The Papists and Lutherans,though both of them profess faith in Christ and are therefore called Christians,yet are not both of the same religion,because these acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be the rule and foundation of their religion,those take in also traditions and the decrees of Popes and of these together make the rule of their religion;and thus the Christians of St.John (as they are called)and the Christians of Geneva are of different religions,because these also take only the Scriptures,and those I know not what traditions,for the rule of their religion.This being settled,it follows,first,that heresy is a separation made in ecclesiastical communion between men of the same religion for some opinions no way contained in the rule itself;and,secondly,that amongst those who acknowledge nothing but the Holy Scriptures to be their rule of faith,heresy is a separation made in their Christian communion for opinions not contained in the express words of Scripture.Now this separation may be made in a twofold manner:1.When the greater part,or by the magistrate's patronage the stronger part,of the Church separates itself from others by excluding them out of her communion because they will not profess their belief of certain opinions which are not the express words of the Scripture.
For it is not the paucity of those that are separated,nor the authority of the magistrate,that can make any man guilty of heresy,but he only is a heretic who divides the Church into parts,introduces names and marks of distinction,and voluntarily makes a separation because of such opinions.2.When any one separates himself from the communion of a Church because that Church does not publicly profess some certain opinions which the Holy Scriptures do not expressly teach.Both these are heretics because they err in fundamentals,and they err obstinately against knowledge;for when they have determined the Holy Scriptures to be the only foundation of faith,they nevertheless lay down certain propositions as fundamental which are not in the Scripture,and because others will not acknowledge these additional opinions of theirs,nor build upon them as if they were necessary and fundamental,they therefore make a separation in the Church,either by withdrawing themselves from others,or expelling the others from them.
Nor does it signify anything for them to say that their confessions and symbols are agreeable to Scripture and to the analogy of faith;for if they be conceived in the express words of Scripture,there can be no question about them,because those things are acknowledged by all Christians to be of divine inspiration and therefore fundamental.But if they say that the articles which they require to be professed are consequences deduced from the Scripture,it is undoubtedly well done of them who believe and profess such things as seem unto them so agreeable to the rule of faith.But it would be very ill done to obtrude those things upon others unto whom they do not seem to be the indubitable doctrines of the Scripture;and to make a separation for such things as these,which neither are nor can be fundamental,is to become heretics;for I do not think there is any man arrived to that degree of madness as that he dare give out his consequences and interpretations of Scripture as divine inspirations and compare the articles of faith that he has framed according to his own fancy with the authority of Scripture.
I know there are some propositions so evidently agreeable to Scripture that nobody can deny them to be drawn from thence,but about those,therefore,there can be no difference.This only I say-that however clearly we may think this or the other doctrine to be deduced from Scripture,we ought not therefore to impose it upon others as a necessary article of faith because we believe it to be agreeable to the rule of faith,unless we would be content also that other doctrines should be imposed upon us in the same manner,and that we should be compelled to receive and profess all the different and contradictory opinions of Lutherans,Calvinists,Remonstrants,Anabaptists,and other sects which the contrivers of symbols,systems,and confessions are accustomed to deliver to their followers as genuine and necessary deductions from the Holy Scripture.I cannot but wonder at the extravagant arrogance of those men who think that they themselves can explain things necessary to salvation more clearly than the Holy Ghost,the eternal and infinite wisdom of God.Thus much concerning heresy,which word in common use is applied only to the doctrinal part of religion.
Let us now consider schism,which is a crime near akin to it;for both these words seem unto me to signify an ill-grounded separation in ecclesiastical communion made about things not necessary.But since use,which is the supreme law in matter of language,has determined that heresy relates to errors in faith,and schism to those in worship or discipline,we must consider them under that distinction.Schism,then,for the same reasons that have already been alleged,is nothing else but a separation made in the communion of the Church upon account of something in divine worship or ecclesiastical discipline that is not any necessary part of it.
Now,nothing in worship or discipline can be necessary to Christian communion but what Christ our legislator,or the Apostles by inspiration of the Holy Spirit,have commanded in express words.In a word,he that denies not anything that the Holy Scriptures teach in express words,nor makes a separation upon occasion of anything that is not manifestly contained in the sacred text-however he may be nicknamed by any sect of Christians and declared by some or all of them to be utterly void of true Christianity-yet in deed and in truth this man cannot be either a heretic or schismatic.These things might have been explained more largely and more advantageously,but it is enough to have hinted at them thus briefly to a person of your parts.
THE END
