versy, became a formal schism. To know no more than this, if you take it to be true, had been enough to direct how you are to judge, and what to think of schism and schismatics; yet because in the ancients (by whom many men are more affrighted than hurt) much is said, and many fearful dooms are pronounced in this case, will we descend a little to consider of schisms, as it were by way of story, and that partly further to open that which we have said in general, by instancing in particulars, and partly to disabuse those who, reverencing antiquity more than needs, have suffered themselves to be scared with imputation of schism above due measure: for what the ancients spake by way of censure of schism in general, is most true; for they saw (and it is no great matter to see so much) that unadvisedly, and upon fancy, to break the knot of union betwixt man and man (especially amongst Christians, upon whom, above all other kind of men, the tie of love and communion doth most especially rest) was a crime hardly pardonable; and that nothing absolves a man from the guilt of it but true and unpretended conscience; yet when they came to pronounce of schisms in particular (whether it were because of their own interests, or that they saw not the truth, or for what other cause God only doth know), their judgments many times (to speak most gently) are justly to be suspected. Which that you may see, we will range all schism into two ranks.

1. For there is a schism in which only one party is the schismatic: for where cause of schism is necessary, there not he that separates, but he that occasions the separation, is the schismatic.

2. There is a schism in which both parts are the schismatics; for where the occasion of separation is unnecessary, neither side can be excused from the guilt of schism.

But you will ask, who shall be the judge what is necessary? Indeed, that is a question which hath been often made, but I think scarcely ever truly answered; not because it is a point of great depth or difficulty truly to assoil it, but because the true solution carries fire in the tail of it; for it bringeth with it a piece of doctrine which is seldom pleasing to superiors. To you for the present this shall suffice: if so be you be animo defæcato, if you have cleared yourself from froth and grounds; if neither sloth, nor fears, nor ambition, nor any tempting spirits of that nature abuse you (for these, and such as these, are

the true impediments why both that and other questions of the like danger are not truly answered); if all this be, and yet you see not how to frame your resolution and settle yourself for that doubt, I will say no more of you than was said of Papias, St. John's own scholar, You are "of small judgment,' your abilities are not so good as I

presumed.

But to go on with what I intended, and from which that interloping question diverted me,-that you may the better judge of the nature of schisms by their occasions, you shall find that all schisms have crept into the church by one of these three ways; either upon matter of fact, or matter of opinion, or point of ambition. For the first, I call that matter of fact when something is required to be done by us which we either know or strongly suspect to be unlawful. So the first notable schism of which we read in the church contained in it matter of fact; for it being upon error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept, and upon worse than error, if I may so speak (for it was no less than a point of Judaism forced upon the church), upon worse than error, I say, thought further necessary, that the ground for the time of our keeping that feast must be the rule left by Moses to the Jews, there arose a stout question, Whether we were to celebrate with the Jews on the fourteenth moon, or the Sunday following? This matter, 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 that all parties out of conscience did what they did;-a thing which befel them through the ignorance of their guides (for I will not say their malice), and that through the just judgment of God, because through sloth and blind obedience men examined not the things which they were taught, but, like beasts of burden, patiently couched down and indifferently underwent whatsoever their superiors laid upon them. By the way, by this you may plainly see the danger of our appeal to antiquity, for resolution in controverted points of faith, and how small relief we are

*Euseb. Eccles. Hist. 1. iii. c. 39.

to expect from thence: for if the discretion of the chiefest guides and directors of the church did in a point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the truth in a subject wherein it is the greatest marvel how they could avoid the sight of it, can we, without imputation of extreme grossness and folly, think so poorspirited persons competent judges of the questions now on foot betwixt the churches? Pardon me; I know not what temptation drew that note from me.

The next schism which had in it matter of fact is that of the Donatist, who was persuaded (at least so he pretended) that it was unlawful to converse or communicate in holy duties with men stained with any notorious sin (for howsoever Austin and others do specify only the Thurificati et Traditores and Libellatici, and the like, as if he separated only from those whom he found to be such, yet by necessary proportion he must refer to all notorious sinners). Upon this he taught, that in all places where good and bad were mixed together, there could be no church, by reason of pollution evaporating as it were from sinners, which blasted righteous persons who conversed with them, and made all unclean. On this ground separating himself from all whom he list to suspect, he gave out that the church was nowhere to be found but in him and his associates, as being the only men among whom wicked persons found no shelter, and by consequence the only clean and unpolluted company, and therefore the only church. Against this St. Augustine laid down this conclusion, Unitatem ecclesiae per totum orbem dispersae propter nonnullorom peccata non esse deserendam ;* which is indeed the whole sum of that father's disputation against the Donatist. Now in one part

of this controversy betwixt St. Augustine and the Donatist, there is one thing very remarkable: the truth was there, where it was by mere chance, and might have been on either side, any reasons brought by either party notwithstanding; for though it were de facto false, that pars Donati, shut up in Afric, was the only orthodox party, yet it might have been true, notwithstanding any thing St. Austin brings to confute it: and on the contrary, though it were de facto true, that the part of Christians

* The substance, though not the words, of this sentence is to be found in various passages of the Epistles of Augustine.

dispersed over the earth were orthodox, yet it might have been false, notwithstanding any thing St. Austin brings to confirm it. For where, or amongst whom, or amongst how many, the church shall be or is, is a thing indifferent: it may be in any number, more or less; it may be in any place, country or nation; it may be in all, and (for aught I know) it may be in none, without any prejudice to the definition of the church or the truth of the gospel. North or south, many or few, dispersed in many places or confined to one; none of these either prove or disprove a church.

Now this schism, and likewise the former, to a wise man that well understands the matter in controversy, may afford perchance matter of pity, to see men so strangely distracted upon fancy; but of doubt or trouble what to do, it can yield none. For though in this schism the Donatist be the schismatic, and in the former both parties be equally engaged in the schism, yet you may safely upon your occasions communicate with either, so be you flatter neither in their schism. For why might it not be lawful to go to church with the Donatist, or to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman, if occasion so require? since neither nature, nor religion, nor reason, doth suggest any thing to the contrary: for in all public meetings pretending holiness, so there be nothing done but what true devotion and piety brook, why may not I be present in them, and use communication with them? Nay, what if those to whose care the execution of the public service is committed, do something either unseemly or suspicious or peradventure unlawful? What if the garments they wear be censured as, nay indeed be, superstitious? if the gesture of adoration be used at the altar, as now we have learned to speak? What if the homilist or preacher deliver any doctrine, of the truth of which we are not well persuaded (a thing which very often falls out); yet for all this we may not separate, except we be constrained personally to bear a part in them ourselves. The priests under Eli had so ill demeaned themselves about the daily sacrifice, that the Scriptures tell us they made it to stink; yet the people refused not to come to the tabernacle, nor to bring their sacrifice to the priest. For in these schisms, which concern fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusal of communion but only to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected act: for not

What

only in reason, but in religion too, that maxim admits of no release, Cautissimi cujusque præceptum quod dubitas, ne feceris. Long it was ere the church fell upon schism upon this occasion, though of late it hath had very many; for until the second council of Nice (in which conciliabule superstition and ignorance did conspire), I say, until that rout did set up image-worship, there was not any remarkable schism, upon just occasion of fact: all the rest of schisms of that kind were but wantonness; this was truly serious. In this the schismatical party was the synod itself, and such as conspired with it. For concerning the use of images in sacris, first, it is acknowledged by all, that it is not a thing necessary: secondly, it is by most suspected thirdly, it is by many held utterly unlawful. Can then the enjoining of the practice of such a thing be aught else but abuse? Or can the refusal of communion here be thought any other thing than duty? Here, or upon the like occasion, to separate, may peradventure bring personal trouble and danger (against which it concerns every honest man to have pectus bene præparatum); further harm it cannot do. So that in these cases, you cannot be to seek what to think or what you have to do.

:

Come we then to consider a little of the second sort of schism, arising upon occasion of variety of opinion. It hath been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of faith which God and the Scriptures have expressly afforded us; but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed, they have attempted to discuss things of which we can have no light, neither from reason nor revelation: neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of church-authority, which is none, or tradition, which for the most part is but figment, they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon others, a necessity of entertaining conclusions of that nature; and to strengthen themselves, have broken out into divisions and factions, opposing man to man, synod to synod, till the peace of the church vanished, without all possibility of recal. Hence arose those ancient and many separations amongst Christians occasioned by Arianism, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, Photinianism, Sabellianism, and many more, both ancient and in our time; all which indeed are but names of schism, howsoever, in the common