Schism; the difference, non impedit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hinders not the unity of the Faith, saith Dr. Ward. But than Differences amount to Schism when they break the unity of Faith, 
Determ. fol. 3.  or the unanimous Communion in Ordinances. Such were the Differences  in Corinth; there was no separation from the Church there; yet because those Differences broke the unity of Ordinances, they are called Schism.  
A Schism from the Church stands in a criminous separation from it. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it relates to the Church, doth, as I take it, only denote in Scripture, Divisions in a Church. But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth seem to denote division from a Church. Such a kind of dissension, in which men separate one from another in body and place, as well as mind. Yet in that, 1 Cor. 3.3. it seemeth to be no more than division in a Church. However this be, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jud. 19 doth properly signify to separate, or put ones self extra terminos Ecclesiae, out of the bounds of the Church. Now this Schism from a Church is either negative or positive. Negative Schism is, when men separate from a Church, and go no further; no new Church or Assembly is set up. Positive Schism is, when there is not only a simple Separation, but a new Church or Assembly is instituted, in which the Word and Sacraments are administered. This is called struere Altare contra Altar. A negative Secession may in some case be lawful, as when one is unjustly ejected out of a Church he may recede from it. Yet (saith the Learned Camero) a positive Secession in that case is not lawful, 
De Eccles. 325.  he may not immediately set up a new Church, at least not without some other Reasons or Circumstances.  
Touching this Separating Schism, it is first to be noted, that there may be a Schism without a Separation, and there may be a Separation without a Schism.  
There may be a Schism without a Separation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Schism in the body, 1 Cor. 12.25. when there is no schism from it. There was not (for aught I can see) any Separation in the Church of Corinth. Yet the Dissensions there making a breach upon the Communion in Ordinances, did amount to Schism. St. Cyprian saith, 
De Unit. Eccl.  That all believers are in one House, The Church, saith he, is unanimit at is hospitium, an House of amity and unanimity, where they sweetly dwell together in the unanimous Worship and Service of God. If a man do not go out of this House, and leave the Unity of it; yet if he make Dissensions there, and disturb that Unity he is guilty of Schism.  
Again, There may be a Separation without a Schism. In many Cases one part of a Congregation may departed from the other, and become a Church of itself, and yet there may be no Schism at all. What if it be done in a Congregation too great to meet together, for convenience, and by common consent? This will be no Schism at all. 'Tis but as when Abraham and Lot parted asunder, because the Land was not able to bear them: Or, as when the Hive being too little for the Bees, one part goes away, and dwells by itself in a new Family. What if there be a Law or Canon made to allow such a Separation? It will hardly be called Schism; and yet Church-unity doth not vary as Human Laws and Canons do, for than it might be something or nothing, as men please. If in a Church the foundations of the holy Faith be destroyed, what can the Righteous do? Join they cannot, separate they must. When Eunomius the Arian was made a Bishop, 
Theod. l. 4. c. 14.  not one of his Flock, rich or poor, young or old, man or woman, would communicate with him in the Service of God, but left him to officiate alone. When Nestorius did first publish his Heresy in the Church, the people made a noise, 
Evagr. l. 3. cap. 5.  and ran out of the Assembly. When under the Emperor Basiliscus five hundred Bishops condemned the Council of Chalcedon, it was hard for Christians to join with them. The Church is where the Truth is, and no where else. What if the terms of Communion be sinful? we are rather to break with all Churches, than to commit one sin against God. The breaking off from him is more than breaking off from all men. Thus in some cases there may be a Separation without Schism. Indeed Schism is not a mere local defection, but a moral one. Non ●liscessies corporalibus motibus, 
De Bap. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 1.  sed spirit alibus est metiendus, saith St. Austin, The departure is not to be measured by corporal motions, but by spiritual: but enough of this.  
In the next place, I shall endeavour to lay down some Characters whereby it may be known when Separation is Schismatical.  
1st. Schismatical Separation is intentional, and perfectly voluntary. Thus the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that separate themselves, Jud. 19 do by their own voluntary act put themselves out of the bounds of the Church. Thus they that went out of the Apostolical Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. did it intentionally and freely. It is the observation of Aquinas, That as in natural things, 
2, 2ae. quaest. 39 Art. 1. c.  that which is by accident doth not constitute the Species: So in moral, not that which is besides the intention, for that is accidental; hence he infers, Peccatum Schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum, ex eo quod intendit se ab unitate separare quam charit as facit. Proprie Schismatici dicuntur, qui propria sponte & intention se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant. The sin of Schism is a special sin, in that it intends to separate from that unity which charity makes. Schismatics are properly those, who of their own accord and intention do separate themselves from the unity of the Church. It's true, every Schismatic doth not say as Martion did, Ego sindam Ecclesiam, I will cleave the Church in two; yet this is that which he means in his Separation. As in our Common-Law, when we would know whether an entry amount to a disseisin, we inquire, 
Cro. lib. 3. Blunden.  quo animo fecerit, with what mind it was done. So in Theology, if we would know whether a Separation amount unto Schism, we must inquire with what mind it was done. Schism, saith Dr. Hammond, is a voluntary dividing. The Schismatic is he that divides himself from the Church; not he that is cut off from it, but he that goes out, and recedes of his own accord. He condemns himself, being out of the Church, not by Censure, but suo arbitrio, by his own free Choice. The Donatists were in their minds and wills so set upon their own way, 
Aust. Epist. 162.  that after a long series of Debates and Hear, they were still the same as before. A right Schismatic makes it his business to divide; 
Cypr. de Unit. Eccl.  A Matre Filios segregat, Oves à Pastores solicitat; He severs the Sons from the Mother, he entices the Sheep from the Pastor. This is the first Character.  
2dly. Schismatical Separation proceeds from Hatred, or at least from a want of charity. 
In Asc. B. Mar. Serm. 5.  Quisque (saith St. Bernard) sibi unus debet esse per integritatem virtutis, & unum cum proximis per vinculum dilectionis. Every one ought to be one with himself by the integrity of Virtue, and one with his Neighbour by the bond of Charity. 
De Bapt. con Don. l. 1. c. 11.  Love unites, but hatred divides, and breaks out into Schism. Nulli (saith St. Austin) Schisma facerent, si fraterno odio non excaecarentur. None would make Schisms, unless they were blinded with the hatred of their Brethren. This Character was evident in the Donatists; 
Contra Cresc. l. 2. c. 10.  hence the same Father tells them, Sacramenta habetis, charitatem non habet is, Sacraments you have, but Charity you have not. And withal, he tells them, that though they had, multa & magna, 
De Bapt. cont. Don. l 1. c. 8, 9  many and great things, yet all was nothing, si unum defuerit, if that one thing Charity were wanting; and what Charity they could have who allowed no Church but their own, I know not. When there are no just Scruples, no reasonable Causes of Separation, surely the departure must be for want of Charity.  
3dly. Schismatical Separation issues out of Pride and Contempt. When they went out from the Apostolical Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. there was somewhat of Antichristian Pride and Contempt in it; for in the verse precedent, Antichrists are said to be then in being. Those that separated themselves Jud. 19 did it, as a Learned man saith, cum contemptu aliorum, as if they had some peculiar Doctrine or Sanctity. This Character may be seen in the Novatians and Donatists. Novatus is said to be Superbiâ inflatus, puffed up with pride, when he set up his Separate Church, that he might be head of those who called themselves pure. 
Euseb. l 6. cap 42.  The Roman Synod takes notice of this, and decreed, That he, cum simul elatis, with his proud companions, should be esteemed as Aliens to that Church. St. Austin saith of the Donatists, that Superbi ruperunt rete & fecere altare contra altar. Proud men broke the net, and set up Altar against Altar. It was indeed horrible pride in them to say, that the Church was only in part Donati; and it is no less in the Papists to say, that it is only in part Papae. For any one Party to boast, as if the Church were with them only, and not elsewhere, is Schismatical Pride, or proud Schism. Then is Separation a Schism, when it is done in pride and contempt.  
4thly. Schismatical Separation is ordinarily, if not always, attended with some error or other, It is a very are thing to see a mere simple Schism, sine ullâ depravatâ Doctrinâ, without some mixture of depraved Doctrine. Every Zimri hath its Cosby; every Divider hath some lie or other to which he is joined. Neque Schisma feri potest, nisi diversum aliquid sequantur qui faciunt, saith St. Austin. 
Cont. Cres. l 2. c. 7.  Neither can there be a Schism made, unless they that make it follow some different Doctrine. Nullum Schisma non ●bi aliquam fingit Haeresin ut recte ●b Ecclesia recessisse videatur, 
Com. in Tit. c. 3.  saith ●t. Jerome; There is no Schism but it frames to itself some Heresy, that it may seem to have rightly departed from the Church. Novatus did not only separate from the Church, but set up his own Error, That the lapsed were not to be received in the Church, no, not upon their repentance, no more than dead men. Donatus did not merely separate, but advanced his uncharitable Error, That the Church was only in part Donati; 
De Unit. Eccl. c. 11.  upon which account St. Austin tells him, that he did, aliud Evangelizare, preach another Gospel. 
Theod. Hist. l. 3, 5.  Neither did the Luciferiani only separate, but they had their propria Dogmata, their proper Errors. Thus the Learned Whitaker, 
De Notis Eccl. Q. 5.  Non est Schisma nisi cum Errore aliquo conjunctum fuerit. There is no Schism, but it is in conjunction with some Error. The Schismatic ever hath some peculiar Opinion to promote in the world, and upon that account he separates from the Church, and sets up for himself.  
5thly. Schismatical Separation is a breach of some Sacred Unity. The Schismatic doth indeed adhere to the Church in part, but with all he breaks in part. There is some breach of Unity. He adheres to the Church in part, but not in all. St. Austin saith of the Donatists, In multis erant mecum, 
Enarr. in Psal. 54.  in Schismate non mecum. In many things they are with me, but in their Schism they are not with me. And in another place he saith, That they were with the Church in Sacraments, but not in vinculo pacis, in the bond of peace. Thus the Schismatic adheres in part, but then he breaks in part: There is some breach of sacred Unity, I mean of that Unity that is founded in Scripture. Hence St. 
De Unit. Eccl.  Cyprian expostulates with the Schismatics, Quis audeat scindere unitatem Dei, vestem Domini, Ecclesiam Christi? Who dares break the Unity of God, the seamless Coat of the Lord, the Church of Christ? 
Contra. Parm. l. 2. c. 1, 11.  Hence St. Austin tells them, Non est quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis; There is nothing more grievous than the Sacrilege of Schism. Were there no breach of Unity, it would not be Schism; were not the Unity sacred, it would not be Sacrilege. Then is Separation Schism when there is a breach of some sacred Unity.  
6thly, Schismatical Separation is a breach of Sacred Unity, for little or no cause at all. The memorable Mr. 
Tract of Schism.  Hale's speaking about the Schism touching the keeping of Easter, saith, This matter though 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 all Party out of Conscience did what they did. Thus he. This great Schism was for just little or nothing, and so is every Schism, that is properly so called The Separation is as the cause is When the cause is weighty and just the Separation is innocent. When the Cause is light and inconsiderable the Separation is Schism. Schismatics are but tanquam paleae, as chaffy and as St. Austin speaks, 
Expos. in Epist. Joh.  Occasione venti volant foras: A little Wind drives them out of doors.  
7thly, Schismatical Separation is not only from a particular Church, but from the Catholic one. As by a just Excommunication a Man is cast out from the Church Catholic, so by an unjust Separation a man casts out himself from the same. The Reverend Primate Bramhall in his Vindication of the Church of England, lays down two things; the one is this, If one Part of the Universal Church separate itself from another, not absolutely, or in essentials, but respectively in Abuses and Innovations; not as it is a part of the Universal Church, but only so far as it is corrupted and degenerated, it doth still retain a Communion not only with the Catholic Church, but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated, except only in Corruptions. The other is this, Whosoever separates himself from any part of the Catholic Church, as it is a part of the Catholic Church, doth separate himself from every part of the Catholic Church, and consequently from the Universal Church, which hath no Existence but in its Parts. Thus that Learned Man. It is one thing to separate from a Particular Church as it is corrupted and degenerated; another thing to separate from a Particular Church, as it is a part of the Catholic Church. The Learned Dr. Prideaux saith, 
De Visib. Eccles.  Non habendus est Schismaticus, qui Romam aut aliam quamvis deserit particularem Ecclesiam, ob additamenta non serenda; sed qui aversatur Communionem & unitatem Ecclesiae Vniversalis & Catholicae. He is not to be esteemed a Schismatic, who forsakes Rome, or any other Particular Church, because of some Additions not to be born; but he that turns away from the Union and Communion of the Church Catholic and Universal. 
Epist. ad Cornel. l. 2. Ep. 11.  St. Cypriam charges it upon the Novatians, that they did, Catholicae Ecclesiae corpus unum scindere: Cut in pieces that one Body of the Church Catholic. 
De Unit. Eccl. c. 17.  St. Austin charges it upon the Donatists, A Christianâ unitate, quae toto orbe diffunditur, sacrilego schismate separatos esse: That they were by a Sacrilegious Schism separated from that Christian Unity, which is diffused over the whole world. Separation is then Schism, when it is from a particular Church, as it is a part of the Church Catholic; for than it is from every part of the Catholic Church, and by consequence from the whole Church.  
These Characters may suffice to show what Separation amounts to Schism.   

CHAP. III.  
The Separation of the N. C. is not Schism. Not voluntary. Not from want of Charity. Not from Pride and Contempt. Not attended with Error. No breach of Sacred Unity. Not for little or no Cause. The Rites and Ceremonies for which they separate no little things, as considered in themselves. Of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism. The Ceremonies, as terms of Communion, entrench on Christ's Kingly Office: Invert the Gospel; are against Christian Charity, Liberty and Unity. The Pleas for Ceremonies not satisfactory. Of Order and Decency. Whether the Ceremonies are parts of Worship. N. C. do not separate from the Catholic Church.  
I Now go on to consider the Separation of the Nonconformists, Ministers and People, whether that be Schism or not; in the doing of which I shall review the former Characters with respect to them.  
1st. Schismatical Separation is intentional and perfectly voluntary; but quo animo, do the Dissenters separate? In our Law an entry shall not be called a disseisin, partibus invitis, against the will of the Agents. Neither should a Separation in such a Case be in Theology called a Schism. Is it imaginable that the intention or option of the Nonconformists should be to be out of the Church, rather than in it? It is easy to judge who they be that most intent and love Church-unity; those who would have the terms of it easy, plain and unquestionable, or those who would have them clogged with Scruples. The Nonconformists separate; but their parting from the Church, like the Merchant's parting with his Goods in a Storm, is not purely voluntary, but a mixed Action, done with an unwilling will, not out of love to Separation, but to salve Conscience. When the Papists charge Schism upon our Church, what saith Bishop Bramhall? 
Reply to the Bishop of Chalced. fol. 55.  Schism is a voluntary Separation; To be separated might be our Consequent will, because we could not help it: but it was far enough from our Antecedent will, or that we did desire it. And a little after. If they did impose upon us a necessity of doing sinful things, and offending God, and wounding our Consciences, than we did not leave them, but they did drive us from them. And what saith Dr. Prideaux, Fugati potius quam fugientes, non tam à Roma ut est secessimus, quàm ad Roman ut erat, regressi sumus, We were rather driven away, than voluntarily flying; we are not so much departed from Rome as it is, as we are returned to Rome as it was. In like manner, the Nonconformists being charged with Schism, may say, To separate is not their Antecedent will, but Consequent; they depart from the Church, but it is by a kind of constraint; they had much rather be in the Church; they wish for it, pray for it, and saluâ conscientiâ, would do any thing for it, but there are some things which they cannot join in: Such a departure should not be called Schism.  
2dly. Schismatical Separation proceeds from hatred, 
Schismatici discessionibus iniquis à fraternâ Charitate dissiliunt. Aug. de Fide, & Symbol. cap. 10.  or at least from a want of Charity; but do the Nonconformists thus separate? What is done out of Conscience to God, cannot be fairly interpreted hatred to our Brother. It is love to God that causes men to walk according to Conscience; but it is want of love to him that makes them hate their Brother. These two cannot stand together. If we call that hatred which indeed is Conscience, we forfeit our own Charity by misconstruing the Charity of others. It is the desire of the Nonconformists to live in charity with the Conforming Brethren. In the Council of Carthage St. Cyprian and his Fellow-Bishops, in the point of rebaptising those that were baptised by Heretics, plainly erred and dissented from the rest of the Church; yet they were never charged with Schism for it, and why? Because they did it neminem judicantes, neo à jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes: Judging none, removing none, that thought otherwise, from the right of Communion. That Error of Rebaptisation, 
De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. ult.  which in the Donatists was, as St. Austin speaks, Fuligo in tartareâ faeditate, the smoke of their hellish filthiness, was in St. Cyprian but, naevus in candore sanctae Animae, a freckle in the candour of an holy Soul; and the reason was, because St. Cyprian had what they had not, Charitatis ubera, the breasts of Charity to cover his Defects. In respect of this Charity Bishop Davenant saith, 
Sentent. de Pace 112.  Melius de Ecclesiâ meruit errans Cyprianus, quam Stephanus Romanus recte sentiens, & Ecclesias quantum in se fuit, Schismatico Spiritu dilacerans. Cyprian, erring, deserved better of the Church, than Stephen, Bishop of Rome, rightly thinking, but by a Schismatical Spirit, as much as he could renting the Churches. Charity is a great thing, and I hope it may be found among the Nonconformists; they leave the Church, neminem judicantes, judging none of their Conforming Brethren the breasts of their Charity may cover some defects. I hope therefore Schism in this respect cannot be charged upon them. I am sure Charity is in all good men, Conforming or Nonconforming; but if we compare Parties together, that Party which binds burdens on Conscience, and leaves them there, seems to me to have less of Charity, than that which shrinks and withdraws the Shoulder from them.  
3dly. Schismatical Separation issues out of pride and contempt. The Donatists thought themselves the only men; they boasted as if their Communion were the only Communion, 
Si nostra communio est Ecclesia, vestra non est. Aug. de Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 11.  as if their Baptism were the only Baptism. 
Vos dicitis in nobis Baptismum non esse. Aust. contr. Cresc. l. 4. cap. 62.  But do the Nonconformists separate thus? Do they say that they only are the Church, or that they only have the Ordinances? Do they despise their Conforming Brethren, or lift up themselves above them? No surely, they desire to be but as Brethren, and that one Brother might not Lord it over another. When our Divines charge the Monasteries as Schismatical, because they have separate Meetings and Ordinances, Bellarmin answers thus. 
De Not. Eccl. l. 4. c. 10.  Soli Schismatici sunt qui ita erigunt altare proprium, ut altare aliorum prophanum censeant. They only are Schismatics, who so set up their own Altar, that they esteem the Altar of others profane. It is indeed one thing to have distinct Meetings for Worship, and another to have opposite ones. The Nonconformists have Meetings of their own, but without the contempt of others. The Jews say, he that contemns the Solemn Assemblies of the Church, hath no part in Seculo futuro. But where the distinct Meetings are without contempt, there, I suppose it is not to be called Schism. Here that may take place; he that is not against the Church, is for it. A candid Charity interprets all to the best.  
4thly. Schismatical Separation is ordinarily, if not always, attended with some Error or other. 
Schisma in Haeresim eructat.  The Novatians, Donatists, Luciferians, had their propria Dogmata, their proper Errors. Their Separations were to set up their Errors; their Errors under pretence of Truth, were to justify their Separations. Hence St. Cyprian saith, that the Schismatics are, 
De Unit. Eccl.  Pests & lues Fidei, corrumpendae veritatis artifices, the Pests and Plagues of the Faith, the Artists in corrupting Truth. But as for the Nonconformists, what new Doctrine do they bring? what Error do they propagate? what deadly poison is under their Lips? Do they not fully and firmly adhere to the Church (as Optatus speaks) in una Fide, in one Faith? 
Whit. de Not Eccl. cap. 8.  are they not joined together, ut in manu digiti, as the fingers in the hand pointing out the same pure Doctrine? Bishop Abbot, in his Book De gratiâ & perseverantiâ, tells us of some Corrupters, 
Prasat. ad Lect.  Qui veteres haereses denuo in Scenam producunt, & Pelagianâ lue correpti Gratiae Divinae vim nervosque succidunt, Who bring up the old Heresies upon the stage, and having caught the Pelagian Pestilence, cut asunder the strength and nerves of Divine Grace. Not only some of our men, but Foreigners too, have taken notice that the Plague of Socinianism hath been creeping in among us. 
Upon the 8th Article.  Mr. Rogers upon the Articles of our Church tells us, that he heard a great Learned man speaking of Zanchy's Book, De tribus Elohim, call him a Fool and an Ass. Arnoldus, in his Book against the Racovian Catechism, 
Praef. ad Lect.  takes notice of the Socinian Heresy creeping up among us. But do the Nonconformists propagate these Errors? Do they spread abroad the poison? Do they not steadily stick to the true pure Doctrine of our Church? And is not conformity in Doctrine much more than conformity in Ceremonies? Surely it is. It seems therefore hard to charge Schism upon them. He indeed goes out of the Church, who goes out, not in Body, but in Faith. Hence it was the judgement of Gersom, 
Ger. de Eccles. cap. 6. sect. 3.  That in a simple Schism, without any depraved Doctrine added to it, when it is doubtful by whom the Schism is made, till it be lawfully determined, those that are Followers in it do belong to the Church.  
5thly. Schismatical Separation is a breach of some Sacred Unity. The Schismatic adheres to the Church in part, but withal he breaks in part. He adheres in part, 
De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 1.  or else he would be an Apostate. Thus St. Austin saith of the Donatists, In quo nobiscum sentiunt, in co nobiscum sunt, In what they think with us, in that they are with us. Thus when the Donatists asked whether their Baptism did generate Sons to God; If it did not generate, why doth not the Catholic Church rebaptize them; but if it do generate, than ours (say the Donatists) is the Church. St. Austin makes this answer, 
De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 10.  That the Church of the Donatists doth generate, Vnde conjuncta est, non unde Separata est. Separata est à vinculo, Charitatis, sed adjuncta est in uno Baptismate. It generates as it is joined to the Church Catholic, not as it is separated from it. It is separated from the bond of Charity, but it is joined in one Baptism. Thus the Donatists were ●oined to the Church in part. Again, The Schismatic, though he adhere to the Church in part, yet withal he breaks in part, or else he could be no Schismatic. Thus St. Austin saith of the Donatists, 
De Bapt. contr. Don. l. 1. c. 1.  In eo à nobis recesserunt, in quo à nobis dissentiunt, In that they are departed from us in which they descent from us. When Cresconius urged for the Donatists, that there was, una Religio, eadem Sacramenta, nihil in Christianâ observatione diversum; 
Contra Cresc. l. 2. cap. 3.  That on both sides there was the same Religion, the same Sacraments, nothing in Christian observation divers. (Which Plea by the way, had it been true, would have been good, there being no Schism where there is no breach of Unity.) St. Austin utterly denies it, and asks them, Quare rebaptizatis? Why do you rebaptize those that were baptised in the Catholic Church? Indeed they thought themselves the only Church, and so broke themselves off from the Church Catholic. Thus the Schismatic is partly in conjunction with the Church, and partly in separation from it; he adheres in one thing, and breaks off in another. But is it thus with the Nonconformists? Are not they joined to the Church in all that which is truly Unity? Have not they in their Meetings the unity of Ordinances, the same pure Word preached, the same holy Sacraments administered, and this by true Ministers of Christ? And what other Unity is there in Visible Churches? Or what of true Unity is there between two Pararochial Churches, which is not between their Meetings and Parochial Churches? Abate but Humane things, in which Church unity stands not, and they are not partially, but totally in conjunction with the Church of England; and if so, there is no breach of Unity, and by consequence no Schism in them. 
De Bapt. cont. Don. l. 1. c. 1.  St. Austin lays down a notable Rule; That he that acts, Sicut in unitate agitur, as it is done in the unity; in eo manet atque conjungitur, in that he abides, and is joined, in all those things wherein Unity stands. The Nonconformists act as the Church doth, therefore they are in conjunction with it. St. Austin tells us, 
Contra Cresc. l. 2. c. 10.  That the Church doth in the Donatists acknowledge, Omnia quae sua sunt, all things that are its own. Let the Conforming Ministers acknowledge all that of true Unity which is in the Dissenters Meetings, and they may perceive that their Brethren are in conjunction with them. Where there is a total conjunction, there is no breach of true Unity; and where there is no such breach, there is no Schism. But you will say, their departure from the Congregations in public, is a Schism. I answer, Every local Separation is not a Schism there is more in Schism than so. Every departure is not Schism. It is hardly to be called such, when those that depart do yet remain in conjunction with them from whom they depart. And this I think is the Case of those that are Nonconformists.  
6thly. Schismatical Separation is a breach of sacred Unity for little or no cause at all. Hence Irenaeus saith o● the Schismatics, That propter modicas & quaslibet causas, magnum & gloriosum Corpus Christi conscindunt, for little and inconsiderable Causes they cu● in pieces the great and glorious Body of Christ. The Professors of Leyden say, 
Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 40.  That a Schismatical Church is that, quae propter externos aliquos ritus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Communionem Christianam abrumpit, which for some external indifferent Rites breaks Christian Communion. This Character seems prima fancy to press upon the Separation of the Nonconformists. They separate for Rites and Ceremonies, which seem to be but minute and inconsiderable things; this therefore must be duly considered.  
The Ceremonies of our Church may be considered under a double notion; either as they are in themselves, or else as they are terms of Communion.  
The Ceremonies, as considered in themselves, however innocent they seem to be to the Conformists, they are not so to the Nonconformists. To instance but in one of them. The Cross in Baptism is looked upon as a thing unlawful, or at least as a thing very ill-coloured, and suspected to be unlawful. To explain this I shall lay down some few things.  
1st. The Sign of the Cross was indeed used among the Ancient Fathers, but not without a mixture of Superstition. 
De Cor. Mil.  Tertullian will have Signaculum Crucis to be necessary in every part of our life. 
Lib. 2. adv. Judaeos.  St. Cyprian saith, That in hoc Signo Crucis salus sit omnibus qui in frontibus notentur, in this Sign of the Cross there is Salvation to all who have this mark in their Foreheads. Origen saith, 
In Exod. cap. 15.  That fear and trembling falls upon the Devils, cum Signum Crucis in nobis viderint, when they see the Sign of the Cross in us. St. Ambrose saith, 
Ser. 43.  That all prosperity is in uno Signo Christi, in that one sign of Christ; he that sows in it, shall have a Crop of Eternal Life; he that jour mes in it, shall arrive at Heaven itself. St. Athanasius saith, That Signior races omnia magica compescuntur, 
De Incar. verbi.  all Conjurations are repressed by the Sign of the Cross. 
In Matt. Homil. 55.  St. Chrysostom saith, That all Sacraments are perfected Signo Crucis, with the Sign of the Cross. St. Austin saith, 
In Joh. Tract. 118.  That unless the Sign of the Cross be applied to the Forehead of the Believers, or to the Water of Regeneration, or to the Oil with which they are anointed, or to the Sacrifice with which they are nourished, nihil eorum rite perficitur, none of these things are rightly performed. 
Bellarm. de Imag. lib. 2. c. 29.  Such a use of the Cross as this is, Protestants cannot allow of. Only the Papists, who would have Humane Inventions do great things, make use of such Say in the Fathers.  
2dly. The Sign of the Cross is an abominable Idol in the Popish Church. Bellarmine (who doth distinguish the Cross into three parts, the True Cross, the Image of the Cross, and the Sign of the Cross) lays down this general Doctrine. Omnes Cruces adoramus, 
Bell. l. 2. c. 30. de Imag.  We worship all Crosses: And particularly of the Sign of the Cross he saith, That it is, Signum sacrum & venerabile, a sacred and venerable Sign. Aquinas saith, 
Pars 3. Q. 25. Art. 4.  That the Image of Christ is to be adored, cultu latriae, the Sign is to have the same adoration as the thing itself. And how? which way is it that such an horrible Idol should be retained in a Church Protestant, and pure from Idolatry? The Brazen Serpent was ordained by God himself, and yet when it was abused to Idolatry, Hezekiah broke it to pieces, and called it Nehushtan, a piece of brass, 2 Kings 18.4. It was a singular Figure of Christ. The lifting of it up upon a pole for corporal Cures, did by Divine Ordination type out the lifting up of him upon the Cross for spiritual; yet becoming an Idol, it was no more to be endured: And why should the Cross, a mere Human Invention, being once so abused, ever be tolerated? The Children of Israel, Hos. 2.16, 17. were not to mention the names of Idols, that is, honoris gratiâ, in any way for their honour. 
Crab. Conc. Tom. 1.  The Fifth Council of Carthage, Can. 15. would have all Idolatrous Relics utterly extinguished. Constantine the Great would not suffer the least Rag or Memorial of Pagan Idolatry to remain: And it is very strange, 
Euseb. Vit. Constant. l. 3.47, & 52.  that such an Idold as the Cross should be retained in a Church free from Idolatry.  
3dly. The Sign of the Cross in our own Church, though it be no Idol, yet is an Image; it is not indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a graven Image, but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a similitude of Christ crucified. Representation is the very essence of an Image; and the Sign of the Cross is intended to resemble Christ crucified. 
Aquin. Pars 3. Q. 83. Art. 1.  As the Sacraments are by God's Institution representative Images of Christ's Passion, so is the Cross by Man's; and what doth an Image do in Divine Worship? The Second Commandment shuts out all Images from it; nay, under that notion, it would shut out the very Sacraments, were they not of Divine Ordination. Anciently the Christians would not suffer Images to be in their Churches. 
Ael. Lamprid. in vita Alexandri.  When the Emperor Adrian commanded Temples to be made without Images, it was presently conceived hat he did prepare them for Chritians. 
Conc. El. Can. 36. Epiph. Epist. ad Joh. Hierosol.  The Eliberine Council would not admit that Pictures should be in Churches. Epiphanius rend the Veil that hung in the Church of Anablatha, because it had the Image of Christ, or some Saint in it. Serenus Bishop of Marsiles, broke down the Images in his Church. The Emperor Theodosius and Valentinian removed, quodcunque Signum Salvatoris, every Sign of a Saviour out of the way. Thus Images have not been admitted into Churches; and how then should they be brought into Ordinances, which are much more sacred than Places? The Image of the Cross should not appear in Divine Worship, in which no other Image is to be admitted, but that, 
Aust. Epist. 119. cap. 2.  quae ho● est quod Deus est, which is that which God is; that is, Jesus Christ the Image of the Invisible God.  
4thly. The Sign of the Cross is an addition to Baptism, and so utterly unwarrantable. Under the Old Testament it was unlawful to add to the Ceremonial Law of God, Deut. 4.2. And how should it be lawful under the New to add to the Ceremonial Law of Christ? Christ was as faithful in the House of God as Moses; his provision was as perfect for Rituals, as that 〈◊〉 Moses was. Nay, the Worship under the Old Testament being more Shadowy and Ritual, and that under the New more pure and simple; an addition to this is less tolerable than to that, because the purer the Worship is, the more impure is the addition. The Prophet Ezekiel, speaking of the Glory of the Evangelical Church, that it was the place of God's Throne, and of the soles of his feet; adds this, That they should no more set their thresholds by God's, or their posts by his, Ezek. 43.7, & 8. they should not add their own Inventions to God's Precepts. When the Corinthians joined, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their own supper to the Lord's, it was unjustifiable; and the Apostle expostulates about it, Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God? 1 Cor. 11.22. Are there not distinct Houses, and distinct Suppers? why do you join the Civil Supper to the Sacred? The Apostle against such mixtures allegeth that Institution, 
Parker of the Crols. 102.  I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you, v. 23. Man may not add to what is from God. When the Armenians added sod meat to the Lord's Supper, it was condemned by a General Council. When the Artotyritae brought in their bread and cheese into it, 
Epiph. Heres. 49.  it was abominable; when they brought in their mulsum or mellitum into it, 
Council Altissidor. Can. 8.  the Church calls it, aliud poculum, another cup; and that, ad grande peccatum & reatum pertinet, it amounts to a great sin and guilt, as being an addition to Christ's Institution. It's true, the Fathers in this Council did through infirmity admit, Vinum cum aquâ mixtum, a mixture of Water with Wine; but another Council will not admit, no not of a little water mixed with the Wine, and adds this reason for it; 
Crab. Tom. 2. Aurelia. 4. Can. 4.  Quia Sacrilegium judicatur aliud offerri, quam quod in Mandatis Sacratissimis Salvator instituit. Because it is judged Sacrilege to offer any thing besides that which our Saviour instituted in his Sacred Commands. When Duraeus citys many Fathers for the many Ceremonies added to Baptism, the Answer of the Learned Whitaker is very excellent. 
Whit. Tom. 1. 191, 192.  Meâ non interest qui● Clemens, quid Leo, quid Damasus quid quisquam alius Pontifex ad Baptismi Sacramentum adjecerit; Christus Ecclesiae nihil de istis Ceremoniarum nugis mandavit. I am not concerned what Clemens, Leo, Damasus, or any other Pope hath added to the Sacrament of Baptism; Christ left to his Church nothing in command touching such trifling Ceremonies. 
Sadeel. Art. 12. fol. 492.  Sadeel against the Monks of Bordeaux, speaking touching their many Ceremonies added to Baptism as an ornament to it, makes this Answer. Num igitur sunt prudentiores Jesu Christo, qui instituit Baptismum tantâ cum simplicitate & puritate, quique melius novit, quam omnes simul homines, quae illi conveniant ornamenta? Hominis licet pactionem (inquit Paulus) autoritate confirmatam nemo abrogat, aut quid ei super addit. Quae est ista arrogantia adjicere institutioni Jesu Christi? Are they wiser than Jesus Christ, who instituted Baptism with so great simplicity and purity, and who knows much better than all men put together what Ornaments are proper for it? Though it be but a man's Covenant (saith St. Paul) yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereunto. What arrogance then is it to add to the Institutions of Jesus Christ? This is charged upon the Cross, it is an addition to Baptism; a Sign of Man's added to the Sign of Christ.  
5thly. The Sign of the Cross is not merely an addition to Baptism, but it is a mystical Teacher, and looks very like a Sacrament. It is a mystical Teacher; as the Sacraments teach Christ crucified by God's Ordination, so doth the Cross by Man's. But is not the Scripture sufficient, and Christ the great Prophet? And may Man invent new ways of teaching; or if he do, may any one look for the illuminating Spirit in such ways? Christ is the one Master, the one Teacher by way of excellency; all other Teachers that teach truly, do but teach ministerially under him; 
Christus habet clavem excellentiae, Alii tantum clavem Ministerii.  he hath ordained the perfect means of teaching the Church, and all other means are as none at all. The Cross not teaching under him, teacheth not truly; and being none of his means, hath none of his blessing. If the Cross might be a true Teacher, than the standing Images of Christ might be so too, which though called by the Papists laymen's Books, do yet but make men forget God. Again, the Sign of the Cross looks very like a Sacrament. Baptism is a Symbol of our Christian Profession, so is the Cross. Baptism hath a word annexed to it; I baptise thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So hath the Cross, We sign this Child with the Sign of the Cross, in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified. Baptism points out Christ crucified, so doth the Cross. Baptism enters the baptised into the Church, so doth the Cross. We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ's flock, and sign him with the sign of the Cross. As Baptism admits into the Church Catholic, so the Cross admits into a particular Church. Baptism dedicates the Infant unto Christ, so the Cross dedicates him to the service of him that died on the Cross. 
Can. 30.  And what now is wanting to make it a Sacrament? It is not vehicalum gratiae; It's very true, it is not: Neither can any Human Invention be such. It therefore looks as like a Sacrament as any Human thing can do, no such thing being capable of conveying Grace unto men.  
In the next place the Ceremonies of our Church may be considered as terms of Communion with it: That is, there must be a Surplice, or not preaching; a Cross, or not baptising; a kneeling posture, or no Lord's Supper. These things, though they are very light to the Conformists, are not so to the Nonconformists. I shall therefore consider them in some particulars.  
1st. The Ceremonies thus taken do seem to entrench upon the Kingly Office of Christ. He is the one Lord and Lawgiver of his Church. 'Tis his Royal Prerogative to institute Sacraments. This is confessed by the Papists themselves. 
Pars 3. Q. 72. Art. 1.  Aquinas (relating that some held their Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted in some Council, and that others held it was instituted by the Apostles) saith, this cannot be, because to institute a new Sacrament, pertinet ad potestatem excellentiae, appertains to the power of excellency, which is in Christ alone. 
De Sac. l. 1. c. 23.  Bellarmin proves that Christ is the only Author of Sacraments. It is a flower of his Crown to institute Ordinances, no man may take this glory from him. The Apostles, the highest Officers in the Church, were not Lords of it, but Ministers and Stewards under Christ, 1 Cor. 4.1. to do his pleasure. They taught only what he commanded them, Matt. 28.20. St. Paul preached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing without Scripture, Act. 26.22. He would not go beyond his Commission. 
Tom. 2. fol. 722.  Non debent Episcopi (saith the Excellent Whitaker) suas traditiones aut leges, aut contra, aut extra, aut praeter Evangelium obtrudere. The Bishops ought not to obtrude their Traditions or Laws, either against, or without, or besides the Gospel. That Gospel which is the Law of Christ, is the Canon that must rule all their Canons. Christ hath the full Royal Power, the Church hath only a limited Power from him. Christ may make Laws of Institution, the Church can only make Laws of Execution, or Disposition, such as tend to the right and orderly disposing of those. Ordinances which were instituted by Christ. 
In legibus Ecclesiasticis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tantum spectatur. Whit. Tom. 2.721.  The Apostles did not institute any thing of Worship or Ordinances: But they did take care that the Ordinances should be used in a way suitable to their dignity. These things being so, the only Question is, Whether the Church hath any Patent or Commission from Christ to institute or impose mystical Ceremonies as terms of Communion? In answer to this, I take it, the Church hath no such Power or Commission. The Pattern of Christ and the Apostles is more to me than all the Human Wisdom in the world. It is the observation of St. Austin, That Chrst's. Yoke being easy, 
Aust. Epist. 118.  he did, Sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis societatem novi populi colligare, Tie together the Society of a new People with Sacraments few in number, easy in observation, and excellent in signification: And who would departed from this simplicity? I am sure the Apostles did not. They delivered only that which they received of the Lord, 1 Cor 11.23. 
De Or. Err. lib. 2. c. 5.  Hoc fidei illorum erat, & officii, saith Bullinger. This was their faith and duty. They did believe. (saith the same Author) that Christ was the wisdom of God, ne in mentem ipsorum venit, it came not into their minds to add Ceremonies to Christ's Institutions. The Primitive Christians continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayer, Acts 2.42. There was nothing but the pure Institutions of Christ, not an additional Ceremony to be seen among them. Nay, in Justin Martyr's time, 
Apol. 2.  we find the Lord's Supper used in pure simplicity; and why should we make our additions to the Sacraments? St. Cyprian contra Aquarios, 
Epist. 63.  expresses himself notably touching the Lord's Supper. Ab Evangelicis Praeceptis omnino recedendum non est. We must not departed from the Evangelical Precepts. And a little after, Non nisi Christus sequendus est, solus Christus audiendus est. Christ only is to be followed, Christ alone to be heard. Again, Human Ceremonies are not congruous to the pure light of the Gospel. 
Tom. 7. fol. 727.  Num Divinae Figurae sublatae sunt, ut Humanae succederent? saith Learned Whitaker, Were the Divine Figures taken away, that Human might succeed? If the Divine Shadows under the Law did all vanish before the Sun, the pure and Evangelical Light; may Humane Vmbra's come and overcloud it? Surely it cannot be. It was the saying of a great Doctor once in the Church of England, That in the morning of the Law the shadows were larger than the body; and it will be a sign of the evening and sunset of Religion, if these shadows shall be stretched out again, and outreach the body. If the Church may institute or impose two or three Ceremonies, it may do more and more; till men under the pressure cry out, 
Epist. 119.  as St. Austin did, Tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum, The condition of the Jews would be more tolerable than that of Christians. Moreover, none but God alone can institute a Ceremony to signify a mystery in Religion; he only hath authority over Religion, he only can bind the Conscience, he only can illustrate the mind, he only can give a blessing to such a Sign. Aquinas, speaking of the Sacraments, saith, 
Determinare quo Signo sit utendum pertinet ad significantem, Deus autem est qui nobis significat Spiritualia per res sensibiles in Sacramentis, & per verba similitudinaria in Scriptures, Aquin. part. 3. Qu. 60. Art. 5.  That the Signifier should determine the Sign; and God is the Signifier, who signifies spiritual things to us by sensible things to us by sensible things, in Sacraments, and by similitudinary words in Scripture. If God be the great Signifier of Holy Mysteries, it is his right to determine the Signs of them. By these things it appears that the Church hath no power to impose Mystical Ceremonies; and by consequence in so doing she incroaches upon the Royal Prerogative of Christ. 
Walls. Hist. 70.  Edward the Second granted to the Nobles a power of making some Laws; but if they under colour of that had made other, they had invaded his Prerogative. The Lord Christ hath given the Church power to make Laws of Execution; but if she go beyond her Line, and make Laws of Institution, she seems to encroach upon his Royalty.  
2dly. The Ceremonies thus taken do seem to invert the Gospel. The Apostle tells the Galatians that they were removed to another Gospel, which was not another; but there were some that troubled them, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ, Gal. 1.6, 7. The word in the Original is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to evert, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to invert the Gospel. They did not deny the Gospel, but they added the Jewish Ceremonies to it, and so inverted it, and made it to be another Gospel; a Gospel mixed with Jewish Ceremonies, being not the same with itself in its purity. And as those Jewish Ceremonies did invert the Gospel, so do ours, though upon a different reason, invert it also. Theirs did invert it, as being made necessary to Salvation; ours do it, as being made terms of Communion. In the pure Gospel Heaven and Ordinanee do both stand open unto men in the Church. The Gospel is inverted not only when men are barred out from Heaven, by making other necessaries to Salvation than are required therein, but also when men are barred out from Ordinances by making other terms of Communion than are commanded therein. This latter is that which I shall explain by Humane Instances. If a Prince grants a Charter of Franchises to a person, and, as it passes the Great Seal, the Chancellor of his own head adds a Condition to the Grant, the Charter is hereby inverted. 
Walls. Hist. fol. 44.  When King Edward the First confirmed the English Charters with this addition, Salvo jure coronae nostrae, the Nobles were displeased, and would not be content, till their Charters were confirmed as they were at first granted, in an absolute manner. They were sensible that a new modus might make their Charters look like another thing than indeed they were. If a man covenant or article with another, that he shall enjoy such a thing, and without orders a Condition be superadded, the Covenant is inverted. When the Emperor Charles the Fifth made an Agreement with the Duke of Saxony, 
Thuan. Hist. l. 5. fol. 106.  and superadded a Condition that the Duke should be of his Religion, the Duke utterly refused it; the addition made the Covenant another thing. If a man make his Will, and the Scribe of his own head add a Condition to a Legacy, the Will is inverted; hence in the Civil Law the Falsarius is greatly punished. 
Qui Testamentum, amoverit, deleverit, interleverit, falsum scripserit, legis Corneliae poenâ damnatur. Corp. Jur. Civ.  If a Law of Grace be made, and the Judge will by his interpretation put a Condition of his own upon it, the Law is inverted. Magna Charta gives unto the Church omnia sua jura integra, & libertates illaesas. Should a Judge tell Ecclesiastical Persons, that they should have all their Rights and Liberties, but upon a Condition of his own devising; who would not conclude that the great Charter was inverted? In all these Instances it is not material, whether the Condition be added to the thing in writing, and so embodied with it, or whether it be added to it by practical use; in both cases it inverts the thing to which it is added. Now the Gospel is the Grant, Covenant, Testament, Law of our Lord Jesus Christ: In and by it he makes over Ordinances freely, absolutely, to all that will come to them. If men put in their own Conditions, and say, you shall have Sacraments, but upon these or those terms, which are unnecessary and unrequired by Christ, the Gospel is inverted, and made another thing than it was; an absolute free gift is one thing, and a limited conditional one is another. The first is the Gospel in its purity, as it comes from the hands of Christ; the last is the Gospel with a mixture, as it is inverted by men. Neither is it material, whether that which is added be a great thing, or a little; a little thing, if added as a Condition, inverts it; because it turns an absolute free disposition into a conditional one. I conclude with that of St. Chrysostom upon that Text, Gal. 1.7. 
Comment. in Gal.  They subvert the Gospel who bring in, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, paululum quiddam, any little new thing into it; that is, if it be brought in as necessary to Salvation, or as a Condition to any Ordinance of the Gospel.  
3dly. The Ceremonies thus taken do seem to be against Christian Liberty, Charity and Unity. They seem to be against Christian Liberty. The Liberty which we have in Christ is a real one. Omnia (saith Tertullian) imaginaria in seculo; All things, even Liberty itself, are imaginary in the world; but the Liberty which we have in Christ is true. Our Christian Liberty stands in a spiritual manumission, not only from Sin, Satan, Death, but also from the Yoke of Ceremonies. In the Gospel we have a double Door open to us, one into Heaven, another into Ordinances, to fit us for that Blessed Region; both these open Doors were purchased by the precious Blood of Christ, neither of them may be shut by man. The Jewish Ceremonies, as made necessary to Salvation, did shut the first Door, because there more things were made necessary to Salvation than the Gospel made. Our Ceremonies, as made terms of Communion, seem to shut the second Door, because thereby other Conditions of participation in Ordinances are put upon men than are to be found in the Gospel. A free access unto the Sacraments was not only purchased by Christ's precious Blood for us, but granted by his Evangelical Charter to us; and a choice, a rare Liberty it is; but if men may bar up, or conditionate this access, where is our Christian Liberty? How can we come to Ordinances, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Freemen of Christ? The Human Yoke of Ceremonies is upon us; and I wonder that it can enter into rational minds, that God should break off the Yoke of his own Ceremonies, as unsuitable to the Evangelical Liberty, and yet that a Yoke of Human Ceremonies should be put on as congruous to it. If Human Ceremonies may succeed in the room of Divine, than the Yoke is not removed, but changed, and that as much for the worse, as Human Ceremonies weigh heavier than Divine. Were it put to the option of any intelligent man, whether he would have a Ritual Burden of God's binding laid upon him, or one of Man's: He would certainly choose to have it done rather by the God of Wisdom and Mercy, than by any Creature. We see clearly that God hath no where in the New Testament laid any such burdens, or set any such conditional bars to Ordinances; and how, or why should man do it? Or if he do it, how or which way is the Christian Franchise preserved? The Church's Power is but subordinate, and subalternate to Christ, and how can it put bars or conditions to that Privilege which he hath granted to Christians? When a Church useth its Power according to the line and level of Scripture, than all is well; but when it overflows, and exceeds its Commission, than Christian Liberty goes to wreck.  
Again, They seem to be against Christian Charity, as being stumbling-blocks to doubting Souls, occasioning their fall into sin. Our Dear Lord Jesus left us the Sacraments pure, Divine, altogether free from any scruple. But now the mystical Ceremonies are so interwoven and coupled in use with them, that Scrupulous Christians, in partaking of that which Christ institutes, run into that which Conscience scruples; and in following that which is lifted up in the Example of Pious and Learned Churchmen, fall and wound their Souls. The law of Charity puts a restraint upon indifferent things in the case of Scandal. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak, saith the Apostle, Rom. 14.21. Indifferent things are in charity to be abstained from in case of scandal. The Apostle presseth this by very weighty Arguments. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, v. 17. Religion doth not stand in such things. We must not in such things grieve or destroy our brother, v. 15. We must not for them destroy the work of God, v. 20. that is, our Brother's Soul, which is his work by way of eminency. We must not destroy him for whom Christ died, v. 15. Scandal in indifferent things is not a wounding only, but a kill of our Brother, a kind of Soul-murther. Now if indifferent things, in case of scandal, are not to be admitted in common use, much less are those things (which have speciem mali, an appearance of evil) in such case to be admitted into holy Sacraments; thither we come by Christ's appointment, not to grieve and wound, but comfort and heal our Souls. Charity should not suffer any Stumbling-block or Scandal to be seen there, every thing there should minister comfort and edification. I know many Answers are given to this, but scarce any satisfactory ones. 'Tis said, that in case of scandal we must abstain from indifferent things, whilst they remain indifferent, but not after they are determined by Authority. But to me it sounds exceeding harsh, to say, that in case the Magistrate commands it, we may wound or destroy our Brother. A Scandal in its nature is spiritual Murder, which no Command of Man can make tolerable. Avoiding of Scandal is a main duty of Charity, which no Command of Man can dispense with. 'Tis said, that in conforming to the Ceremonies, there can be only a scandal to a brother, but in nonconforming there is scandal to the Magistrate; and this indeed (if it be a Scandal of the same kind, is greater than the other. But (as Learned Mr. jean's doth distinguish.) 
Scholar & Pract Divin. par 2. fol. 127.  There is a twofold acception of Scandal, primary and secundary; primary scandal is the occasioning the fall of another into sin. Secondary is the angering and displeasing of another. Conformity to the Ceremonies occasions our Brother to fall into sin, Nonconformity only occasions the displeasure of the Magistrate. Now to displease the Magistrate is surely more tolerable, than to occasion the poorest man to fall into sin. This is clear, because it is more dangerous to displease God than Man. 'Tis said further, Debts of Justice are to be paid before debts of Charity: Obedience to Superiors is a debt of Justice, a matter of right; but the not giving of offence is a debt of Charity, a matter of courtesy. But as Mr. jean's hath fully answered, The Rule must be understood, caeteris paribus, when the terms of comparison are equal; and equal they are not, when the Minims of Justice are put into the Balance with the weightiest duties of Charity; and so 'tis in the present comparison. Of what importance is the practice of a Ceremony, in comparison of not scandalising our Brother? Who can imagine that the command of a Ceremony can bear proportion with the command of not destroying a Brother? The Commands of God touching the externals of Worship, are to give way to Mercy. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, saith God, Hos. 6.6. much more must the Commands of Men do so. Besides, the care of not giving offence, though to my Brother, it be but a debt of Charity, yet in regard of God, it is a debt of Justice; and woe to him through whom the offence cometh. Moreover, it is said, that the offence by the Ceremonies is only Scandalum acceptum, non datum, a Scanal taken, not given. But the Ceremonies being not merely things indifferent but having at least an appearance of evil, the Scandal is not taken only, but given. It is certainly our duty to abstain from all appearance of evil. The Nazarite was to abstain from the very Husk of the Grape. The Young man was not to come nigh the door of the strange Woman. Secundus will not deliver a little useless stuff to save his life, lest he should seem to be a Traditor. Valentinian would not endure a little drop of Paganish Holy water. We must not dwell in the confines or neighbourhood of Sin. We should put away every shadow of Will-worship, every semblance of an addition to the holy Ordinances, every thing that looks like a conformity to the Romish Church; this were the way to be pure from giving offence to our Brethren.  
Moreover, they seem to be against Christian Unity. The first step to that first sin which brought in enmity into the World, was an addition to God's Word. Ye shall not touch it, Gen. 3.3. This was that that divided God's Ancient People the Jews, the Karai adhered to the pure Scripture, but the Tal●udici brought in their Human Traditions, and cried them up as Lux illa ●agna, the great Light. The Pharisees would have above the Law their own Ceremonies and Traditions, and so they came to separate and divide themselves from others, calling the common people populum terrae, the people of the earth; and saying to Sinners, ne attingas me, touch me not. The Jewish Ceremonies troubled the Galatians, Gal. 1.7. Circumcision ceasing to be Divine any longer, became Concision, renting the Church; and the Doctors that mixed it with the Gospel, were as Dogs, tearing asunder the unity of it. When Victor urged a necessity of conformity in the observation of Easter-day, Irenaeus reproves him for this, tanquam pacis perturbatorem, as 〈◊〉 troubler of the Church's peace; and indeed there was a horrible breach between the Eastern and Western Churches about it. When Images, a mere Human Invention, were brought into the Church, what fierce Contentions were there about it? The Green Emperors, Leo Isaurus, Constantinu● and others, opposing them in the East. And on the other side, the Bishops of Rome, Gregory the Second Gregory the Third, and others stish upholding them in the West. In the Council at Constantinople they were solemnly condemned; 
Spond. Ann, Anno Dom. 754. Crab. Conc. Tom. 2.  and the people cried out, hodie salus mundo. In the Council of Nice they were advanced again even to veneration; and Eusebius, for speaking against them, is said to be delivered over to a reprobate mind, and his Books are anathematised. What an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a vehement Contention was there between the Greek and Latin Churches about leavened and unlevened bread in the Eucharist; the Greeks calling the Latins Azymitae, and the Latins the Greeks, Fermentarii. Ceremonies and Human Inventions in Worship, however they may be intended for Unity, are the occasions of Contention. Hence Melancton, though he conformed to the Rites and Ceremonies in the Interim, yet wished with tears that they were removed, because as long as they remained there would be contention in the Church; and the reason of this is evident, The minds of men are not all alike, or of an equal temper. Some Pious and Learned Men allow of Ceremonies, other Pious and Learned Men cannot receive them: In such a case as this, 
Anselm. ad querelas Vaeler auni, fol. 149.  the urging of Uniformity is the loss of Unity. Anselm enquiring whence the various Customs in the Church arose, gives this Answer. Nihil aliud intelligo quam humanorum sensuum diversitates. I know nothing but this, that men have different sentiments of things; that which one man thinks very apt in the Worship of God, that another thinks is not so. When such a necessary thing as Unity is placed in unnecessaries, it is lost; but when it is placed in things like itself, I mean in necessary things, than it is preserved. The Apostles (who as well understood, and as much desired Unity in the Church as any) would lay no other burden on Christians than necessary things, Act. 15.28. St. Paul lays down a great many Unities, One body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all. Eph. 4.4, 5, 6. but there is not a word of one Ceremony. Those Bishops took the right course for Unity, who being met together in Council, made a Canon which they called Adiaphoron, 
Socrat. Hist. lib. 5. c. 20.  because they left the observation of Easter-day indifferent, as men would themselves. Were indifferent things left in their indifferency, the Unity of the Church would be much greater than it is.  
Thus much may suffice touching the Ceremonies; only because there are two Pleas for their innocency, I must consider them.  
The one is this; The Ceremonies are only for decency and order, and so within that Apostolical Precept, Let all things be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40.  
I answer, Were the Ceremonies within that Precept, I should beg my pardon, and pronounce them innocent; but I take it they are not within it, and to clear this, I offer these things.  
The Evangelical Sacraments, which are God's own Ceremonies, are in themselves, and without any Human dress, worthy of all reverence, 
Nostra Sacramenta tam praeclara sunt, ut etiamsi nuda & nullis Sacramentalibus suffulta proponerentur, omni essent veneratione digna. Medina in Aquin. 1, 2. Q. 108. Art. 2.  the Institution hath put a glory upon them. Human Ceremonies, which are as much below them, as a Cloud is below the Sun, are more apt to darken than illustrate them. When Sacraments are in their pure simplicity, than the splendour of the Holy Signs shines forth; but when they are muffled up in Human Rites, than the Divine Beauty is obscured. And if Divine Ceremonies need Human to put a decorum upon them, much more do Human Ceremonies need an addition of further Ceremonies for that end, and so there may be Ceremonies upon Ceremonies in infinitum.  
Our Lord Christ, who knew better than all men what Decency is, never instituted any such Ceremonies. The Apostles, who gave the Rule of Decency, never used them. They did administer Ordinances decently, but without them. Hence it appears that their Precept never extended to them; for had it done so, they would not have omitted them, but had practised that Precept which they had given. The Worship of the Apostles, which was without Ceremonies, was either decent, or undecent, (for Decency and Undecency are privatively opposite, and between privative opposites there is no medium of abnegation in subjecto capaci.) If the Apostles Worship, void of all Ceremonies, be decent, than Decency doth not consist in Ceremonies; if undecent, they did not (which cannot be imagined) observe their own Rule of Decency, and act as they taught.  
Order and Decency in the Worship of God are things necessary, not merely by a positive Law, but by a natural. Not only the Apostolical Precept, but the very dictate of Nature is, that the Service of God should be performed in an orderly and decent manner. The Heathen Oracle could say, That in the Worship of God men should follow, morem optimum, the best manner. 
Nat. Quaest. l. 7. c. 30.  Seneca out of Aristotle tells us, That when men have to do with the Gods, they should be, verecundiores & compositi, modest and composed in their demeanour. The Light of Nature teacheth us, that we should serve God in a way suitable and congruous to his Divine Majesty. Thus Order and Decency are necessary, but so are not Ceremonies. Hence it appears, that the difference between them is as great, as between necessary and unnecessary.  
Order is nothing but a right disposition of things, Decency is nothing but the seemliness of Order. Order and Decency require not, 
Vide Ames Medul. l. 2. c. 13.  that some Holy things should be newly ordained; but that those which are ordained by God, should be used in a way congruous to their dignity. The Ceremonies, which are new Appointments, appertain not to Order and Decency. The institution of somewhat new is one thing; and the right and seemly disposition of that which is instituted, is another.  
The other Plea is this. The Ceremonies are not made by our Church any parts of Worship, and therefore there is no offence in them.  
I answer, The Ceremonies seem to be parts of Worship feveral ways. They seem to be parts of Worship in themselves, as being an honouring of God, at least in some respect. It's true they are not parts of Worship, ratione principii, because they are not parts of Divine Institution: But they seem to be parts of Worship, ratione termini as being an honour done to God. There may be a double honour done to God. There is an honour done to him as the Supreme Being, by subjection and resignation: And there is an honour done to him as the Fountain of Grace, by dependence upon him for some Spiritual Gift. Both these seem to be in the use of the Ceremonies. In the use of the Cross, the Infant is resigned to God, dedicated to him that died on the Cross, and this looks like Worship. Again, the Ceremonies are Mystical Teachers; not Supreme Teachers, for that were to turn them into Idols; but Under Teachers; and therefore in the regular use of them we must depend upon the great Teacher for illumination; and this also seems to be an act of Worship.  
They seem to be parts of Worship relatively, as they are in conjunction with the holy things of God. The Cross is so interwoven with Baptism in the administration of it, that it looks like a part of it. Before Baptism the Minister prays for those that are dedicated to God; and that dedication is, as the Canon tells us, by the Cross. After Baptism, thanks are given that the Child is received into the Congregation, and this is done by the Cross also: For upon making the Cross, the Minister saith, We receive this Child into the Congregation. 
Parker Of the Cross fol. 115.  Thus, as Mr. Parker hath noted, the Cross is incorporated into Baptism in the administration of it. They are knit together, à priori & à posteriori, by the precedent and subsequent Prayers.  
Moreover, they seem to be parts of Worship reputatively, as they are highly valued. Our Saviour charges the Pharisees, that they preferred their Traditions above the Commands of God, Matt. 15.3, 6, 9 Their Corban swallowed up their duty to Parents. The Jews say, that there is more in the words of the Scribes, than in the words of the Law; and that it were better to die, than to violate a Tradition. Our Divines charge the very same thing upon the Papists. Whitaker tells Duraeus, That it was a greater Offence, 
Tom 1.206.  Quadragesimam violare quam Dei verbum contemnere, to break Lent, than to despise the Word of God. Gregorius Hemburgius, 
Melch. Adam. de vitis Jureconsultorum.  Doctor of Law, was wont to say, That for many years' men might speak more freely, de potestate Dei quàm Papae, of the Power of God, than of the Pope. And what is the value that is now upon Ceremonies among ourselves? Hath there not been too high a rate set upon them? May we not complain in the words of St. Cyprian, 
Epist. 75. ad Pomp.  Divina praecepta solvit, & praeterit humana traditio. Human Tradition dissolves and passes over Divine Precepts? It is apparent, that if Learning and Piety could have outweighed a Ceremony, many Worthy and Excellent Persons had been now in the Church, who are at this time out of it. I may add, it is also clear, that if that Heat and Zeal which hath run out against Nonconformity, could have been turned against Impiety and Profaneness, we had now been a much more excellent People than at this time we are. It was often the complaint of Erasmus, 
Whit. Tom. 2. fol. 726.  Divina contemni, Humana urgeri. That Divine things were contemned, and Human urged. If this should be our case, it would be no wonder at all for men to say, that the Ceremonies are made parts of Worship.  
Thus much touching the Ceremonies: And if what hath been alleged against them be true, the Separation of the Nonconformists can hardly be imagined to be without cause. But because not only the Ceremonies, but some other terms lay as blocks in their way; I shall add one short word more. They were by an Act of Uniformity deprived of their People, and their People of them. They could not come up to the terms of a public Ministry, neither would their People come to the public Ordinances; in this, which I take it, was their case, it is extreme hard to charge criminous Schism upon them. When the Emperor put Chrysostom out of his Church, 
Socrat. l. 6. c. 16.  the Joannites separated from the Public, and those not only People, but Bishops and Presbyters; yet I do not know that they were charged with the crime of Schism for it. 
Theod. l 1. cap. 21.  When Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was banished, many people and Ministers left the Public Assemblies. Yet I find not that these Separations were charged with the crime of Schism. The Nonconformists being in the same, or a very like case, Charity would make the same construction of them. Thus much touching the sixth Character. Now I proceed to the last.  
7thly. Schismatical Separation is not only from a particular Church, but from the Catholic one. It is a memorable Passage of the Reverend Usher, whose words I shall transcribe. Neither particular Persons, 
In a Sermon before the King. 1624.  nor particular Churches, are to work as several divided Bodies by themselves (which is the ground of all Schism) but are to teach, and to be taught, and to do all other Christian Duties, as parts conjoined to the whole, and Members of the same Commonwealth or Corporation. The Excellent Davenant, 
Boroughs in his Irenicum. fol. 67.  in his Rules for Peace, saith, Proscindi nec debent nec possunt à communione particularium Ecclesiarum, quae manent conjunctae cum Ecclesiâ Catholicâ; Those may not be cut off from communion with particular Churches, who remain joined to the Catholic Church. I may add, Those may not be esteemed Schismatics by any particular Church, who are in conjunction with the Universal. Schismatical Separation is not only from a particular Church, but from the Universal. And is it thus with the Nonconformists? Do they separate from the Church-Catholick? I take it they do not; and for this I shall lay down two or three things.  
A Particular Church may be considered two ways, either in that which it hath in common with other particular Churches, now, or heretofore in being; or in that which it hath particular to itself. A particular Church in the first respect acts as a part of the Church-Catholick; but in the second respect it acts by itself. A Separation from a particular Church, considered in the first respect, is a separation from the Church Catholic; but a separation from it, considered in the second respect, is not so. The Nonconformists differ from our Church, not in that which it hath in common with other Churches, but in that which it hath in peculiar. They differ from it in Episcopacy, so do the Foreign Churches; they differ from its Liturgy, so do the Foreign Churches, at least in part. Their Congregations are distinct, and distant from the Parochial Churches, so is one Parochial Church from another. If the Foreign Churches, notwithstanding such differences, are in unity with our Church, so are the Nonconformists. If the Nonconformists, by reason of such differences are Schismatics, what are the Foreign Churches which have the same? You will say the case is diferent. Those of Foreign Churches never did, as our Nonconformists do, go out from our Parochial Churches. Very true, but every local separation doth not amount to Schism; neither have others the same occasion of separation from our Churches as the Nonconformists have.  
When a Law or Canon made by those who have particular jurisdiction in a Nation or Church, will justify Separation, and make it no Schism, than the Separation is not from the Church-Catholick. But such is the case of the Nonconformists. Should there be such a Law or Canon made among us, it would justify their Separation, and make it no Schism; therefore their Separation is not from the Church Catholic.  
When men separate from a Church in pride, and contempt, as if they only were the Church, than the Separation is from the Church Catholic. Thus the Novatians thought that the pure Church was with them only. Thus the Donatists said, that the Church was only in part Donati. Thus the Papists say, that the Church is only in part Papae: but the Nonconformists do not do so. They acknowledge our Church to be a true Church, they are joined to it in all that which is true unity. They would further bear a part in it, if some Stumbling blocks were out of the way. By these things it may appear, that they still remain in conjunction with the Church-Catholick.  
Thus I have gone over the Characters of Schismatical Separation; and in so doing have briefly examined the Case of the Nonconformists.  
FINIS.   

Books Printed for, and Sold by Thomas Cockerill, at the Three Legs in the Poultry, near Stock-market.  
HIstorical Collections, the 3d Part, in 2 Volumes. Never before Printed; Containing the Principal Matters which happened from the meeting of the Parliament, November the 3d. 1640. to the end of the Year 1644. wherein is a particular Account of the Rise and Progress of the Civil War to that Period: Impartially related. Setting forth only Matter of Fact in Order of Time, without Observation or Reflection. By John Rushworth, Fol.  
A Demonstration of the first Applications of the Apocalypse, together with the Consent of the Ancients concerning the Fourth Beast in the 7th of Daniel, and the Beast in the Revelations. By Drue Crescener, D. D. 4to.  
A Seasonable Discourse, wherein is examined what is lawful, during the Confusions and Revolutions of Government. Stitched. 4to.  
The Evidence of Things not seen: or divers Spiritual and Philosophical Discourses concerning the state of Holy Men after Death; By that eminently Learned Divine, Moses Amyraldus. Translated out of the French Tongue by a Minister of the Church of England. 8vo.  
A Succinct and Seasonable Discourse of the Occasions, Causes, Nature, Rise, Growth and Remedies of mental Errors. To which is added, 1.) An Answer to Mr. Gary against Infant-Baptism. 2) An Answer to some Antinomian Errors. (3) A Sermon about Union. By John Flavel. 8vo.  
A Discourse concerning Liturgies, by the late learned Divine Mr. David Clerkson. 8vo.  
Geography Anatomised: Or, A Complete Geographical Grammar, being a short and exact Analysis of the whole body of Modern Geography; after a new, plain and easy method, whereby any person may in a short time attain to the knowledge of that most noble and useful Science, etc. To which is subjoined the present state of the European Plantations in the East and West-Indies; with a Reasonable Proposal for the propagation of the Blessed Gospel in all Pagan Countries. Illustrated with divers Maps. By Patrick Gordon, M. A. 8vo.  
An Exposition of the Assemblies Shorter Catechism, with Practical Inferences from each Question; by John Flavell, late Minister of the Gospel at Dartmouth in Devon. 8vo.  
The Future State: Or, A Discourse attempting some display of the Soul's Happiness, in regard to that eternally progressive Knowledge, or eternal increase of Knowledge, and the consequences of it, which is among the Blessed in Heaven; by a Country Gentleman, a Worshipper of God in the way of the Church of England. 12ᵒ.  
The Death of Ministers Improved: Or, An Exhortation to the Inhabitants of Hortley in Glocestershire, and others, on the much lamented death of that Faithful Minister Mr. Henry Stubbs: To which is added a Sermon upon that occasion; by Richard Baxter. 12ᵒ.  
English Exercises for Schoolboys to translate into Latin; comprising all the Rules of Grammar, and other necessary Observations, afcending gradually from the meanest to the highest Capacities By John Garretson, School master. Fourth Edition. 12ᵒ.  
A Short Introduction into Orthography: Or. The method of True Spelling; published for the common good, but especially for the use of a private Grammar and Writing-School. 12ᵒ.