RELIGION being the chief band of human society, it is a happy thing, when itself is well contained within the true band of unity. The quarrels, and divisions about religion, were evils unknown to the heathen. The reason was, because the religion of the heathen, consisted rather in rites and ceremonies, than in any constant belief. For you may imagine, what kind of faith theirs was, when the chief doctors, and fathers of their church, were the poets. But the true God hath this attribute, that he is a jealous God; and therefore, his worship and religion, will endure no mixture, nor partner. We shall therefore speak a few words, concerning the unity of the church; what are the fruits thereof; what the bounds; and what the means.
Religion is the chief bond of human society. It is therefore a blessing when religion itself is held together by true unity. Religious quarrels and divisions were evils unknown to the pagans. Their religion rested more on rites and ceremonies than on any settled belief. You can imagine what kind of faith they had, since their leading religious teachers and church fathers were poets. But the true God is a jealous God. His worship and religion therefore allow no mixture with other faiths and no rival. We will therefore say a few words about the unity of the church, its benefits, its limits, and how to achieve it.
The fruits of unity (next unto the well pleasing of God, which is all in all) are two: the one, towards those that are without the church, the other, towards those that are within. For the former; it is certain, that heresies, and schisms, are of all others the greatest scandals; yea, more than corruption of manners. For as in the natural body, a wound, or solution of continuity, is worse than a corrupt humor; so in the spiritual. So that nothing, doth so much keep men out of the church, and drive men out of the church, as breach of unity. And therefore, whensoever it cometh to that pass, that one saith, Ecce in deserto, another saith, Ecce in penetralibus; that is, when some men seek Christ, in the conventicles of heretics, and others, in an outward face of a church, that voice had need continually to sound in men's ears, Nolite exire,—Go not out. The doctor of the Gentiles (the propriety of whose vocation, drew him to have a special care of those without) saith, if an heathen come in, and hear you speak with several tongues, will he not say that you are mad? And certainly it is little better, when atheists, and profane persons, do hear of so many discordant, and contrary opinions in religion; it doth avert them from the church, and maketh them, to sit down in the chair of the scorners. It is but a light thing, to be vouched in so serious a matter, but yet it expresseth well the deformity. There is a master of scoffing, that in his catalogue of books of a feigned library, sets down this title of a book, The Morris-Dance of Heretics. For indeed, every sect of them, hath a diverse posture, or cringe by themselves, which cannot but move derision in worldlings, and depraved politics, who are apt to contemn holy things.
Unity has two benefits, besides pleasing God, which matters above all else. One concerns those outside the church, the other those within it. As for the first, heresies and divisions are certainly the greatest stumbling blocks, even greater than moral corruption. In the physical body, a wound or break in its wholeness is worse than an unhealthy bodily fluid. So it is in the spiritual body. Nothing does more to keep people outside the church, or drive them out, than broken unity. Some say, “Look, he is in the desert,” while others say, “Look, he is in the inner rooms.” Some seek Christ in secret gatherings of heretics, others in the outward appearance of a church. Whenever this happens, that warning must sound continually in people’s ears, “Do not go out.” Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles, had a special concern for outsiders because of his particular calling. He asks, “If an unbeliever comes in and hears you speaking in different tongues, will he not say you are mad?” Certainly, it is little better when atheists and irreligious people hear so many conflicting and contradictory religious opinions. This turns them away from the church and leads them to take their place among the scornful. The following is a trivial example to cite in so serious a matter, yet it shows the ugliness well. A master of mockery includes a book called The Morris Dance of Heretics in his catalogue of an imaginary library. Indeed, each sect has its own distinct pose or bow. This cannot fail to provoke ridicule among worldly people and corrupt political schemers, who readily despise holy things.
As for the fruit towards those that are within; it is peace; which containeth infinite blessings. It establisheth faith; it kindleth charity; the outward peace of the church, distilleth into peace of conscience; and it turneth the labors of writing, and reading of controversies, into treaties of mortification and devotion.
For those within the church, the benefit is peace, which brings infinite blessings. It strengthens faith and kindles love. Peace within the church brings peace of conscience. It redirects the work of writing and reading about religious disputes toward writings on self-denial and devotion.
Concerning the bounds of unity; the true placing of them, importeth exceedingly. There appear to be two extremes. For to certain zealants, all speech of pacification is odious. Is it peace, Jehu,? What hast thou to do with peace? turn thee behind me. Peace is not the matter, but following, and party. Contrariwise, certain Laodiceans, and lukewarm persons, think they may accommodate points of religion, by middle way, and taking part of both, and witty reconcilements; as if they would make an arbitrament between God and man. Both these extremes are to be avoided; which will be done, if the league of Christians, penned by our Savior himself, were in two cross clauses thereof, soundly and plainly expounded: He that is not with us, is against us; and again, He that is not against us, is with us; that is, if the points fundamental and of substance in religion, were truly discerned and distinguished, from points not merely of faith, but of opinion, order, or good intention. This is a thing may seem to many a matter trivial, and done already. But if it were done less partially, it would be embraced more generally.
Setting the right limits on religious unity matters greatly. There seem to be two extremes. Some zealots hate all talk of making peace. “Is it peace, Jehu?” “What have you to do with peace? Fall in behind me.” Their concern is not peace, but followers and factions. By contrast, some lukewarm believers, like the Laodiceans, think religious differences can be settled through compromise. They take something from each side and devise clever reconciliations, as though they could arbitrate between God and humanity. Both extremes must be avoided. This can be done by clearly and soundly explaining two apparently conflicting statements in the Christian covenant established by our Savior himself. “Whoever is not with us is against us.” And again, “Whoever is not against us is with us.” This means properly distinguishing the fundamental, essential points of religion from matters of opinion, religious practice, or good intentions. These latter matters are not strictly questions of faith. Many may think this a trivial task, already completed. But if it were done with less bias, it would be accepted more widely.
Of this I may give only this advice, according to my small model. Men ought to take heed, of rending God's church, by two kinds of controversies. The one is, when the matter of the point controverted, is too small and light, not worth the heat and strife about it, kindled only by contradiction. For, as it is noted, by one of the fathers, Christ's coat indeed had no seam, but the church's vesture was of divers colors; whereupon he saith, In veste varietas sit, scissura non sit; they be two things, unity and uniformity. The other is, when the matter of the point controverted, is great, but it is driven to an over-great subtilty, and obscurity; so that it becometh a thing rather ingenious, than substantial. A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree. And if it come so to pass, in that distance of judgment, which is between man and man, shall we not think that God above, that knows the heart, doth not discern that frail men, in some of their contradictions, intend the same thing; and accepteth of both? The nature of such controversies is excellently expressed, by St. Paul, in the warning and precept, that he giveth concerning the same, Devita profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Men create oppositions, which are not; and put them into new terms, so fixed, as whereas the meaning ought to govern the term, the term in effect governeth the meaning. There be also two false peaces, or unities: the one, when the peace is grounded, but upon an implicit ignorance; for all colors will agree in the dark: the other, when it is pieced up, upon a direct admission of contraries, in fundamental points. For truth and falsehood, in such things, are like the iron and clay, in the toes of Nebuchadnezzar's image; they may cleave, but they will not incorporate.
On this subject, I can offer only this advice, within the limits of my understanding. People should beware of tearing God's church apart through two kinds of controversy. The first concerns matters too small and trivial to deserve such heated conflict, stirred up only by opposition. As one of the Church Fathers noted, Christ's coat had no seam, but the church's clothing had many colors. He therefore says, "Let there be variety in the clothing, but no tearing." Unity and uniformity are two different things. The second concerns important matters pursued with excessive subtlety and obscurity. The dispute then becomes more a display of cleverness than a matter of substance. A person with sound judgment and understanding will sometimes hear ignorant people disagree. Yet he knows that they mean the same thing, though they themselves would never agree. If this happens even across the gap in understanding between one person and another, should we not think that God above, who knows the heart, sees this too? Does he not recognize that frail people sometimes mean the same thing despite their disagreements, and accept both? St. Paul expresses the nature of such controversies excellently in his warning and instruction about them. "Avoid irreverent new expressions and the opposing claims of what is falsely called knowledge." People invent disagreements where none exist. They express them in new terms and give those terms rigid meanings. Meaning should govern the words, but instead the words govern the meaning. There are also two kinds of false peace or unity. The first rests only on an ignorance that goes unrecognized, for all colors look alike in the dark. The second is patched together by openly accepting contradictory beliefs on fundamental matters. In such matters, truth and falsehood resemble the iron and clay in the toes of Nebuchadnezzar's statue. They may stick together, but they will not become one substance.
Concerning the means of procuring unity; men must beware, that in the procuring, or reuniting, of religious unity, they do not dissolve and deface the laws of charity, and of human society. There be two swords amongst Christians, the spiritual and temporal; and both have their due office and place, in the maintenance of religion. But we may not take up the third sword, which is Mahomet's sword, or like unto it; that is, to propagate religion by wars, or by sanguinary persecutions to force consciences; except it be in cases of overt scandal, blasphemy, or intermixture of practice against the state; much less to nourish seditions; to authorize conspiracies and rebellions; to put the sword into the people's hands; and the like; tending to the subversion of all government, which is the ordinance of God. For this is but to dash the first table against the second; and so to consider men as Christians, as we forget that they are men. Lucretius the poet, when he beheld the act of Agamemnon, that could endure the sacrificing of his own daughter, exclaimed: Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum.
When seeking religious unity, or restoring it, people must take care not to destroy the principles of charity and human society. Christians have two swords, spiritual and worldly authority. Both have their proper role and place in maintaining religion. But we must not take up a third sword, Muhammad's sword, or anything like it. This means spreading religion through war or forcing people's consciences through bloody persecution. Exceptions are cases of public scandal, blasphemy, or religious activity mixed with plots against the state. Still less should we encourage uprisings, approve conspiracies and rebellions, put swords into people's hands, or do similar things. These actions tend to overthrow all government, which God has ordained. This amounts to setting the commandments about duties to God against those about duties to other people. It means treating people as Christians while forgetting that they are human beings. The poet Lucretius considered how Agamemnon could bear to sacrifice his own daughter, and exclaimed: Religion could persuade people to commit such great evils.
What would he have said, if he had known of the massacre in France, or the powder treason of England? He would have been seven times more Epicure, and atheist, than he was. For as the temporal sword is to be drawn with great circumspection in cases of religion; so it is a thing monstrous to put it into the hands of the common people. Let that be left unto the Anabaptists, and other furies. It was great blasphemy, when the devil said, I will ascend, and be like the highest; but it is greater blasphemy, to personate God, and bring him in saying, I will descend, and be like the prince of darkness; and what is it better, to make the cause of religion to descend, to the cruel and execrable actions of murthering princes, butchery of people, and subversion of states and governments? Surely this is to bring down the Holy Ghost, instead of the likeness of a dove, in the shape of a vulture or raven; and set, out of the bark of a Christian church, a flag of a bark of pirates, and assassins. Therefore it is most necessary, that the church, by doctrine and decree, princes by their sword, and all learnings, both Christian and moral, as by their Mercury rod, do damn and send to hell for ever, those facts and opinions tending to the support of the same; as hath been already in good part done. Surely in counsels concerning religion, that counsel of the apostle would be prefixed, Ira hominis non implet justitiam Dei. And it was a notable observation of a wise father, and no less ingenuously confessed; that those which held and persuaded pressure of consciences, were commonly interested therein, themselves, for their own ends.
What would he have said if he had known about the massacre in France or England’s Gunpowder Plot? He would have been seven times more of an Epicurean and an atheist than he was. Secular rulers must use force with great caution in religious matters. To put that power into the hands of ordinary people is monstrous. Leave that to the Anabaptists and other fanatics. It was great blasphemy when the devil said, “I will ascend and be like the Most High.” But it is greater blasphemy to impersonate God and make him say, “I will descend and be like the prince of darkness.” Is it any better to drag religion down into cruel and detestable acts? These include murdering princes, slaughtering people, and overthrowing states and governments. Surely this makes the Holy Spirit descend as a vulture or raven instead of a dove. It flies the flag of pirates and assassins from the ship of the Christian church. It is therefore absolutely necessary to condemn forever to hell these acts and the opinions that support them. The church must do this through its teachings and decrees, and princes through their swords. All Christian and moral learning must do the same, wielding, as it were, Mercury’s rod. Much of this has already been done. Surely all deliberations about religion should begin with the apostle’s advice: “Human anger does not fulfill God’s righteousness.” A wise Church Father made a striking observation, which he acknowledged with equal frankness. Those who advocated and urged coercion of conscience usually had a personal interest in it, serving their own ends.