Instance in the Scripture that men upon such pleas have separated yet causelesse separation is a sin opposite to the Vnion commanded and I think Schism and Vnion are opposite If the Doctor then will give me a poor Countrey-Minister leave I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schism I see it is a sin and offen-five to Christ 1 Cor. 12.25 Now what is opposite to this what is the affirmative precept Vnion of the members amongst themselves This is the thing often commanded the thing Christs heart seemed to be fixed upon John 17. when he was leaving the world and that such Union as thereby the world may know whose disciples we are as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schism may be thus defined Schism defined Schism is the solution of that Unity which Christ our Head requireth in his Visible Body I am not in this place critical about the words Vnion or Vnity the Reader hath my meaning I think the Dr. will not oppose this for I find him enquiring exactly into the Vnion of the Invisible and Visible Church c. For the Invisible Church of Christ there can be no Schism saith the Doctor hence I put it not in It must be in his visible body there I take in the Catholick Church which I look on as most properly his Body-visible and also particular Churches I take this definition to be reciprocal I do not call to mind any schismatical Act but it will comprehend it whether it be Schism in a Church or from a Church in the Catholick or particular Churches and yet my ground is Scriptural also though I go not to a particular instance 1. Hence then let us see whether causelesse separation from a Church be not properly Schism Let us see what unity the Lord required of this Church was it onely that inward love and forbearance which the Doctor mentions which by their divisions the Apostle saw they had broken Did he not also require that they should as with reverence towards him so with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their Head in all his holy worship and ordiuances Sacraments c. The Doctors definition saith as much Numerical Ordinances c. If then Cephas and his company had causelesly made the division and upon this separate from the rest and not joyn with them in the Supper wherein they shew themselves to be One bread Chap. 10.17 and other Ordinances dinances did they not manifestly shew a breach of that unity which the Lord required must I not say Cephas you and your company are highly guilty of Schism let the Reader judge Thus then stands the argument If causelesse separation from a Church be a solution of that unity God requireth in his body then causelesse separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear 2. In case these who made the Division in Corinth had separated from the other members the Doctor grants it had been a greater sin Rev. p. 68. Since then we must not call it Schism let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that sin let him set down the opposite affirmative precept and see if Union will not be found in it I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men or such as appeared so dared ever to make a causelesse separation from a Church To say it is Apostacie no stay I will suppose those members who thus divide to be persons sound in the main points of faith in their conversation visibly godly such as maintain the Ordinances of God amongst themselves the very case of divers of ours but corprution and errour in this point hath divided Cephas and his company now here is no Apostasie And though it be a Church guilty of Schism and so far a schismatical Church yet a true Church Hence I said a causelesse separation c may be Schism i. e. supposing they hold to what before I mentioned else it fell from the faith c. it had been Apostacy and not properly Schism unless you will say both Hence If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture nor can rationally be referred to any other head then Schism then causeless separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The consequence is clear because it partakes of the nature of no sin as of Schism provided those who separate be such as before I mentioned 3. Since the Doctor makes this instance the only seat of the doctrine of Schism and tieth us up so streightly to it I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schism in any Church but onely in such Churches as do exactly answer this instance hence Schism must be only in such Churches where there are diversity of Officers extraordinary gifts differences about meats c. thus I hope most Churches are uncapable of Schism and that sin will hardly be found in our days It may be he will say by consequence it will follow where there are causeless differences where the form of the sin is found there is the sin of Schism though Churches do not answer Corinth But what the Doctor saith that the Scripture doth not call causeless separation from a Church Schism So I can say this Scripture instance calls that only Schism where some were for Cephas others for Apollos c. But further let us enquire into the form of the sin where it is In the division amongst the members to the disturbance of the order in the worship of God c. I wish the Doctor had told us how that order was disturbed some things he doth mention but whether all the disorder in the worship of God be recorded I know not and that which is recorded admits of some questions to be resolved before we can clearly understand it As for the disturbance of the order I suppose he doth not make that the form of the sin of Schism nor part of it I look on it rather as a consequent of the Schism therefore not the form neither do I look on Order and Schism properly as contrary where Vnum uni tantum opponitur they do not cominus inter se pugnare per proximas formas Nor am I certain that there was ever Schism where yet some disorder have been found I cannot tell that there was Schism amongst the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. but some disorder there was in the exercise of their gifts as it should seem by the last Verse the Apostle calls for order Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved I take to be the form of Schism this is it by which Schism is id quod est If then the Doctor will allow that Schism may be in Churches by consequence though the causes be not such as were in Corinth northe
Divines doe unanimously acknowledge upon that 1 Cor. 10.17 Fractio panis est unitatis dilectionis Symbolum saith Pareus Much might be here spoken I know there are other wayes by which Christians manifest their love and so did Heathens in such manner as now is scarcely found amongst Christians but for the manifestation of their love to each other as such a body there is no way that I know of nor no ordinance in which they do so declare it as in this ordinance wherein they though many are one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular Church primarily but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them and so are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body That the Sacraments come to be administred in several particular societies I gave the reason before seeming rather to be accidental to the Catholick Church by reason of the numerosity of its members That body which the bread signifies in the Supper is but one body and the members of the Catholick body make but one bread Jesus Christ with his body make one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 The Sacraments doe shew our union with our Head Christ primarily and the union of the members amongst themselves I know a person who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles distant this wrong caused a division between this person and the other upon which this person durst not venture to the Supper but kept off till reconciliation was made knowing what the Supper did call for then came to me and joyned in the ordinance I knew not the reason of this person 's holding off so long before If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church what needed the conscience of this person to have been troubled since the other person had no relation to our Church This was one bred up in the Episcopal way but it were well if others made so much conscience as this person did in this respect 4. Hence then that Church which shall deny to the members of other Churches qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be and walking orderly in their particular Churches occasionally desiring communion with the Church fellowship with them in the Sacraments because they are not of their judgments as to Congregational Classical or Episcopal principles and will hold fellowship onely with those who are of their principles I charge that Church with Schism in respect of the Catholick Church by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Christ requires in his Church Object But we may love them and shew our love in other wayes though we doe not this way Answ So doe the Heathen shew love to Heathen and so doe we to Heathen though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance but that Symbol of your loue to him or them as Christians as members of such a body having union with your Head and union with you also who are of the same body making up one Christ 1 Cor. 12. you deny And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be visible members of Christ being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Christ according to their light in their particular Churches yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head nor to be parts of the Catholick Body neither the members refused nor consequently the Churches to which they belong being of the same judgment So that while you talk of Love I say as the Apostle Shew me thy faith by thy works so shew me your Ecclesiastical love by Church-fellowship To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully Haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda c. Thus I conceive Congregational Classical or Episcopal Churches may be guilty of Schism and cause Schism in the Catholick-Church-Visible As for that Doctrine That an Officer of a particular Church must administer an Ordinance to none but his own members This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of and I suppose will not be defended To this I add Suppose there be divers members of several particular Churches who are very zealous for Prophesying and they must have their liberty to prophesie whether they have abilities or not the Churches conceive that the gift of Prophesying being extraordinary is ceased therefore will allow no such liberty These are so set for their Prophesying that they make Divisions in the Churches and at last separate from them all and make up one Church by themselves they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members they have all the ordinances and officers of Christ among them whence I cannot deny but here is a Church but yet they refuse communion with all other Churches in the world unless of their opinion neither give nor take though desired and there are no other Churches in the world of their opinion or practice Now this Church I cannot charge with Apostasie from the Head but with separation from the Catholick Church and so is guilty of Schism If it be said this Church is a part of the Catholick Church how then separate from it It 's true else it were not Schism but Apostasie but as it separates from all other Churches causelesly in that sense I speak Hitherto of the Doctors Definition As for his Design to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schism though we suppose Schism to be a causelesse separation from a Church I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary and that partly because of the honour which I bear to many of these brethren partly because I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches I cannot be of Mr. Ca. mind if by the title of his book as I find it quoted by the Doctor for I never saw Mr. Cawdrey Independencie is great Schism he means that congregational principles will necessarily conclude a man a Schismatick Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth such a necessity of Schism will not be forced but whether all in England can quit themselves I doubt it What some may think of me who find me in Mr. Edwards gang amongst the Independents and now read this I know not Possibly they wil say either Mr. Edwards wrote what was false or that I am changed from my principles as some have said but I assure the Reader I am not gone back nor advanced one step in these controversies from what I ever manifested in those times when those letters were sent to Mr. Edwards I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written but to come to the point presently In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly say the holy Ghost hath commanded a
constitutiur Thus some are Pastors some ruling Elders some are Deacons they are in such an Order in the Church when they are Ordained This hath been the judgement and accordingly the practice of the Church for many hundred years till yesterday Ordination was made but an Adjunct of a Ministers call popular election being made the essential cause and to day Ordination is thrown out no wonder for Adjunctum potest abesse c. This cloathing of God's things with our Logical notions though I know Logick is a general Art and by them to raise one thing above another one must be cried up the other slighted when both have the same Divine stamp upon them I utterly mislike and think it too much boldness Hath the Scripture made such comparison between these as between Ceremonial and Moral worship We blame the Socinians because they adhere not to Divine Testimony but will try all things at the bar of their reason and so approve or disapprove and are they blameless who when they have Divine Testimony and reason also for two things yet they will call this but an Adjunct when as that Adjunct hath more and clearer Scriptures for to prove it and the other an essential cause which hath fewer Scriptures and those not so clear to speak for it and so neglect the Adjunct what are these notions to our practise to which God's Adjuncts if you call them so are essential A few words then for Ordination my chief aim being at Imposition of hands in Ordination and so I will make the more haste over this Q. Whether gifts and popular election be sufficient to constitute a Minister without Ordination Where first by a Minister I understand not one who exerciseth for the trial of his gifts before he be ordained for if Timothy must commit the things c. to faithful men 2 Tim. 2.2 1 Tim. 5.22 and such as are able to teach others If he must lay hands on no man suddenly then good proof must be had of mens lives Chrysost in loc and so of their abilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by a Minister I understand one who doth Officially and Authoritatively Preach administer Sacraments govern the Church ordain others though the latter seems to be a begging of the question 2. Neither is the question what may be done in a case extraordinary when Ordination cannot be had this our Divines have spoken to sufficiently Loc. com p. 748. Synop. pur Theol. Dis 42. S. 39 43 44. I could quote divers but I will mention only Peter Martyr who shall speak for all the rest Quando adhuc extructa non est ecclesia homines Christianae religionis ignari sunt quicunque ibi fortè fortunâ fuerint qui Christum probe norint illum tenentur annunciare neque ordinatio est expectanda ubi haberi non potest quod est intelligendum si omnino ei desit copia Ordinantium nam si aliquos possit accedere qui se usitato more ordinent Manus imponendo non debet Ordinationem negligere Then adds a little after Quae a Deo fiunt extra ordinem admirari debemus non semper imitari But this is none of our case These things being premissed I undertake the Negative 1. Gifts are not sufficient A person gifted is the material cause of a Minister the formal as yet is wanting Heb. 5. It was said of old No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God But if he be gifted he may take it may he not No the Text allows it not I let the Socinians alone to those who have answered them I only add it was the office not the honour that did look to Christ Our happiness lies in this that he is our High Priest performs that office in our behalf not in the honour that attends the office at least not primarily Christ hath his call Isa 42.6 Paul hath his call Rom. 1.1 A Minister must be able to say he was called to the office Sur. ch dis p. 3. p. 9. p. 2. p. 42 45. Reverend Hooker calls it an Anabaptistical Frensy to meddle with the Acts of a Church Officer without a call and in another place he saith All such Acts are void and of none effect though men have gifts I know Ames is much against the the common Interpretation of that text Rom. 10.15 upon which I perceive generally our Divines have grounded that Missio potestativa which they make the substance essence and formal act of Ordination But Ames saith Bell. ener To. 2. p. 82. Missio nusquam in Scriptura significat vocationem ordinariam qua per homines in aliquem derivatur neque sua significatione notat actum aliquem hominum vocantium hominem ordinaria ratione vocandum Supple a Deo saith Cajetan I intend not to meddle with what the Doctor hath said though to me the Apostle plainly intimates there can be no preaching without sending but then I would ask How shall I know whether my self or another be sent of God but I will rather examine what the Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. who makes Ordination not essential to the call of a Minister hath commented upon it The sending which the Apostle means is not a Ministerial or Ecclesiastical sending but a providential sending by giving men gifts and working with them in their use and exercise He gives reasons of which afterwards 1. Then it seems Ecclesiastical sending is not providential sending Hath God no act of providence in the sending of a Minister when he is sent by Ministers I thought providential sending as the more general had comprehended under it Ministerial sending but this Author opposeth them not this but that 2. I thought God's presence working with men in the exercise of their gifts let them be sent providentially or ecclesiastially had been a distinct thing from his sending them that to send is one thing and to work with a person sent is another So to give gifts is one thing but to send a gifted man another if not but gifting be sending then Election is as needless as Ordination for why I am sent providentially because I am gifted but that Author is stiff for popular Election 3. But what if God doth not please to work in the exercise of gifts to breed faith are not therefore such persons sent it must not be so by this Interpretation The Prophets of God did little or no good that we read of yet 2 Chron. 36.15 God saith he sent them till they found the Lord working they were not fent It 's possible they might preach half a year or more before they did convert one it seems all that time they were not sent because God did not work with their gifts Isa 6. the Prophet had a commission not to breed faith yet sent this will trouble some good Ministers Some mens gifts lie more in building up then in bringing home are they not therefore sent 4.
Ministers who know them besides being illiterate and persons who neither are ordained nor will be ordained nor I think would sober Ministers ever ordain them These things are not secret but more publikely spoken off then my Book can publish whence their friends are grieved their enemies rejoyce having cause they think to open their mouths against them and to vilifie Reformation besides the hinderance of union in the Churches CHAP. II. Concerning Imposition of hands in Ordination ALthough our Divines have all I think unless a few risen up in our days agreed in the necessity of Ordination to a Minister yet they have not all had the same thoughts about Imposition of hands as if it were necessary to Ordination Most have agreed in this that though they look on it as a Ceremony an Adjunct yet it ought to be practised because of the Apostolical examples Our Congregational Brethen in Essex cast it away and some cause I have to stand upon it because I therefore refused Ordination by them because they would not Impose hands and so it was the longer before I could be Ordained If I did refuse upon insufficient grounds I am sure the grounds which were given to me for the contrary were very insufficient I lost the papers but met with another manner of Antagonist shortly after Mr. Noyes a reverend Divine and my dear friend of N. England who hath said more against it then I have as yet heard from these what any body else have said against it in writing I know not unless the Author of the Diatribe c. whom that worthy Divine Doctor Seaman hath answered I cast my eye upon it long since but do not now remember any thing Pro or Con what there is said or in any other man What then I can gather from Scripture and Reason I shall humbly offer to the Reader and to Mr. Noyes in answer to what he hath said against it Not many years since Humane Ceremonies added to the worship of God how much trouble and misery they added to the Church we have not yet forgot Men wrote and spake so far as they dared and suffered by reason of them Mens wits are now busied as much in throwing out of God's worship as theirs were in adding why then we may not now stand up in desence of God's Ceremonies if this be but a Ceremony as they opposed Mens Ceremonies I know not Come then to Imposition c. Let us hear a little what other men have said about it And first for great Calvin whom I hear alledged against Imposition which I a little wondered at knowing Calvin had spoken sufficiently for it 1. Instit l. 4. c. 3. s 16. Licet nullum extet certum praeceptum de manuum Impositione quia tamen fuisse in perpetuo usu Apostolis videmus illa tam accurata eorum observatio prae cepti vice nobis esse debet 2. Again Impositionem manuum L. 4. c. 14. s 20. qua Ecclesia Ministri in suum munus initiarentur non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum 3. Again L. 4. c. 2. s 16. Et certè utile est ejusmodi symbolo Ministerii dignitatem populo commendari c. praeterea non erit inane signum si in germanam suam originem restitutum fuerit nam si nihil frustra spiritus Dei in Ecclesia Dei instituit hanc ceremoniam cum ab eo profecta sit sentiemus non esse inutilem modo in superstitiosum usum nou vertatur See him again l. 4. c. 19. s 31. Calvins judgment is clear with his Reasons for it Chemnitius giving us the judgment of the Lutheran Churches saith Exam. Concil Trid. p. 221. Nec manuum Impositionem vocare Sacramentum gravabimur I omit Austin who called it so long before they were born in a large sense not the Popish sense Nos uno verbo dicimus si per Sacramentum jusjurandum Loc. Com. p. 321. religiosam obstrictionem intelligunt sit Ordo ipsorum per me licet Sacramentum quale veteribus erat Sacramentum militare saith Musculus Walaeus saith Loc. Com. l. 1. p. 473. In all the Confessions of their Churches except one or two it was required and because the Apostles alwayes used it and the Apostle gives that precept to Tim. 5.22 Not to lay on hands suddenly we ought not to omit it because in that negative an affirmative is contained that he should Impose on worthy persons where since by a Synecdoche it is taken for the election of a Pastor certè pro ritu vel parte essentiali habenda est Thus he From the same charge to Timothy Sur. ch Dis p. 2. p. 74. Mr. Hooker saith he is willing to follow the rode when he hath no constraining reason to goe aside It seems this Reverend man knew no cause why Imposition should be laid aside The Synod of New England say Platf ch Dis c. 9. Church-Officers ought to be Ordained with Imposition of hands Here then we have the Fathers Papists Lutherans Calvinists Episcopal Classical Congregational men the Churches generally since the Apostles dayes Imposing hands in Ordination We must have strong reasons as Mr. Hooker saith to lead us afide from these Churches Custome of the Churches Paul uses to make something of 1 Cor. 11. I think so should we having especially such Scripture-precedents going before them I look upon their practice as very weighty But I come to argument laying down first my Position Imposition of hands ought to be used in Ordination Arg. 1. That form of Ordination which cometh neerest to the Gospel-pattern ought to be used But Imposition of hands in Ordination is that form which cometh neerest to the Gospel-pattern ergo Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used The major I suppose cannot well be denied especially by those who in the Bishops days use to cry out so much All things must be made according to the pattern in the Mount and why now I pray must not things be done according to the pattern of the Gospel what do you make of it that which you may follow or let alone as you please what is said against this I shall meet with anon For the minors bring us forth those rules or examples which shew that men may be ordained or were ordained without Imposition of hands that Church-Officers were ordained with Imposition the Texts are known as before mentioned Arg. 2. If the Gospel expresseth the whole Ordinance of Ordination by Imposition of hands then Imposition of hands in Ordination ought to be used But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for why should the Apostle mention that which is but needless or at least but indifferent to set out an ordinance by Obj. But it is said Obj. This was no more then what Paul saith at another time for this cause I bow my knee c. meaning prayer A. 1. Be it so yet this hinders not Sol. for
Churches parallel to Corinth in all things because there is the form of that sin which was in Corinth called Schism then if canseless separation from a Church be Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved there must needs by consequence be Schism also for posita forma ponitur formatum 4. The Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used in the Scripture for secession or separation into parties Division it doth signifie but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to signifie Division into parties in an Ecclesiastical sense it is used only in this particular example he saith therefore it can signifie no other I suppose the Syriack Translator was not of the Doctor 's mind for he useth that word in the 11. ch 18. 12. ch 25. which comes from the same root with Peleg Gen. 10.25 Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us and I think there was division into many parties the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive signification will carry a division into parts Matth. 27.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant the Septuagint * Other Greek Versions I have not to see do not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11 31. yet why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not be translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth I know not I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but comprehends what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth This appears 1. By the Learned who as they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by findo scindo so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 findere scindere qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi continuum dirumpit c. Buxt Schind Pagn Merc. hence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered scissura so the 70. in v. 30 31 render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scissurae So the vulgar render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 31. Nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifie the rending of a thing into parts in opposition to the Doctor 's notion more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For among the Physitians a rupture in a membrane the rending of a Muscle they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the part be not separated from the body so Gorraeus 2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament as to the rending of cloaths here and in divers other Texts So is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 19.24 Matth. 27.51 Luke 5.36 John 21.11 so that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render scindere findere yet none I conceive answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this doth There may be something in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. use that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Noune in 1 Cor. 12.25 comes Whence I think we may properly say there was a great Schism in the Church and Commonwealth of Israel and here was separation with a witness To search over other Divines to see what they had said about Schism I thought it in vain because the Doctor had laid a bar against them all they are all mistaken and so their authority is worth nothing but when I had done two men came into my mind who were neer to the Doctor 's principles being Congregational men and therefore had need to look to themselves in their definition of Schism men of great renown for learning and piety Dr. Ames and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in answer to the Q. Quid est schisma I find Ames thus answers Schisma dicitur a scindendo est scissio separatio disjunctio aut dissolutio Vnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari I was neerer to the Doctor 's definition then I was aware of but then he adds Quia autem haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita Communione Ecclesiastica recusanda idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recte vocatur Schisma thus he Mr. Norton thus Schisma est illicita separatio a Communione Ecclesiae semper grande malum I will look no further these are sufficient Now for the Catholick-Church I am to prove there may be Schism in it For my ground-work I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible then Schism may be in the Catholick-Church visible But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequence cannot be denied The Antecedent is to be proved That by the body is meant the Church the Doctor yields Schis p. 147. but what Church he speaks of is not evident the difference he speaks of in the individual persons of the Church is not in respect of office power and Authority but gifts and graces and usefulness on that account thus he But I had thought that by Apostles Prophets Teachers Helps Governments v. 28. he had properly spoken of office power and authority are gifts and graces meant by these words very strange But to come to our Text. If the Church be here meant then it is either the Church invisible or visible But not the invisible that the Chapter clears and the Doctor saith It 's impossible Schism should be in the invisible Church If visible then either the Catholick or a particular Church but not a particular Ergo This I grant that by body in one Text v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned because the Apostle applies what he had been speaking of before to this particular Church being a similar part of the Church-Catholick as our Mr. Norton and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church though some Physitians make different definitions as we respect the matter or form of a similar part yet I content my self with that definition which is commonly given What duties are enjoyned the Catholick-Church or what sins are forbidden these concern every particular Church for Christ giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily no particular Church hath a special law given to it as such whence well may the Apostle apply his speech to this particular Church but that the Apostle was not discoursing of a particular Church in viewing over the Chapter these arguments perswade me 1. It is such a body into which we are all baptized v. 13. but are we baptized into a particular Church is that the one body the Apostle means Let the Doctor speak Rev. p. 134. I am so far from confining Baptism subjectively to a particular Congregation that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized As much he seems to intimate Schis p. 133. in his answer to this question wherein consists the unity of the Catholick-Church A. It is summoned up in Eph. 4.5 one Lord one Faith one Baptism It is the unity of the doctrine of faith