Do you know what you say? You have, I am afraid, a confused huddle of ideas in your head. And I doubt, you have not _capacity_ to clear them up yourself; nor _coolness_ enough, to receive help from others.
However I will try. What is _schism_? Have you any determinate idea of it? I ask ♦the rather, because I have found, by repeated experiments, that a common _English_ tradesman receives no more light, when he hears or reads, “This is schism,” than if he heard or read
_Bombalio, stridor, clangor, taratantara, murmur._
♦ “thee” replaced with “the” per Errata
Honest neighbour, don’t be angry. Lay down your hammer, and let us talk a little on this head.
You say, “We are in the damnable sin of _schism_, and therefore in as bad a state as adulterers or murderers.”
I ask once more, What do you mean by _schism_? “Schism! Schism! Why, it is separating from the church.” Ay, so it is. And yet _every_ separating from the church to which we once belonged, is not schism. Else you will make all the _English_ to be schismatics, ♦by separating from the church of _Rome_. “But we had just cause.” So doubtless we had: whereas schism is a _causeless_ separation from the church of Christ. So far so good. But you have many steps to take before you can make good that conclusion, that a separation from a _particular national_ church, such as the church of _England_ is, whether with sufficient cause or without, comes under the scriptural notion of _schism_.
♦ insert “by” per Errata
However, taking this for granted, will you aver in cool blood, that all who die in such a separation, that is, every one who dies a Quaker, a Baptist, an Independent, or a Presbyterian, is as infallibly damned as if he died in the act of murder or adultery? Surely you start at the thought! It makes even nature recoil. How then can you reconcile it to the love that _hopeth all things_?
31. But whatever state they are in, who _causelessly separate_ from the church of _England_, it affects not those of whom we are speaking; for they _do not separate_ from it at all.
You may easily be convinced of this, if you will only weigh the particulars following.
1. A great part of these went to _no church_ at all, before they heard us preach. They no more pretended to belong to the church of _England_, than to the church of _Moscovy_. If therefore they went to _no church_ now, they would be no farther from the church than they were before.
2. Those who did _sometimes_ go to church before, go three times as often now. These therefore _do not separate_ from the church. Nay, they are united to it more closely than before.
3. Those who _never_ went to church at all before, do go now _at all opportunities_. Will common sense allow any one to say, that these are _separated from the church_?
4. The main question is, Are they turned from doing the works of the devil, to do the works of God? Do they now live soberly, righteously, and godly, in the present world? If they do, if they live according to the _directions_ of the church, believe her _doctrines_, and join in her _ordinances_: with what face can you say, that these men _separate_ from the church of _England_?
32. But in what state are they whom the clergy and gentry (and perhaps _you_ for one) have successfully laboured to preserve from this damnable sin of _schism_? Whom you have kept from hearing these men, and _separating from the church_?
Is not the drunkard that was, a drunkard still? Enquire of his poor wife and family. Is not the common swearer still horribly crying to God for damnation upon his soul? Is not the sinner in every other kind, exactly the same man still? Not better at least, if he be not worse, than he was ten years ago.
Now consider, 1. Does the church of _England_ gain either honour, or strength, or blessing, by such wretches as these calling themselves her members? By ten thousand drunkards, or whoremongers, or common swearers? Nay ought she not immediately to spew them out? To renounce all fellowship with them? Would she not be far better without them than with them? Let any man of reason judge.
2. Is the drunkard’s _calling_ himself of the church of _England_, of any more use to him, than to the church? Will this save him from hell, if he die in his sin? Will it not rather increase his damnation?
3. Is not a drunkard of any other church, just as good as a drunkard of the church of _England_? Yea, is not a drunken _Papist_ as much in the favour of God, as a drunken _Protestant_?
4. Is not a cursing, swearing _Turk_, (if there be such an one to be found) full as acceptable to God, as a cursing, swearing _Christian_?
Nay, 5. If there be any advantage, does it not lie on the side of the former? Is he not the less inexcusable of the two? As sinning against less light?