24. The Sixth Dividing Practice: The Giving of Characterizing Names to Men, Names of Division
Chapter Twenty-Four The Sixth Dividing Practice: The Giving of Characterizing Names to Men, Names of Division T his is an old, continued practice of the devil; he has gained much by it and is therefore loath to leave it. The orthodox of old were called
Cornelians and Cyrillians by the followers of Novatus and Nestorius. In times of reformation, they were labeled Lutherans, Zwinglians, Hussites,
Calvinists, and Huguenots. Tertullian says in his "Apology" for the Christians of his time that their crime, for which they are persecuted, has no name; the crime for which they are hated and persecuted is merely their name. Such men are cried out against under such a name, but when things are examined, their name is all their crime.
Among others, that of "schismatic" is not only a characterizing but a stigmatizing name. Many have borne this brand of reproach, which upon examination will be found to be, as it is applied by many, nothing but a scaring word taken up by those who understand little of what schism is. I shall therefore endeavor to explain this briefly.
The word "schism" comes from the Greek σχίζω (schizo), meaning "to rend," from which comes σχίσμα (schisma), a rent. It is among divines a
technological term. Schism in the church is much like sedition in the state.
When the church grew up to the state and outward glory of an earthly kingdom, much use was made of this term as a brand upon those who would not subject themselves to the yokes of those who loved preeminence in the church.
But the true nature of schism is this: an uncharitable, unjust, rash, violent breaking from union with the church or its members. The church is that from which the rent is made: heresy divides from the head, schism from the body, apostasy from both. This rent is either from the whole church or some part; if from the whole, it is Donatism. Donatus denied any to be part of the body of Christ or believers or such as could be saved except for that company that joined with him and those in his way. This is clear from Augustine's entire discourse against him in "De unitate Ecclesiae."
Therefore, those who censure such as deny communion with some particular congregations as Donatists reveal either ignorance or malice, if not both.
Yet schism may occur even if the rent is only from some part of the church; but this must presuppose union with that part. Now there may be a twofold union with several parts of the church: either that which all who are to be accounted Christians have with them as they are part of the same
Catholic body or that which is by agreement to grow up together into a special fellowship. The rending from either of these unions in such a way as mentioned before is schism.
If we separate from or refuse communion with those who are to be accounted Christians, which is due to all Christians, this is more gross schism. Or if we break off that communion which is by special agreement
—either when Christians join together privately for mutual edification and
comfort or when they join together to form a distinct spiritual corporation to set up public ordinances of Christ, which Scripture calls a church—though there may be schism in breaking the former, yet the censure of schism is especially applied to undue breaking off communion in the latter.
This implies a union by a church agreement; where there never was such an agreement, there cannot be guilt of this schism. Although those who dwell within such a perambulation or compass of ground should not join in some ordinances with some within that compass—whatever offense there may be against some civil constitution—yet they do not contract upon themselves the guilt of schism because that union they never had cannot be broken.
But you will say: Yes, they are schismatics even if they were never so united because they were bound to unite thus and have not done so.
It must be granted that Christ, by what He ordered the Apostles to do, would have all Christians dwelling together, as far as they can, unite into a body. However, there is no such order from Christ that all who dwell on one side of the street should be of one body, and all on the other side of another body. If they are more than can join into one spiritual corporation, they are bound to join into several, so as they may best contribute to their own and other churches' edification. If they fail in this, not joining in the best way possible, their sin is against the edification that Christ requires, but it is not necessarily the sin of schism. Whoever they were that bounded parishes surely did not bound them to the greatest edification of the Church that might be possible, and yet who will say they were therefore schismatics?
But suppose you have joined with any company of saints in a spiritual corporation; if you now uncharitably, unjustly, rashly, and violently break
from communion with them, then you contract the guilt of schism upon yourself.
First, the separation must be from a lack of charity. By faith especially, we are united to Christ our head, and by charity to one another. If a man appears to depart from any fundamental article of our faith which joined him to his head, he is to be judged a heretic. Similarly, by his appearing to depart from that love by which he was joined in communion with the members, he is to be judged a schismatic. If his departure proceeds from his love of God, his love for His saints, and his own soul—indeed, his love for that very church from which he departs—as sometimes it may, witnessing in a gracious way against evil in it, he is far from the guilt of schism.
If you say love is a secret thing and we cannot judge what is in the heart, we cannot judge it while it is in the heart, but when it appears, we may. You may know whether this or other principles act upon men by their behavior in breaking off communion. Where this is not present, bitterness, pride, and self-interest will soon appear and carry them beyond those principles they profess to follow.
If the cause of leaving communion is just, then those who give this cause are the schismatics, not those who withdraw because of it. Thus the governors of the Church may be the schismatics, and a private member withdrawing may be free. Suarez, a great Jesuit, in his disputation "De
Schismate," says in some cases the Pope may be a schismatic.
If governors shall enjoin anything upon the Church or any member that is sin; or if they shall mingle evil in public worship so that there can be no joining with their worship without also joining with sin; in this case, if any withdraw from them, they are the schismatics, not those who withdraw— they are fugitives, not deserters. The blame of schism, says learned Voetius,
must not be upon those who forsake such as have forsaken Christ and the ancient faith but upon those who have thus forsaken Christ and His truth.
When the Second Council of Nice set up image-worship, many thousands could not yield to it but were forced to withdraw. Who was the schismatic party there but the Synod and those who joined with it?
Furthermore, if they impose that which is not necessary (though in itself not sinful) and will not bear with the weaknesses of those who think it to be evil; if upon that they are forced to withdraw; in this case, the governors are the schismatics also; the cause of the division is in them. They ought in such things to bear the weaknesses of their brethren and not imperiously require of them those things for which there is no necessity. If such things are sinful to their brethren's consciences and they insist on enforcing them, they lay a necessity upon them to withdraw. God will not lay the indictment of schism thus: "Such a one departed from the communion of such a Church because he would not do what was lawful to be done"; but thus:
"You imposed that upon your brother which there was no necessity for and would not forbear him in what I would have you forbear him but caused him by your imperiousness and stubbornness to depart from communion with you." It is true, says God, the thing might have been done, but it was not necessary; it was out of conscience to Me that they refrained; the weakness is theirs, but the schism is yours.
This has been generally received (though it is very false) that if a man departs from a Church because he refuses to join with it in that which is not in itself evil, that this man's departure is schismatic: Certainly not. Grant there is a weakness in his conscience and thus a sin; he should inform his conscience better but cannot; and this inability is not without sin. Yet this does not rise to such a height of sin as to make that (which—supposing him
to be in this condition—is better for him to do than not to do) become schism; especially if he is willing to hold communion with that Church still in all acts of worship wherein he can join without sinning against his conscience and continues brotherly love to them as saints in all expressions thereof as he is able.
The first great schism in the Church caused by its governors was that which Victor Bishop of Rome and those who joined with him caused by that imperious way of enjoining Easter to be kept at such a time as you have mentioned. The story of which you have in Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 23. Those who denied not the lawfulness of keeping Easter have generally accused
Victor and those who so violently urged this upon the Churches as the cause of the schism—not those who did not conform to what was enjoined them because the thing was not necessary and there should have been forbearance in it. No governor ought to urge such unnecessary things which are but under suspicion by tender consciences; if they do, the schism is justly charged upon them.
**Thirdly**, where a man cannot have his soul edified in some ordinances and truths of great moment which that Church whereof he now is shall deny and is in great danger of being seduced to evil, he may depart from that Church to another if he does it orderly and not be guilty at all of schism. Love for God and his own soul is the cause of this—not lack of love for his brethren.
It is a good speech I find Chillingworth has. What the goodness of the man was, I know not, but in that treatise of his, "The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way," Cap. 5, Part 1, Sect. 61, answering that plea of his adversary against Protestants—that communion with a Church not erring in fundamentals, upon pretense of erring in other matters, must not be
forsaken—he has this excellent saying: If I did not find in myself a love and desire for all profitable truth; if I did not put away idleness, prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottom all my opinions of divine matters, being prepared in mind to follow God, and God only, whichever way He shall lead me; if I did not hope that I either do or endeavor to do these things, certainly I should have little hope of obtaining salvation.
When I consider these causes of departing from a particular Church, that speech of Tertullian concerning a martyr comes to my mind: Non pœna sed causa facit Martyrem, Not the punishment but the cause makes a martyr. So,
Non decessio sed causa facit Schismaticum, Not the departing, but the cause makes a schismatic. Aquinas, showing wherein the viciousness of schism lies,* says; As in natural things that which is by accident does not constitute the species, so in moral matters, not that which is beside the intention, for that is accidental: therefore, he says, the sin of schism is in that it intends to separate from that unity which charity makes, and therefore schismatics are properly those who of their own accord and intention do separate themselves from the unity of the Church.
The next thing considerable in the description of schism is the rashness or the separation: though the cause of separating be just, yet the manner of it may be schismatical if done rashly or violently. Those who are joined in communion with others, when they differ from those with whom they have communion, are bound to examine, try, and make use of all means they can to satisfy their consciences in things they scruple: and if they cannot, yet before they break off communion they are bound to seek by all means they can for a redress of those things which after most serious examination appear evil to them. They are bound to wait with much forbearance and longsuffering. And at last, if there be a necessity of departing, they must not
rend away with violence but show themselves willing and ready in the spirit of love and meekness to open their cause, to show their reasons to the Church why they cannot continue in that communion with them they formerly had, and desire that they may peaceably and lovingly depart, seeing they cannot with peace of their conscience and love to their souls continue with them, and that they may join with some other Church where they may enjoy peace and further edification.
Surely here is no schism; this is no rending away; here is no violence used; here is only a loving and peaceable secession. Notwithstanding this, were it not for the pride, envy, and rebelliousness of men's spirits, much love and peace might continue amongst Christians and Churches. True indeed, if men can bear no contradiction or any kind of blame for their ways, there must needs be trouble; but then those who do contradict or blame, though they be in the wrong, yet if it be through weakness and carried with meekness, they are not so much the cause of the trouble as those who cannot bear this weakness of their brethren without rebelliousness and contention.
There are other names of division; the name of Puritan—what a divider has it been? But seeing itself ready to die, it divided itself into two:
Roundhead and Independent.
These are now the opprobrious, discriminating, scornful names of division amongst us. For the first, there is so much folly and absurdity in it that surely it will soon vanish by itself if you contemn it; it is too low and contemptible for a pulpit or a pen to meddle with. But the other carries in its face an open defiance to all kinds of government—a monstrous kind of liberty for men to live as they list and to be accountable to none whatsoever they hold or do. Certainly such kinds of people as these are not to be suffered; shall I say in any Christian
society? No, not in any human society. If there be any such people as these, they are one of the most monstrous kinds of people that ever lived upon the face of the earth. How many run away with the word and cry out against men and their ways under this name which they know not? How far those who are for the Congregational way are from such an uncontrollable liberty has been shown in Chap. 7, Pag. 41.
I shall add this one thing: Of all kinds of governments in the Church, that which has this name fastened upon it is most opposite to the name of any in that sense it is ordinarily taken. For there is no Church government that holds forth more means to reduce from error or any miscarriage than this does; examine it with the Prelatic or Presbyterial Government, and you shall find it. For first, in the Prelatic Government, if once the prelates determine any case, you must there rest; there is no Church help for you except you will say it is in a Convocation where we know they ruled both in the choice of members and ordering all things as they list. In the Presbyterial way, if so many associated elders determine any case, it must in them receive the final determination; you must rest in it even though the greater part of the Churches and the greater number of elders in a kingdom should be of another mind. For if you rise to a National Assembly, there are not a twentieth part of elders of the kingdom in it.
But those whom men call Independents say that if anything be done by them that is offensive—not only those associated elders but all or any elders or churches whatsoever may require account—may in the name of Christ do all in effect for reducing them that those associated elders can do. Still remembering that Church power in one or the other goes no further than men's consciences; if men will not conscientiously regard what is done to reduce them from evil, there is no help within the Church but to appeal to
Christ. As for external help by the magistrate—that concerns not the controversy about Church government—and yet for subjection to that ordinance of God—the principles and profession of those you call
Independents leave as much to the magistrate as the principle or profession of those who are Presbyterial do—if not more. Tolle jam nominis crimen et nihil restat nisi criminis nomen; Now take away the crime of the name and there remains nothing but the name of a crime.
The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth Dividing Practices