The doctrine of schism fully opened and applied to gathered churches. Occasioned by a book entituled, Sacrilegious dissertion of the holy ministery rebuked; and tolerated preaching of the Gospel vindicated. / By The author of Toleration not to be abused by the Presbyterians.

CHAP. X.

The differencing Nature of Schism. The An∣swerers Objections answered; especially the Preaching of the ejected Ministers.

I Will suppose, we are agreed that the ge∣neral nature of Schism is such a sepera∣tion from a true Church as we have shew'd; but to make it unlawful, and to merit the evil and usual sence of the word, it must be causless, unwarrantable, and as Mr. Hales term is, unnecessary; when it is so, is to be carefully stated: for this indeed is the pun∣ctum difficultatis, and the very hinge upon which this controversie turns.

Herein, that I may prepare to argue with due closeness, I shall continue to aim at the sence of Presbyterians: And as I have before I shall here also follow the steps of Mr. Brinsley, late Minister of Yarmouth, not only because his Book of Schism seems to me ju∣dicious, and exact as to our point: and he therein follow so excellent a person as Ca∣meron. but likewise for that he was an emi∣nent Non-conformist (as a Minister only) for I have been well informed, that though he ceased preaching at Bartholomew, 1662.

yet he kept no private meetings, but ordi∣narily attended on the publick worship, in the place where he lived: besides, his Book was licensed by Mr. Cranford, with a suffi∣cient commendation; and was Preacht and Printed in the Presbyterian Service against the Sectaries; and no doubt, his Brethren of that perswasion did then heartily concur with him in the point.

This Mr. Brinsley, p. 34, 35. states the matter thus; Seperation is unwarrantable, either for the ground or manner; the former an unjust, the latter a rash seperation, each a Schism; wherein he follows Cameron.

I shall vary his method a little, but keep close to his sense; and then an unjust sepa∣ration is two-fold; either when there is no cause, and it is absolutely causless; or when the cause is light, and not sufficient to warrant it. Seperation is rash, when there being cause supposed sufficient, yet it is done in an undue manner.

1. Separation is unjust, when it is without cause given by the Church; and as he en∣largeth,

When there is no Persecution, no spreading Error or Heresie, no Idolatry, no Superstition maintained or practised, but the Church is peaceable and pure, and that both for Doctrine and Worship; and in a

good measure free from scandals (which no Church ever wholly was) now in such a case to seperate, is an unjust seperation, and Schism.

If this be indeed the state of the case, whe∣ther the parties think they have cause to se∣perate or not, I think it is not much mate∣rial, except to aggravate their crime: For, if they think they have cause, they are plain Seperatists; and if they do not think so, and yet divide the Church by a seperation cause∣less, in their own opinion as well as truth, they are far worse. Neither will any wantonness of spirit of this kind, though boy'd up by a distaste taken at our Guides, or an higher esteem of other Teachers, or pretences of greater purity, much less an ill will to the state of the Church from which we shall thus se∣perate, admit an excuse from any sober and wise man.

2. There may be some causes of offence given us by our Church, but they such, as may by no meanes warrant a seperation: cause of offence is not always cause of sepe∣ration; which our Author calls a light cause. He enlargeth;

Possibly some sleight opposi∣tion, or persecution, it may be, by some small pecuniary Mulcts; some lesser errors in Doctrine, not fundamental, nor near the foundation; some corruptions in or about

the worship of God, but those not destru∣ctive to the Ordinances; being not in sub∣stance, but in ceremony; and those such as the person offended is not enforced to be active in; scandals few, and those only tole∣rated, not allowed. All tolerable evils, such as charity may well bear with; this ground is not sufficient to bear a seperation.

You see he is full and particular; and in all this, I believe he referred in his thoughts to the state of our Church heretofore, as in the former he struck at the Popish.

The learned Amesius, whose Principles were somewhat Congregational, hath said much to the same purpose in a few words. Separation from a true Church is sometimes lawful, if one cannot re∣main in its communion, sine commu∣nicatione in peccatis, without communicating in her sins: if there be manifest danger of seduction, and if we are compell'd to depart by oppression and persecution. Thus he. And we may suppose he thought he made a full enumeration of all the just causes of depart∣ing from a true Church; and that in any other case seperation was unlawful.

Others indeed have more compendiously and fully drawn all the rules in this case into one point, Seperation is unwarrantable, if communion with the Church may be with∣out

sin. And indeed what can justifie a pra∣ctice so contrary to love and peace, and of so dangerous consequence, but the avoiding of sin? Our general Answer to the charge of Schism by the Papists is, we must not par∣take with your sins; and I think all parties consent in this common proposition, where the conditions of communion with a Church are sinful, we are not bound to that communion, for we must obey God rather then man.

I am sure this was current Doctrine with the Non-confor∣mists, called Puritans hereto∣fore, in the defence of communion with the Church of England.

Let the abuses (saith Mr. Ball) be many or great, yet if I may be present at the true worship of God without sin, (consent unto, or approbation of such abuses or corruptions) in voluntary sepera∣tion, I sin against God, his Church, and mine own soul.

This was also undoubted by the late Pres∣byterians; in stead of many, let Mr. Cawdrey against Dr. Owen be heard, for methinks he speaks to the purpose. It is (saith he) no duty of Christs imposing, no priviledg of his purchasing, either to deprive a mans self of his Ordinances for other mens sins; or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true

Church, as no Church rightly constituted for want of some reformation in lesser matters. And Mr. Corbet, and the Author of Evange∣lical Peace and Ʋnity, if I understand him, puts the whole debate upon the same issue with us. So Bagshaw also, &c.

Among these light causes, which will by no means warrant a seperation, Mr. Baxter hath laboured to throw down these four Supersti∣tious, as he calls them, which some religious people have brought up.

1. That we are guilty of the sins of all unworthy communicants, if we communicate with them, though their admission is not by our fault.

2. That he whose judgement is against a Diocesan Church, may not lawfully join with a Parish Church, if the Minister be but subject to the Diocesan.

3. That whatsoever is unlawfully commanded, is not lawful to be obeyed.

4. That it is unlawful to do any thing in the Worship of God which is imposed by men, and is not commanded it self in the Scripture.

But enough of the false grounds of sepe∣ration that render it causless; for that they are either really none, or else light or insuf∣ficient.

The Second Exception against Seperation was taken from the undue manner of procee∣ding in it, for which it is termed Rash; and therefore Schismatical; though the ground be Just. That is, as Mr. Brinsly explaineth him∣self, p 25.

When it is sudden and heady: without due endeavour and expectance of Re∣formation in the Church: it is then Rash, and consequently an unwarrantable Separa∣tion, in as much as it is opposite to Charity.

Mr. Baxters Advice is excellent here:

If Corruptions blemish and disho∣nor the Congregation; doe not say (let sin alone; I must not oppose it for fear of Division) but be the forwardest to reduce all to the will of God. And yet, if you cannot prevail, as you desire; be the backwardest to Divide and Seperate; and do it not, without a certain Warrant, and extream necessity. Re∣solve with Austine, I will not be the Chaff, and yet I will not go out of the Floor, though the Chaff be there. Never give over your just desire and endeavour of Reformation; and yet as long as you can possible avoid it, for∣sake not the Church, which you desire to Reform. As Paul said, to them that were to forsake a Sea-wrack'd Vessel, If these abide not in the Ship, ye cannot be saved. Many a one, by unlawful flying, and shifting for his

own greater Peace and Safety, doth much more hazard his own and others.

3. Ames gives me occasion to hint one thing more: Secessio vero Totalis, &c. A To∣tal Secession or Seperation with absolute renoun∣cing or rejecting all Communion, cannot be law∣fully practiced towards a True Church: but par∣tial only, quatenus Communio, so far as Com∣munion cannot be exercised without sin. Cas. de Schis. 307.

I Wish heartily, my Brethren would con∣sider, whether not only renouncing all Com∣munion with, but setting up other Churches a∣gainst our Churches, be not, in his sence, a Total Seperation; and consequently Sinful. Or whether you, that so use us, do yet re∣tain Communion with our Parish-Churches so far as you know you may without sin. But this by the way:

The Summe is, when the Church gives no such cause of offence, as may justifie Sepera∣tion; when the Conditions of her Communi∣on require nothing of her Members, whereby if they Communicate, they shall be Actual Sinners; when persons, let the cause be never so just, shall unadvisedly, without due endea∣vours and patient expectance of a Reformation: lastly, when they shall for some few things, at which they take offence, totally forsake Communion with a True Church, and gather

themselves into Anti-Churches; they are, in all these Cases, guilty of Schisme, in the judg∣ment of the most Non-Conformists, of all sorts; and, indeed, of all men, that have considered the Point and the Nature of Schism. The As∣sumption, we shall make hereafter—and at present, only take notice of what the An∣swerer hath said to prevent it.

He gives us, p. 16, 17. eight Differences, be∣twixt the Old Seperatists and the Present Non-Conformists; and then concludes in all these, they differ from Seperatists, though they ga∣ther Churches. These differences are particu∣larly considered hereafter. The first three of these Differences, are a Complement to us and our Parishes: the four next, are a Complement to themselves: in the last, I think, he is in earnest for himself, but he hath to do with a head∣strong party, that will not obey, either his Word or Example, in desiring nothing more, than with Love and Concord, to carry on with us the same work of Christ. But what is all this, to excuse them from being Seperatists, that run away from us, and draw Desciples after them: that refuse (I am sure in fact, what ever some may say) the least Communion with us, in our pub∣lick Assemblies, and gather New Churches for themselves out of them.

This they do, though you know we, gene∣rally, have not given them Cause to do it: And

they do it Rashly, and Totally, and all your little devices, will never alter the Nature of things, or excuse it from gross Schism in the Judgment of all that were not Seperatists, and spake their mind, before the present Tempta∣tion dazled mens eyes.

'Tis in vain to flie to your Common Refuge; the strength of this Argument will not suffer you to be quiet in it; who ever before you made this a warrantable ground of Seperation, that they might Serve God better? if finding positive faults in our worship, would not ex∣cuse them heretofore; much less will negative ones excuse you from Seperation. But they thought those were faults and Just Causes of Seperation which were not; true, and they were mistaken: but yet, they had more to say for themselves, it seems, than you have, who do the same things, without alledg∣ing so much ground, and think to be wholly free, from the same charge.

Sir, Schism consists in practice; and whate∣ver you think on't, or, however you would palliate the matter, where that practice that truly answers the definition of Schism is found, it will be Schism do what you can. Is there any Institution of Christ, that they must gather Churches out of true Churches, to make a purer Church? Ans. Mr. Cawdrey Indep. p. 198.

But I prevent my design: Shism, we have

shewed is a causeless unwarrantable Seperation, and 'tis true; and so my Answerer might have understood me, and his Brethren, in my last: I spake in the language of the Presbyterians, and a little Candour, would have supposed that both, I and they, intended by gathering Chur∣ches out of Churches, such as was causeless, un∣warrantable and unnecessary; for that, they were still ready, if need required, to prove the Independant Separation such; as I shall be, anon, to do yours.

It is, therefore, some trouble to me to hear you ask, as if somthing of Argument were lodg'd in it; Whether a persons removal from one Parish to another to inhabit there, were Schism? p. 48. and yet I conceive, you have it more than twice over in your book. You ask again, must no Churches be gathered out of Rome? I fear not many for you: but for a full and plain an∣swer to this, I remit you to Mr. Baxters Cure of Church Divisions, p. 81, 82, 83. Which if it seem not plain and full to you, it is because you understand not Christian Sense and Reason.

Again, p. 44. did not the Parliament take a Church out of a Church when they seperated Co∣vent-Garden from Martins Parish? doubtless, 'twas either with cause or not; 'twas warrant∣able or not; 'twas necessary or not: but the jest is spoiled, if it were a Church of the same Con∣stitution, with consent of the persons concern'd & by lawful Authority.

Had you no place to argue Schismatical but Covent-garden; I would advise you, as a friend, to take a little more heed what you say about that place, for fear of one of those Schismaticks which in other places, you honor, as Ʋsurp∣ers, concern'd in your next Section.

But behold the Man at Arms fully Accou∣tred, without all fear, but a great deal of wit and courage makes a challenge to the factions Disputers, as his Catholick language is: and 'tis this, as you may read it under his own hand.

Obj. I undertake, saith he, to prove, that Dr. Manton Dr. Seaman, &c. with the Peo∣ple subject to them, as Pastors, were true Chur∣ches. Prove you, if you can, that on Aug. 24 62. they were degraded, and these Churches were dissolved in any reason, which any Churches for 600. years after Christ, would. If not, you seem your self to accuse their Successors of Schism, for drawing part of the people from them meerly by the Advantage of having the Temples and Tythes, and so gathering Churches out of true Churches.

Ans. A Marvellous Undertaker! he will un∣dertake to prove one Proposition, and let the rest shift for them selves.

Dr. Manton and Dr. Seaman, and their People were true Churches: and this he will prove: but what if a man should venture to disappoint him, and not deny it?

Again; prove if you can, that these Past∣ors were degraded, and these Churches dissol∣ved Aug. 24. 62.

But what if a man has a mind to be friends with him here too? and should grant that those Ministers were not degraded then, but only ejected and inhibited the exercise of their Ministry within the Church of England: and that those Churches were not dissolv'd by having New Pastors; no more, than the Kingdom when the King dies. And yet, cer∣tainly the King and People, are as much the Constitutive parts of a Kingdom; as Pastor and People of a Church.

Who will say, that considers what he saith, that a particular Church is dissolved by the death or removal of the Pastor. The River is the Same, though the Lands on each side, change their Proprietors.

But what then? Suppose all this be quiet∣ly granted him, what then? then, those that succeeded them are Schismaticks; or you seem to accuse them of Schism: how so? for drawing away part of the people from them. Whither? to another manner of Worship which the Laws required; and which, the Ejected refused.

But how did they draw the People? by do∣ing their duty in the Temples, as by good Au∣thority Instituted and Inducted thereunto. In∣stituted

as Pastors to have the Cure of Souls; and Inducted into the Temples and Tythes.

But lastly, why do you say they drew a part of the people onely, and not the whole?

Ought not the whole, worship God undi∣vided, and with one accord in the Temples? or must the place be removed with the Pastor? I quire not who made the difference, but I know who makes the Division, let them answer it how they can, to God and the King, the Church and their Successors.

Those Pastors were Ejected out of the Tem∣ples by lawful Authority: the People are bound to worship God in the Temple, as they have opportunity; and no where else, in opposition to the publick Worship: (the Consequence here, I think may vie with yours above) therefore, these Pastors had no opportunity to exercise their Pastoral Office to those People; and where there is no opportunity, there is no duty; in Mr. Baxters Divinity, Second Admon. to Bagsh. 96.

But you say, you must Preach, the Reve∣rend Dr. Gouge saith, No.

The Inhibiti∣on of Idolators and Infidels made simply against preach∣ing of the Gospel, because they would have it utterly Suppressed in this case, he saith, no sufficient inhibition to bind the Conscience; it is directly and apparent∣ly

contrary to Gods Word. But when Chri∣stian Magistrates inhibite Ministers to Preach, it is because they think them un∣fit and unmeet, either for some notorious Crimes, or for some Erronious Opinions, to exercise their Ministerial Functions. In these Cases, Such as are so inhibited, so far forth as they are inhibited, Ought not to Preach. Neither are particular and private men (much less the parties inhibited) to Judge of the Cause of the inhibition, whether it be just or unjust: but as they who are appoint∣ed by the present Government, to Ordain Ministers, are to judg of their fitness there∣unto; so likewise, of their unfitness.

I have thought hitherto, that distinction of the Office, and of the exercise of that Office, had gone uncontroled among Presbyterians: and that, though the Ministers of Christ de∣pend not, even upon the Christian Magi∣strate for their Office, and he cannot degrade them: yet quoad Exercitium, as to the Exer∣cise of it, within his Dominions, they did; and that he had power to Silence such as he Judged unmeet to Preach.

Mr. Baxter doth much encourage me to persist in the same Opinion, more than once. The Authority of the King and law∣ful Magistrates, saith Mr. Baxter, is more about the Circumstantials of

Worship (as whether Abiathar shall be High Priest, &c.) then the False Teachers were a∣bout that Doctrine.

He, more than Intimates, that the Ma∣gistrates Power extends to the Appointing who shall be High Priest; and who doubt, but that he hath equal power to appoint who shall be Pastor of Covent-Garden.

Again, hear Mr. Baxter what he saith, more largly upon the Point. Disput. 223.

Doubtless the Magistrate himself hath so much Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs, that if he Command a qualified person to Preach the Gospel, and Command the People to receive him; I see not, how either of them can be allowed to disobey him; (though yet the Party ought to have recourse also to Pastors for Ordina∣tion, and People for Consent where it may be done) And Grotius commen∣deth the saying of Musculus, That, he would have no Minister question his Call, that being quallified, hath the Christian Ma∣gistrates Commission. And though this As∣sertion need some limitation; yet it is ap∣parent, that the Magistrates Power is great about the Offices of the Church.

For Solomon, put out Abiathar from the Priest-hood, and put Zadock in his place, 1 King. 2. 27, 35. David and the Cap∣tains

of the Host, Seperated to Gods Service, those of the Sons of Asaph and of Heman and Jeduther, who should Pro∣phesie with Harps, &c. 1 Chron. 16. 4. And so did Solomon, 2 Chron. 8. 14, 15. They were for the Service of the House of God, according to the Kings Order, 1 Chron. 25. 1, 6. And methinks those those men should acknowledge this, that were wont to stile the King, in all Cau∣ses and over all Persons, the Supream Head and Governor. So far He.

And indeed I durst almost challenge this Answerer, or any man, to prove; that e∣ver any learned Protestant in this Church, whether Episcopal or Presbyterian, did make it a question, (I mean before the Kings happy Return) whether Solomon had not sufficient Authority to put out Abiathar from the Priest-hood, and put Zadock in his place. Or whether any might modestly say such must Preach, and that those were Schismaticks and Ʋsurpers that did exer∣cise their Offices according to Law, in the places of such as were removed, by the Vertue of an Act of Parliament of unque∣stionable Authority, and we must Preach though the Law forbids us.

As for Dr. Gunnings, Dr. Wilds preach∣ing fourteen or fifteen years ago, which you

so often hint at, it is sufficiently known, it was in such a time, when the Case was far otherwise, both with the Church and State, in many Notorious Circumstances: both as to Persons, Law, Government and Worship; and they could easily answer their so do∣ing, if it be not a matter too much below the Eminency both of their Persons and Places. We must proceed:

Notes

• Cas. d•• Schism.
• His ••••fence, 2. Par. 22.
• Independ. a great Schism.
• Cure of Church Divisions, 291.
• See Cure of Church Divisions, p. 194.
• Cure of Church Div. p. 80.
• Whole Armour of God. 570.
• 2d Admon. to Bag. 117