whether I would contend that under no circumstances whatever, a man may lawfully separate from the established communion? Undoubtedly, I claim no such infallibility for any church undoubtedly, there may be circumstances which will not only excuse but justify such a separation. The case of the Reformation alone would suffice to establish this point. But then, whenever such a separation takes place, there must be guilt somewhere. If he who separates is innocent and justifiable, then he who has so acted as to oblige his brother, to separate from him is the person guilty and liable to the judg ment. It is not therefore and cannot be strictly true, that (always understanding the case of there being a national church established) there can be a separation which is not schismatical and sinful, and for which there will not be some one or other to answer as a criminal.

If I am told that, in laying down this position, I am uncharitable, I can only say that I know no difference in the main between this and any other sin. Every man, who, in any instance, disbelieves or disregards God's commandments, is guilty of sin and liable to pu nishment. But schism appears to me most evi

bishop after the sermon had been preached; and a curious controversy arose out of it, which kept the city of London in a ferment for some days. See an account of it in the Biographia Britannica, Art. Kennet (White), and in Bishop Hoadly's Works, Vol. й. p. 430.

dently, judging from the express words of Scripture, to be an instance of such disregard; and, if I am right in so conceiving, we are not to suppose that it will be dealt with in a different manner from any other sin. If it be urged that schism may be produced by prejudice or ignorance, which is invincible, and the effect of circumstances, I must say that this is as likely to be the case of heresy or infidelity; the latter of which, at least, no one will deny to be a sin. I admit, what must necessarily be admitted, that there are different degrees of guilt which may be incurred by different persons in the commission of the same sin; there are circumstances which will extenuate, some perhaps which, in the eye of a merciful God, will wholly take away the guilt of it: but this does not make it to be no sin in itself. The ancients avowedly made great allowances for those who were born of schismatical parents, and in the midst of a schismatical or heretical congregation*. I am perfectly ready to go as far as any of them ever went, nay as any man can go, in hoping and trusting that the conduct of these and of every other separatist will be judged with the greatest possible mildness and favour. But still, though you take. as many such individuals as you will, though you sup

*See Bingham, Vol. ii. p. 23. fol. Ed.

pose them all, if you will, to be thus absolved, this does no way alter the nature of the thing: it will still continue to be sinful; and this will be no warrant for any man to enter into a schism, or to continue in it, under the confidence that he shall eventually escape condemnation. Indeed I will venture to say, that, in some respects, schismatics appear to be more directly sinful than heretics, or even than infidels. They have less to say for themselves. Their conduct seems particularly wanton and without cause. That I may not appear more rash and singular than is necessary, let me be allowed here to plead the authority of some of the most respected fathers of the church, whose very sentiments and almost language I have used. They say directly that schism is as bad or worse than heresy, or than idolatry; and one of them asserts that the prevalence of it is the reason why the power of working miracles had ceased in the church3.

'The reader who doubts this may refer to Hammond on schism, c. 1. 1 will add a few passages from Austin and Chrysostom. The former in his Treatise contra Epistolam Parmeniani, Tom. ix. P. 13. ed. Antwerp, as well as elsewhere, adduces and relies upon that opinion of Cyprian, that a schismatic could not be a real martyr, and he reasons from our Lord's words in Matt. v. 10. "Blessed are "they who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake;" which he denies to be the case with schismatics. "Ideo," says he, "Dominus, quisquam in hâc re nebulas offenderet imperitis, et in suorum "damnatione meritorum laudem quæreret martyrum, non generaliter

ne

C

But this was not only the language of remote antiquity: it continued to be the doctrine of

66

"ait, beati qui persecutionem patiuntur: sed addidit magnam diffe"rentiam, qua vera sacrilegio pietas secernatur. Ait enim, beati "qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam. Nullo modo autem propter justitiam, qui Christi ecclesiam diviserunt, etc." So in Libro de Baptismo contra Donatistas, he calls it "sacrilege" re peatedly; nefariæ divisionis sacrilegium," p. 49. "Schismatis "sacrilegio," p. 50 "Sacrilegia schismata," ibidem. "Sacrilegium "schismatis, quod omnia scelera supragraditur," p. 10. And he says none can be guilty of it" nisi ant superbiæ tumore furiosos, "aut invidentiæ livore vesanos, aut sæculari commoditate corruptos, "aut carnali timore perversos," p. 59. That schismatics are worse than idolaters he argues from their punishment in the Old Testament; that the one was slain with the sword, while the other was swallowed up alive in the earth. Idololatras enim in populo "Dei gladius interemit, schismaticos autem terra hiatus absorbuit,” p. 57. And he expressly ascribes the origin of schism to the want of charity. "Nulli schismata facerent nisi fraterno odio non ex"cæcarentur," p. 59. And after citing 1 John ii. 11, he says, “An "non in schismate odium fraternum? Quis hoc dixerit, cum et "origo et pertinacia schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fratris?" ibidem. Chrysostom in his homily on Ephes. iv. cites with approbation that saying of Cyprian with respect to martyrdom. · He says too that nothing so contributes to cause divisions in the church as ambition; and nothing so provokes the anger of God as for his church to be divided. σε Οὐδὲν ὄντως ἐκκλησίαν δυνήσεται · διαιρειν, ὡς φιλαρχία· οὐδὲν ουτω παροξύνει τὸν θεὸν, ὡς τήν εἰ ἐκκλησίαν διαιρηθῆναι.” And he adds that though we should do a thousand good works, “ καν μυρία ὦμεν ἐργασάμενοι καλο we should not escape the punishment due to a breach of the unity of the church. Tom. xi. p. 86. Ed. Bened. See also what he says afterwards of schism not being a crime at all inferior to heresy, διὰ τοῦτο λείω και διαμαρτύρομαι, ότι του εἰς αίρεσιν ἐμπεσεῖν τὸ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν χίσαι οὐκ ἔλατῖόν ἐςι κακόν, p. 88. And in Tom, vii. p. 375 in his homily on Matt. x. 16. he points out the reason

་་

the church at large, through succeeding ages. It was the strong and declared opinion of our national church in particular, at that period to which we are all in the habit of looking, when she virtually, nay, actually separated from the church of Rome; when therefore she might have spared herself and the rest of the reformed churches much trouble, when she and they might at once have set themselves above the reach of obloquy and censure, if they could have maintained the broad ground, that there was no guilt in schism, and that neither churches nor individuals were bound to have fellowship with each other in matters of reli-. gion. She still, however, maintained the old doctrine, she still reproved and taxed with guilt all those individuals who separated from their proper churches, and all those churches who refused to communicate with each other

why miracles have ceased to be, lest any man having such extraor‐ dinary powers should thereby be puffed up and led to separate himself from the church: since he says, this is even now the case with those who are eninent for other gifts, εἰ γὰρ οὐ Γινομένων σημείων οἱ πλεονεκτήμασιν ἑτέροις κομῶντες, οἱονεὶ λόγω σοφία, ἢ ἐυλαβείας ἐπιδείξει, κενοδοξούσιν, ἐπαίρονται, ἀπ' ἀλλήλων χίζονται εἰ και σημεία ἐγένοντο, που οὐκ ἂν ἐγἐνεῖο ρ' ήματα; and he alleges as a proof what happened among the Corinthians. It is remarkable too that Chrysostom rather goes out of his way to give this opinion, as his text only required him to speak generally of the blessings of peace; which shews the more strongly how much he was impressed with the idea that ambition and vanity were the prevalent causes of schism.