it is required, to answer the rule or law of it before declared, every man, by his so conforming, doth thereby take it on his conscience, and make it part of his Christian profession, that all which he so conforms unto, is not only what he may do, but what he ought to do, both in matter and manner, so far as the law, or any part of it, doth determine or enjoin them. No man is allowed to make either distinction or protestation with respect unto any thing contained in the rules, and therefore whatever he doth in compliance therewith, is interpretable in the sight of God and man, as an approbation of the whole. Sincerity and openness in profession is indispensably required of us in order unto our salvation. And therefore to instruct men as unto the worship of God, to do what they do not judge to be their duty to do, but only hope they may do it without sin, or to join themselves in and unto that performance of it, which either they approve not of as the best, in the whole, or not lawful or approvable in some parts of it, is to instruct them unto the debauching of their consciences and ruin of their own souls. Let every one be persuaded in his own mind; for what is not of faith, is sin.'

3. There is in this conformity required a renunciation of all other ways of public worship, or means of edification, that may be made use of. For they are all expressly forbidden in the rule of that conformity. No man therefore can comply with that rule, but that a renunciation of all other public ways of edification as unlawful, is part of the visible profession which they make. 'Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor,' is no good plea in religion. It is uprightness and integrity that will preserve men, and nothing else. He that shall endeavour to cheat his conscience by distinctions and mental reservations, in any concernment of religious worship, I fear he hath little of it, if any at all, that is good for aught.

On these suppositions, I say, the imposition of the things so often contended about, on the consciences and profession of Christians, as namely, the constant sole use of the Liturgy in all church administrations, in the matter and manner prescribed; the use and practice of all canonical ceremonies, the religious observation of stated holidays, with other things of the like nature, is sufficient to warrant any sober, peaceable disciple of Christ, who takes care of his own edification and

salvation, to refrain the communion required in this rule of conformity, unless he be fully satisfied in his own mind, that all that it requires, is according to the mind of Christ, and all that it forbids is disapproved by him. And whereas the whole entire matter of all these impositions, are things whereof the Scripture, and the primitive churches, know nothing at all, nor is there any rumour of them to be imposed in or on any church of Christ for some centuries of years, I can but pity poor men who must bear the charge and penalties of schism for dissenting from them, as well as admire the fertility of their inventions, who can find out arguments to manage such a charge on their account.

But whereas the dissent declared from that communion with parochial assemblies, is that whereon we are so fiercely charged with the guilt of schism, and so frequently called schismatics, I shall divert a little to inquire into the nature and true notion of schism itself; and so much the rather, because I find the author of the Unreasonableness of Separation, omit any inquiry thereinto, that he might not lose the advantage of any pretended description or aggravation of it.

CHAP. XI.

Of schism.

ALTHOUGH it be no part of my present design to treat of the nature of schism, yet with respect unto what hath already been discoursed, and to manifest our unconcernment in the guilt of it, I shall, as was said, divert to give a plain and brief account of it. And in our inquiry, I must declare myself wholly unconcerned in all the discords, divisions, and seditions, that have fallen out among Christians in the latter ages, about things that were of their own invention. Schism is a sin against Christian love, with reference unto the deportment of men in and about the institutions of Christ and their communion in them. As for contentions, divisions, or separations amongst men, about that order, agreement, unity, or uniformity which are of their own appoint

ment, whatever moral evil they have had in them, they do not belong unto that church schism which we inquire after. Such have been the horrid divisions and fightings that have prevailed at seasons in the church of Rome, a departure from whose self-constituted state, order, and rule, hath not the least affinity unto schism. It will not therefore be admitted, that any thing can fall under the note and guilt of schism, which hath not respect unto some church-state, order, rule, unity, or uniformity, that is of Christ's institution. There are three notions of schism that deserve our consideration.

1. The first is that of divisions among the members of the same church, all of them abiding still in the same outward communion, without any separation into distinct parties. And unto schism in this notion of it, three things do

concur.

1. Want of that mutual love, condescension, and forbearance, which are required in all the members of the same church, with the moral evils of whisperings, back-bitings, and evil surmises, that ensue thereon.

2. All undue adherence unto some church offices above others, causing disputes and janglings.

3. Disorder in the attendance unto the duties of church assemblies, and the worship of God performed in them. This is the only notion of schism, that is exemplified in the Scripture, the only evil that is condemned under that name; this will appear unto any who shall with heedfulness read the Epistles of Paul the apostle unto the Corinthians, wherein alone the nature of this evil is stated and exemplified. But this consideration of schism hath been almost utterly lost for many ages; whatever men do in churches, so that they depart not from the outward communion of them, it would be accounted ridiculous to esteem them schismatics. Yet this is that which if not only, yet principally, the consciences of men are to regard, if they will avoid the guilt of schism. But this notion of it, as was said, being not suited unto the interest or advantages of any sort of men, in the charge of it on others; nor any way subservient to secure the inventions and impositions of the most, is on the matter lost in the world.

2. The second instance of ecclesiastical schism, was

given us in the same church of the Corinthians afterward, an account whereof we have in the epistle of Clemens, or of the church of Rome unto them about it, the most eminent monument of primitive antiquity; after the writings by divine inspiration. And that which he calls schism in that church, he calls also strife, contention, sedition, tumult: and it may be observed concerning that schism, as all the ancients call it,

1. That the church continued its state and outward communion. There is no mention of any that separated from it, that constituted a new church; only in the same church they agreed not, but were divided among themselves. Want of love and forbearance, attended with strife and contention among the members of the same church, abiding in the same outward communion, was the schism they were guilty of.

2. The effect of this schism was, that the body of the church, or multitudes of the members, by the instigation of some few disorderly persons, had deposed their elders and rulers from their offices, and probably had chosen others in their places, though that be not mentioned expressly in the epistle.

3. That the church itself is not blamed, for assuming a power unto themselves to depose their elders; much less that they had done it without the consent, advice, or authority of any bishop, or other church; but only that they had dealt unjustly with those whom they had deposed, who in the judgment of the church of Rome, unto which they had written for advice, were esteemed not only innocent, but such as had laudably and profitably discharged their office, whereon the whole blame is cast on those who had instigated the church unto this procedure.

4. There was not yet, nor in a hundred and fifty years after, the least mention or intimation, of any schism in a dissent from any humanly invented rules or canons, for order, government, or worship in any church, or religious ceremonies imposed on the practice of any in divine service, that is on any church, or any of the members of it. There is not the least rumour of any such things in primitive antiquity, no instance to be given of any man charged with schism for a dissent from such a rule. Any such rule, and any ecclesiastical censure upon it, is apocryphal, not only

unto the Scripture, but unto that which I call primitive antiquity. The first attempt of any thing in this kind, was in reference unto the time and day of the observation of Easter. This was the first instance among Christians of an endeavour to impose the observation of human or church constitutions or groundless traditions, on any churches or persons in them. And whereas that which was called a schism between the churches of Italy and Asia, or some of them, did ensue thereon; we have a most illustrious testimony from the best, the wisest, and the holiest of that age (for Irenæus in France, and Polycrates in Asia, were not alone herein), that the blame of all that division and schism was to be charged on them who attempted to deprive the churches of their liberty, and impose on them a necessity of the observation of the time and season which they had determined on: after a rebuke was given unto the attempt of the Judaizing Christians, to impose the observation of Mosaical ceremonies, from the pretence of their divine institution, on the churches of the Gentiles, by the apostles themselves; this was the original of all endeavours, to impose human constitutions for which there was no such pretence, upon the practice of any. And as it was an original not unmeet for the beginning and foundation of such impositions, being in a matter of no use unto the edification of the church; so it received such a solemn rebuke at its first entrance and attempt, that had it not been for the ignorance, pride, interest and superstition of some in the following ages, it had perished without imitation. The account hereof is given in Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 21-23. as also of the rule which then prevailed, though afterward shamefully forsaken, namely, that an agreement in the faith was the only rule of communion, which ought to be kept under any diversity in voluntary observations. And the discourse of Socrates on this occasion, lib. 5. cap. 21. concerning the non-institution of any days of fastings or feastings, or other rites or ceremonies then in use, with the liberty which is therefore to be left in such things unto all Christians, is the plain truth, whatever some except against it, declared with much judgment and moderation.

This beginning, I say, had the imposition of unscriptural, uninstituted rites, ceremonies, and religious observations,