two holy good men first fell into a paroxysm of contention and presently separated and parted asunder 2. Basil's definition is almost the same who makes schism to be a division arising from some Church controversies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the unlawful Conventicles the ordinary consequents of such division First they raise divisions that 's the first degree of Schism from Schism they fall into Heresie the second degree and then separate into new conventions pag. 46. which is the highest Schism Nor because of later years honest and pious meetings for Religion were called Conventicles and Schism therefore may men conclude that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church when it shall be determined so to be 3. The Common definition given That Schism is a causelesse separation from the communion and worship of any true Church c. presupposes a Division in that Church which occasions that separation one party not being satisfied by the other The Crime of which separation must be taken and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof which cannot be in a true Church but in those that separate from it For if a Church be either no true Church or so extreamly corrupted that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin such a separatâ—on is no Schism but they are the Schâ—smaticks who give the cause of that separation But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation pag. 46. for he saies Certain he is that a separation from some Churches true or pretended so to be is commanded in the Scripture so that the withdrawing from any Church or society whatever upon the plea of its corruption be it true or false with a mind resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church institutions according to that light which we have received is no where called Schism nor condemned as a thing of that nature c. If this be true there will be found but litle or no Schism in any Church or in the World If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church as well as from a false and that upon a false plea of its corruption as well as true only with a good mind to serve God in Church institutions true or conceited by his own light all the Sectaries Separatists Donatists Brownists in the world may be justified But this will come again below thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it § 12 Now lest by the former indulgence any should surmise p. 47. that he complyes with them that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches as we are able to prove them he will at present heighten the heinousnesse of Schism when he hath first considered what aggravations others have put upon it § 13 1. Some say it is a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ pag. 48. but saies he they seem to have mistaken their aim and instead of aggravating extenuated it a rent of the body is not hightned in its being called the renting of a seamless coat But this is but a nicity I suppose they us'd it only by way of allusion à minore ad majus The Souldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat whereby it would be rendered uselesse to all how much more heinous was it to rent his Body The Church is called Christs mystical Body Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Souldiers to divide his seamless coat and much more to divide by piercing his natural body so it is more hainous to rent his body mystical which must needs reach to him the Head This is the Apostles way of arguing 1 Cor. 1.13 Is Christ divided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into parts q. d. Do you not by these divisions divide and rent the Body of Christ and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions But enough of that § 14 2. It is usually said to be a sin against Charity pag. 49. as Heresie is against Faith but is Schism so a sin against Charity doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart He means so as Heresie does the Faith But that 's not the question but whether Schism be not a sinne against Charity as well though not as much as Heresie is a sin against Faith And suppose it do not root out Charity may it not supplant or at least suppress weaken it may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love as he said above p. 27. their Church order as to Love Peace Union were wofully disturbed with divisions c. And if Schism be persisted in it may in the end root out Charity and be inconsistent with it as well as Heresie doth the Faith Nor does every Heresie root out all Faith a man may be an Heretick in one Article and Orthodox in the Faith in others Yea pag. 49. himself here confesses men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices and duties of love which are useful or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection and then is it or may in some sense be said to be a sin against Love When the Apostle saies that Love is the bond of perfection because it preserves that perfect and beautifull order amongst the Saints notwithstandâ—ng all hinderances and oppositions made by Schism He tells us rather what true love is in it self and ought to be in us than what it is manifested to be in mens corrupt hearts and conâ—ersations Divisions among them breaches of Love so he pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that described it to be open breach of love aimed near at the true nature it which his wary consideration doth not excuse from Schism For suppose it were possibâ—e for a man to be all and do all that those were and did whom the Apostle judges for Schismaticks under the power of some violent temptation and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints to the communion disturbed by him which is very rare Yet that person who ever he be could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity any more than those whom the Apostle calls Schismaticks who no doubt some of them were under some violent temptation It is again confessed It is thus far a breach of love in its own nature in that in such men Love cannot exert it self in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church If this had been said at first this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulnesse of Schism § 15 3. As for those who say it is a rebellion against the Rulers of the Church if they mean it pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies c. let them plead for themselves But if he mean that Schism may be raised against the
of our Divines as we shall shew hereafter our cause being defensible without this Plea But I am farre more unsatisfied that he undertakes the cauâ—e of the Donatists and labours to exempt them from Schism though he allows them guiltie of other Crimes and Miscarriages The grounds of this undertaking I suppose to be 1. His singular notion of Schism limiting it onely to differences in a particular Assembly 2. His jealousie of the charge of Schism to be objected to himselfe and partie if separating from the true Churches of Christ be truely called Schism For the ventilating whereof I suppose we may without flattery or falshood p. 163. grant him his request in respect to our selves not to Rome that is put the whole Protestant Church of God into that condition of Libertie and soundnesse of doctrine which it was in when that uprore was made by the Donatists Certainely most of the Protestant Churches our own among them have as much Libertie are as sound in doctrine and as if not more sincere and incorrupt in worship than those Churches from which the Donatists separated they being not onely troubled with Heresies as we all are but pestered with mulâ—itude of Ceremonies from which wee are freed And now we shall take his thoughts of the Donatists Schism into consideration The objection raised by himselfe is this p. 162. Doth not Austine and the rest of his contemporaries charge the Donatists with Schism because they departed from the Catholicke Church and doth not the charge rise up wâ—th equall efficacie against you as them At least doth it not gâ—ve you the nature of Schism in another sense than is by you granted This objection concernes not us the generality of Protestants who grant that sense of Schism that it is a breach â—f union or a causelesse separation from the true Churches of Christ but it lyes in full force against him and his partie who â—ave broken the union of our Churches and separated themselvs from all the Protestant Churches in the world not of their own constitution and that as no true Churches of Christ for lack as they say of a right constâ—tution We know indeed where and by whom this Cloud is scattered without the least annoyance to the Protestant cause as formerâ—y stated even as himselfe hath stated it and produced the answers of our learned Divines p. 190. § 47. c which he highly approves p. 192. though he rest not in it but rather cleaves to his own way as we shalll see erre long p. 194. That his designe is to vindicate himselfe and his partie as well as the Donatists from charge of Schism is evident by what hâ— sayes I shall cleerly deliver my thoughts concerning the Donatists whâ—ch will be comprehensive also of those other that suffer with them in former and after ages under the same imputation It will therefore be necessary or very expedient to consider how neer their case comes to be parallell with that of the Donatists both for matter and manner of mannaging it and then how he will free them and himselfe from Schism For the first The Donatists having raised causlesse differences in the Church about Cecilianus being ordained by the Traditores which whether it were true or false was no just ground of casting him out of Communion § 17 made that the ground of their separation how ever they took in other things as is usual into their defence afterwards § 16. The principles they first fell upon were those two long since named 1. That they were the onely Church of Christ in a corner of Afrâ—ca 2. That none were truely baptâ—sed or entered members of the Church of Christ but by some of their partie That the Stage is changed from Africa into America is evident but that these were the principles of the Brownists and are now of all Independents for all Sects are Independents I need not exemplifie by drawing up the parallel he that runnes may read it in their books and practice I wonder not that the Doctor hath unchurched Rome for he hath done as much to England and all forraine Protestant Churches and makes none to be members of the Church but such as are by covenant and consent joyned to some of their Congregations § 3 Secondly for the manner of mannagement of their way the parallel runnes but too smooth and even 1. He sayes of the Donatists That upon supposition they had just cause to renounce the Communion of Cecilianus yet they had no ground of separating from the Church of Carthage p. 165. where were many Elders not obnoxious to that charge The parallel comes home to him thus Upon supposition or grant that the Church of England and himselfe had just cause to renounce the Pope and Church of Rome yet had he and his partie no ground to separate from the Church of England where there were many Elders and people not obnoxious to that charge of Apostacie upon the Church of Rome 2. Leaving the instance given to avoid prolixitie I shall onely apply what he sayes of the Donatists Though men of tender consciences might be startled at the Communion with our late Hierarchicall Church yet nothing but the height of pride madnesse and corrupt fleshly interest could make men declare hostilitie against all the Protestant Churches of Christ in the world which was to regulate all the Churches in the world by their own fancie and imagination 3. This line is also parallel Though men of such pride and folly might judge all the residue of Christians to be faultie and guiltie in not separating from our Churches yet to proceed to cast them out from the very name of Church members and so disannull their priviledgts and ordinances they had been partakers of as manifestly some doe by rebaptizing all that enter into their communion and others by denying both Sacraments to some baptism to Children of parents and Lords Supper to parents themselves not in their Church way is such unparallel'd pharisaism and tyrannie as is wholly to be condemned and intolerable 4. Once more and I have done the consequences that befell the Donatist's separation are too much parallel The divisions outrages and enthusiasticall furies in the Levellers and such like and riots in the Ranters and Quakers that have befallen some of them Mr. Baxt. Mr. Firm. Sep. exami Mr. Raie Gem. pleb or they fell into beginning at Independentism were and are in many pious and wisemens judgment tokens of the hand of God against them to wâ—tnesse that their undertaking and enterprize was utterly undue and unlawfull pag. 19. I wish they may patiently consider all this § 4 Thirdly we expected to heare how he would free them and himselfe so neere agreeing with them from the charge of Schism in their separation from the true Churches of Christ Hee cannot but acknowledg them to be faultie many wayes but not guiltie of Schâ—sm If he would acknowledge as much of his own way I should
Church meanes only one particular Church or Congregation So that if a man be not a member of that one Church he can neither be a Schismatick to that Church nor to any other But this I suppose to be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his great mistake and the cause of all his miscarriage hereafter For as there may be a Schism in a Citie-Church of many Congregations which are such by the appointment or allowance of Jesus Christ suppose them all Independent if he please So one that is a member of one of the Congregations of that Church yea that is a member of none of those but of some other may be a Schismatick to that Church collectively taken and to any one of those particular Congregations to wit if he shall raise any differences in any one of them and persist to maintain them being eâ—ther expresly against the Gospel or meerly of things unnecessary c. And this I shall prove 1. By the Doctors own principle He that raiseth differences in any Congregation and persists therein is a Schismatick as was newly by him asserted But that Christian that breaks the peace of any Church more generall or particular by erronious or unnecessary disputes raises differences in that Church and therefore he is a Schismatick Then it follows that it is not necessarily required to the guilt of Schism that he be a member of that one Church but he may be a member of another Church or of no Church but only a Christian 2. I prove it from a Scripture instance Act. 15.1 Ceratine men which came down from Judaea to Antioch taught the brethren saying except ye be circumcised c ye cannot be saved These men were no members of the Church of Antioch but of Judaea or Christians at large of no particular Church yet these men making differences in the Church of Antioch are said v. 24. to trouble them with words subverting their Souls and therefore might justly be called Schismaticks He cannot now say this was not a Church of the institution of Christ for whether it was then but one particular Congregation or consisted of many congregations as not able to meet in one place both wayes it was a Church of Christs appointment For the very light of reason speaks thus much That when a Congregation or first Church grows too numerous it should swarm out into lesser Congregations and yet those distinct Congregations may fairly be said to be but one Church and have still some dependence what ever it be one upon another § 9 2. It is required sayes he that they either raise entertaine or persist in causelesse differences p. 44. with them of that Church c This is answered in the former in part And I adde that those differences raised c in that Church though by a member of another Church do cause an Interruption of that exercise of love which ought to be amongst them and the disturbance of the duties required of that Church in the worship of God which he requires to make one guiltie of Schism It were very strange that he that entertaines or persists in those differences should be a Schismatick and he that first raised them though of another Church should be none § 10 3. It is further required that these differences be occasioned by and do belong to some things in a remoter or neerer distance to the worship of God This will reach a great way even civill differences as they may be called Schism as we heard above so they may come to trench upon the worship of God But may there not be differences in other matters besides worship which may amount to a Schism He told us above that Schism might be in unnecessary things p. 27. things that properly concerne not the worship of God such were those sidings about their Teachers not in the worship of God but from house to house as he confessed above But supposing the differences to be in the worship of God that is in the time and place of it may they not be in matter of doctrine perhaps he will say that is Heresie or Apostacie not Schism for so he sayes p. 161. But 1. Every difference in matter of doctrine is not Heresie much lesse Apostacie Heresie is not charged usually on any but either for fundamentall errours or obstinacie in them And though we commonly place Schism in matter of discipline or circumstances of worship and Heresie in matters of doctrine yet as we see by experience those that beganne with Schismaticall separations end too oft in Heresie So a Schism at first if obstinately persisted in may come to be Heresie for there is a doctrine of discipâ—ine in the Scripture and a Schismatick willfully defending his errour though but in a matter of discipline or other unnecessary opinions may prove to be Hereticall 2. Heresie and Apostacie presuppose Schism first So that a man may be a Schismatick for raising the difference and an Heretick in persisting in it And say the same of Apostacie as more perhaps hereafter Or may there not be Schism in a matter of discipline which is distinguished from worship Surely the greatest Schisms at this day are found about discipline As is evident in the difference between Papists and us in subjection to the Pope between Episcopall men and us about submission to the Hierarchicall Government between the Presbyterians and Independents where the administration of discipline lyes And each parties charge one another with Schism as he affâ—rmes in his following discourse In doctrine and worship the Independents some of them and we agree having the same Confession of Faith the same Ordinance of worship The discipline onely makes the Schism whereof who is most guiltie will appear anone Certaine it is on which party soever the charge falls to be guilty of this crime they will be found to shew themselves carnal or to have indulged to the flesh pag. 44. and the corrupt principle of Self and their own wills c. § 11 But he professes he could never yet meet with a definition of Schism that did comprise that was not exclusive of that pag. 45. which alone in the Scripture is affirmed so to be That shall be tryed by considering the definitions ordinarily given The definition of Austin is this Schisma est dissidium congregationis when men of the same judgment in doctrine and same rites in worship delight in the discord of the Congregation By dissidium Congregationis the Dr. saies he means 'A separation from the Church into a peculiar Congregation Which was the case of the Donatists which he had then in hand But 1. this definition is just the Doctors Dissidium Congregationis is not properly a separation from but in the Church and such was that of the Donatists at first till refusing or receiving no satisfaction they separated into other Congregations and bid defiance to the Church which is the Common issue of such intestine divisions Acts 15.39 Paul and Barnabas
use his own words Let the breach of union in the Churches be accounted if you please Schism or a crime for being an evill I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguishâ—d p. 81. But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists from all other Churches might be called a Schism and takes it for granted they and himselfe are free from that charge for so he sayes p. 167. How little we are at this day in any contests that are mannaged amongst us concerned in those differences of theirs those few considerations afore will evince It s true indeed in our Separation from Rome the instance of the Donatists is very impertinent as in other respects so in this that they separated from the truely Catholick Church we from the Idolatrous corrupt particular Church of Rome falsely called Catholicke But it concernes him and his partie neerely in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches agreeing as they doe in the principles and practices of the Donatists The question then is unresolved whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism All he sayes is this We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism for the relinquishment of the Catholike Church p. 168. which as we have not done so to do is not Schism but a sinne of another nature and importance The ground he goes upon why separation from a true Church is no Schism is that afore That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely a division of judgment in a particular Assembly not a separation from any Church which if it were true as it is proved false above as it would free Protestants from that charge by Papists with ease so it will acquit himselfe and all Sectaries in the world from the crime of Schism That the principle and principall plea of Romanists that they are the Catholick Church out of whose communion there is no salvation as the Donatists was of old was and in Schismaticall was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and moderne Divines And if it be true which his partie assent to that their Churches are onely rightly constituted and other Churches and Ministers are false or none as they do also assert they are equally guiltie of that Schismaticall principle That they are the only not Catholick particular Churches out of whose Communion there is ordinarily no Salvation This very principle in the Donatists first and then in the Romanists hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time and of the troubles that have issued thence and to make differences in a Church and troubâ—es thereupon to separate is acknowledged or proved to be Schism then the raising of the like differences and persisting to maintaine them upon the very same principle as the onely true Churches how it can be exempted from Schism I am to learn § 5 That I was not mistaken in the ground he goes upon to free the Donatists of old and Protestants together with himselfe from the charge of Schism was his own notion and definition of Schism will now appeare in his own answer to the Romanists argument which he rather insists upon than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely that is for divisions onely in a particular Church pag. 193. And thereupon denyes 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholike invisible Church or if there could it would be madnesse to call it Schism 2. nor from the Catholike visible because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith is not Schism but Apostacie 3. nor from a particular Church for that is not properly Schism for so he sayes 1. I deny that separation from a particular Church as such as meerly seperation is Schism or ought to be so esteemed though perhaps such seperation may proceed from Schism and attended with other evils But this mistakes the question for the Romanists themselves do not mean that every separation from any Church is Schism as such but a causelesse separation from the true Catholâ—ke Church which they suppose themselves to bee And so some and most of ours do state it as he obâ—erves page 191. s 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry Haeresie c of the Church of Rome as iust cauâ—es of separation from her which plea sayes he will not be shaken to eternitie 2. Hee affirmes that separation however upon just cause p. 194. from any Church is no Schism This as it is the same with the former in â—ense so is by none denyed This is granted by all persons Schism is causelesse say all men however concerned separation upon a just cause is a dutie and therefore cannot be Schism which is alwayes a sinne Hence it appeares that hee needlessely denyes their Major proposition being rightly understood in their sense who propounded it And our Divines did better to deny the Minor We have neither voluntarily nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome But his answer is another thing Separation in the sense contended about p. 194. must be from some state and condition of Christs institution pag. 195 a Church of his appointment otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is Schism at least not in a Gospel sense The Summe is this Schism is a separation from a Church of Christs institution but our separation from Rome is not from a Church of Christs institution therefore it is no Schism And though it be true that the nationall Hierarchicall Church of Rome the papall and patriarchall Church be not a Church of Christs institution yet the bottome of his argument lyes here That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely found in a particular Church which must serve him for more uses than one as we shall heare anon And thence he inferres that separation either of one Church from another or of persons from a Church upon any occasion true or false what ever it be it is no Schism which is spoken to above and will come againe § 6 But that there may be Schism besides that in a particular Church I prove by a double argument ex confessis 1. Schism is a breach of union But there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible Church 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith professed wherein the union of the Catholick Church consists there may be a breach of union but there may be differences in the Catholick or among the members of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith professed ergo I suppose his answer will be That the forsaking of it's communion which consists in the profession of faith is not Schism but Apostacie p. 193. s 52. But that is not alwayes so for both there may be differences in the faith and yet no Apostacie or if there be Apostacie it may be a Schism also Apostates
Antiochians appeale to the Church of Jerusalem in such a case which I say whether it were by an institution of Christ or an act of Christian prudence will serve our turne to justifie such Associations though we do not account them to be the forme or cause of the union of a Presbyterian Church but rather prudentiall meanes to preserve that union § 8 Upon that mistake of the forme of a nationall Church to be the institution of greater or lesser Assemblyes he proceeds to premise some things which may take off the charge of Schism for their separating from our Churches as true as their own 1. No man can possibly be a member of a nationall Church in this sense pag. 251. but by being first member of some particular Church in the nation which concurres to make up the nationall Church But that not being our opinion the consequence sailes He granted as much as we plead p. 250. On the same account that all the professors of the truth throughout the world are the Catholick visible Church of Christ may all the professors of the truth in England be called the Church of England And it was his own assertion above to the contrary That a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church and yet no member of a particular Church And why then may not a man be a member of a Nationall Church and yet be no member of a particular Church I could exemplifie cases but I forbear Indeed as the state of the nation is at this day all generally being baptised except Anabaptists Children no man is a member of the nationall Church but he is also a member of some particular Church That Church being as he oft hath said the seat of Ordinances Hence 2. its evident that a man may recede from this nationall Church and not depatt from some particular Church because he may be a member of the nationall as well as of the Catholick Church and yet be no member of a particular Church c. on the other side a man may be a member of some particular Church and yet be no member of the nationall in the sense of it by him given as himselfe and others do too much evidence 3. He sayes To make men members of any particular Churches their own consent is required If he meane this of an explicite consent as I suppose he does or he sayes nothing it is fully disproved above and implicite confessed sufficient A man that removes his habitation as both he and we grant its free for him to do may by setting down in another Congregation and submitting himselfe to all the Ordinances of Christ there with performance of all Officers of Love to the members of that Congregation implicitely and yet sufficiently consent to be a member thereof And on the other hand a man may not remove his habitation from a Congregation wherein he hath long consented to communicate and yet remove his consent to be a member of another as we see too much in this loose and wandring age § 9 But fourthly he now speaks out That as yet p. 252. at least since possibly we could be concerned in it who are now alive no such Church in this nation hath been formed It is impossible a man should be guiltie of offending against that which is not unlesse they will say we have separated from what should be This Engine hath served him twice before First against the charge of Schism by the Romanists Theirs is no Church at all how could they separate from that which is not Then against the Prelat's Hierarchicall Church Their 's is no Church of Christs institution That which is wanting cannot be numbred p. 242. And now the third time against the same charge by the Presbyterians It is true indeed there hath no such nationall Church been uniformely formed in this nation but he knows such a Church hath been endevoured to be formed conformable to the Word of God and to the best reformed Churches abroad according to our solemne covenant and who have withstood resisted and hindered it and yet do hinder he knowes well enough But withall it cannot be denyed but there are some Presbyterian Churches settled in England and perhaps some of their members if not of themselves have been of them from these they have separated as well as from the rest If there were not such here there are such abroad and yet they have renounced communion with them as no true Churches and that 's a negative separation Besides there was and is another Church state in England in our particular Churches from these also they have most of them as once of them pâ—pâ—bly separated The Presbyterian Church state as to particular Congregations in doctrine worship and discipline in them is the very same with theirs excepting that they hold their Congregations to be Independent and entire â—or all Government in themselves but wee acknowledg our selves dependent and would be gâ—ad we had other Churches to joyne with and yet they separate from and disaâ—ow them as well as others Lastly I believe those men that raise differences in a reforming Church and persist in keeping open those divisions separating also into other new Churches do as well deserve the name of Schismaticks as those that make differences in one particular Church And unlesse they can better prove than yet they have done that we are no true Churches and their own to be the onely true Churches in the nation in the World the Schism will lye at their door in all aequall mens judgment remove it as they can § 10 p. 253. Let him read the next disputation of Amyraldus his definition of a Schismatick and his censure of those that separate will little please him Disput de ecclesiae membrie As for Amyraldus his judgement of the confoederation of Churches it is the same with ours or not to the purpose Our opinion is that as the consent of particular members explicite or implicite is not the forme of a particular Church So the consent of severall Churches to associate in a classis or Synod is not the forme of a nationall Church The explicite consent of members as they make use of it is but a prudentiall way to tye their members from running away from them and yet that will not do the deed so the explicite consent of severall Churches into Assemblyes is likewise a prudentiall way for the better Governing of those Churches and the easier determining of things of common concernment And as the one so the other is a result of the light of nature need no institution He may now perceive that he is mistaken in his thoughts of a mutuall acknowledgment of the things by him delivered hardly in one of them do we agree But we expected that he would now at last have laid down some principles peculiar to himselfe and those with whom he consents p. 254. in the way of the worship of God c for
done § 5. In the mean time I still follow him it cannot be denied but that their vigorous adhering to the former Advantage a thing to be expected from men wise in their generation hath exposed some of them to a contrary evill whilst in a conceit of their own innocencie as being the only true Churches of Christ they have insensibly slipt as is the manner of men into sleight contemptible thoughts of Schism wherof they are accused as esteeming it no great matter to separate from any or all true Churches making it no Schism See p. 46 no crime at all as will appear hereafter The safest way for them is to deny this Separation to be a Schism for otherwise he asserts well To live in Schism is to live in sinne which unrepented of will ruine a mans eternall condition Upon this therefore depends the issue of this whole cause For if a causelesse Separation from a true Church be proved a Schism as I doubt not it will I shall adde his own words Every man charged with it must either desert his station which gives foundation to his charge or acquit hmself of the crime in that station And this latter for he likes not to leave his Station is that whâ—ch in reference to himself and others he does propose and mannages with much confidence Upon this we put the whole issue of this present cause § 6. For let not them think that the Iniquitie of their Accusers as to other corruptions doth in the least extenuate their crime Schism is Schism stâ—ll Though our Churches from whom they Separate be not so pure as they ought or would be Yea though we were worse than we are as bad as the Church of Corinth yet ought not they to separate from us as no Churches of Christ being desirous of Reformation but are Schismaticks if they do They ought rather to have stayed and helped to reforme us which they make almost impossible by their uncharitable Separation from us This that followes were worth their most serious consideration A conscientious tendernesse and fear of being mistaken will drive this businesse to another Issue whereas their Confidence in carriage of their way is a stop to their and our Reformation § 7. 8. 9. The state of things in this time is too well known in the world to the great scandall of Christianity And wo is to them by whom the offence cometh 1. Protestants are charged by Papists as Schismaticks for departing as they say from the Catholike Church which Church they are 2. Calvinists by Lutherans for no crime in the world but this sayes our Author but because we submit not to all they teach which he counts unreasonable upon this ground That in no instituted Church-relation would they ever admit us to stand with them Which is as considerable an instance of the power of prejudice as this Age can give unlesse it may be paraleld in his own Church It is as well a Schisme to keep fit members out of Church-Relations and priviledges as to separate from a true Church 3. Presbyterians are charged with the same crime by Episcopall men because they reject that way of Government and somwhat of the externall way of Worship 4. The Independents are accused by Presbyterians of the same fault for making differences in and then separating from their Churches as no true Churches and setting up others of their own The learned Doctor supposes this last charge is in a short time almost sunke of it self and so will ask the lesse paines utterly to remove and take off But he is an happy man if things out of sight were presently out of minde His party hath rather sunke the charge by their silence in not answering than dispersed or removed it And he will finde that it swims on the face of those Discourses written against their way if he pleased to take notice of them And this charge revived by his Importunity he will finde will aske more paines to take off than he is aware of much more than we shall need to take to remove the same charge from our selves put upon us by the other three sorts of men Papists Lutherans and Episcopall Had it not been done often and sufficiently by men of our own judgement himself hath removed it from us in removing it from himselfe in this discourse But how he will remove ours comes shortly to be considered § 10. What those general principles of irrefragable evidence are whereby he will acquit us all and himself also from the severall concernments in this charge we shall readily attend unto But how the whole guilt of this crime shall be thrust into one Ephah and by whom carried to build it an house in the Land of Shinar to establish it upon its own Base as he phrasisies it I do not well understand Onely I suppose he will discharge the charge by a new definition of Schism and some other like distinctions which if it be true will carry it almost quite out of the world blesse the Churches with everlasting peace All Schism shall be confined to a particular church of which hereafter § 11. But that he should professe his much rathernesse to spend all his time in making up and healing the breaches and Schisms among Christians than one houre in justififying our divisions c. seemeth strange to me when as his whole book or greatest part is as a learned Doctour said one great Schism P. 8. and in the Designe of it nothing but a justification of himself and partie in their Divisions with us and Separation from us and tells us the cause is so irreconcilable that none but the Lamb is worthy or able to close the differences made Who when he will come and put forth the greatnesse of his power is very uncertain and he puts us out of hope that before that it shall be accomplished And yet sayes In the mean time a Reconciliation amongst all Protestants is our dutie and practicable and had perhaps ere this been in some forwardnesse had men rightly understood wherein such a reconciliation according to the mind of God doth consist Which I hope he will ere we part give us to understand He seems to place it much in a principle of forbearance that is in Toleration of one another in any way of Religion the cursed fruits whereof we reap with lamentation at this day They have indeed strongly improved that principle of forbearance to perswade us to beare with them but how little of it they have shewed to us the world is Judge § 12. The two generall wayes fixed on by some for compassing of peace and union among Christians deserve some consideration and to be searched to the bottom The one is inforcing uniformity by a secular power the other is Toleration of all or most waies of Religion except such as concerne the Civill interest He speaks first of them both together as if there were no hope of union peace love to be expected
in opinion onely or into Parties also one part separating from another And that the rather because the latter is the ordinary issue or consequence of the former See Act. 19.9 There was but one assembly at the first in the Synagogue But when divers spake evill of that way before the multitude Paul departed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated the Disciples c. § 3 It is true that in the Ecclesiasticall sense the word is not to be found used p. 25. but in 1 Cor. 1.10 11.18 c only in the case of differences amongst the Corinthians I heare that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among you which what they were will presently come to be considered when we have heard what he accounts in generall the constant use of the word To denote differences of mind and judgment with troubles ensuing thereon p. 25. amongst men met in some one Assembly about the the compassing of a common end and designe But that this is a forestalling of the Readers judgment by a meer begging of the question hath in part been proved even from the Scripture it selfe where it is used for separation into parties upon those differences of mind and judgment in the politicall use of the word and why it may not be so used in the Ecclesiasticall sense I see yet no reason especially when the proper use of it is to signifie a breach of union or a separation of a naturall body into severall parts two or more And I have cause to suspect that he sticks so hard upon this notion not so much to confute that charge of Schism upon us by the Romanists as to ward off the same charge upon himselfe and his partie as we shall shew hereafter But granting him this notion of Schisme for a while this is the way as on the one hand to free all Church separation from Schisme with respect to one another so on the other to make all particular Churches more or lesse Schismaticall For what one Congregation almost is there in the world where there are not differences of judgments whence ensue many troubles about the compassing of one common end and designe I doubt whether his own be free therefrom Yet he askes confidently below p. 63. Have we any differences and contentions in our Assemblies Doe we not worship God without disputes and divisions It s happie with them if it be so For let most of the Assemblyes of severall sorts and sects be visited and it will be visible enough that in their prophecyings as they call them there are differences of mind enow and troubles more than a good many with wranglings and janglings and sometimes railing and reviings good store that a man might upon this one principle of his besides other venture to call them Schismaticall Conventicles rather then Churches of Christ And why not as well as Paul charges that famous Church of Corinth with the crime of Schism for the same or like disorders p. 27. They had sayes our Authour differences amongst themselves about unnecessary things on these they engaged into disputes and sidings even in their solemne Assemblyes probably much vain jangling alienation of affections exasperation of spirits with a neglect of due offices of love c. This was their Schism c. That the Apostle charges this upon them is true but was this all were there not divisions into parties as well as in judgement we shall consider that ere long For the present I say difference in judgment Separation may proceed from Schism p. 194. was the ready way to difference in and alienation of affections and that to exasperation of Spirits and that to neglect of due offices of love c and at last ere long to Separation of Societies And he sayes well The Apostle would have them joyned together p. 28. not only in the same Church-order and fellowship but also in onenesse of mind and judgment which if they were not Schisms would be amongst them and upon those separation into severall assemblyes as we see at this day to a lamentation Difference in some one point of doctrine worship or discipline hath broken the Church into many fractions almost as many as men But I shall observe his observations upon these Divisions amongst the Corinthians § 4 1. Observe sayes hee That the thing mentioned p. 29. is entirely in one Church no mention of one Church divided against another or separated from another or others the crime lyes wholy within one Church that met together for the worship of God c This it seemes is a matter of great concernment to be granted or denyed In so much that he professes p. 30. That unlesse men will condescend so to state it upon the evidence tendered he shall not hope to prevaile much in the processe of this discourse This then being the foundation of that great Fabrick of Schism as he calls it it had need bee bottomed better than upon his own bare Affirmation which is all we yet have for it without any proofe For this end I shall take his first observation into particular consideration 1. That the divisions mentioned were in one Church is ambiguously spoken for it may be taken either for the collection of severall Assemblyes in Corinth where there were multitudes of Christians which are sometimes called the Church yea a particular Church with respect to the Catholick or other National Churches So himselfe speaks of those Patriarchs so called how many or how few soever they were p. 121. they were particular Churches Or else that the Saints at Corinth were at this time but one particular congregation meeting all in one place In this latter sense its evident the Reverend Doctor takes it but in so doing he beggs the question and consents not with himselfe For he had said before they had disputings and sidings in their solemne Assemblyes p. 27. not one but many Assemblyes And the Divines of the Assembly have made it more than probable that the multitude of Christians of Corinth were too many to meet in one place and yet may be said to meet together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not jointly but severally in their particular places of meeting As the Congregations of London may be said to meet together on the Lords Day not conjunctim but divisim 2. That it was amongst the members of one particular Church is gratis dictum For that all the Christians in Corinth and about it were called one Church collectively is evident chap. 1. v. 2. To the Church of God at Corinth And that there were more particular Churches there or thereabouts than one is also evident both by Rom. 16.7 The Church at Cenchrea a particular Church distinct from that at Corinth and also by 1 Cor. 14.34 Let your women keep silence in the Churches one and yet many Churches at Corinth 3. This is also presumed but not proved That the crime of Schism was charged on them onely within
or Metropolitane as some rather dream than prove as it s said of the Church in or at Jerusalem Act. 8.1 and the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Corinth But yet I cannot agree with him that either Rome or Corinth were in Clements time onely one Parish as he now uses the word or one Congregation meeting all in one place For as I believe this Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians was intended to be written to the Church of Cenchrea which whether it were a stated distinct Church or no the Doctor knowes not p. 39. nor was perswaded it was compleated p. 38. but yet supposes it comes under the same name with Corinth ibid. though Paul mentions it as a distinct Church Rom. 16.1 and Phaebe to be a Deaconesse or Servant of that Church to the Church I say at Cenchrea So I see no reason but there might be were several Churches or Assemblies in Corinth each distinct from other though not such Parishes as ours are in London c the greater part being yet Heathens and the Magistrates not yet Christian to erect or allow them Churches as now we call them or to distribute them into particular Parishes which was done as soon as most or all became Christians However the Doctor acknowledges the word Parochia may be so called p. 35. from them who met together to break bread and to eate from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convivator Whence it will follow that if the multitude be so great that they cannot meet in one place to heare the word or to break bread as its evident the 3000 or 5000 at Jerusalem could not then look how many meeting places there were for this purpose so many Parishes or Congregations there were at Jerusalem or Corinth having severall if not fixed Elders over them and yet the whole but one Church § 7 p. 42. But if he grant that this evill mentioned by the Apostle is Schism does it conclude that nothing else is Schism He answers he is inclinable so to do and resolved that unlesse any man can prove that somthing else is termed Schism by some Divine writer c he will be at Libertie from admitting it so to be Surely this is no safe Rule to go by For as there are some vertues which are not termed so expresly in Scripture So there may be degrees of Schism which are not so expresly called there It is sufficient if the one have the nature of such a virtue the other of such a crime though not so called There are other words used to signifie the same thing As Rom. 16.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying a division into two parts or parties And what thinks he of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from a root that signifies sometimes trahere to draw and somtimes sectari to follow See Concil 1. Constantinop some are called Hereticks that hold the sound faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sect-masters use to draw away Disciples after them and those that follow them are called Secta à sequendo The opinions of the Philosophers of severall Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heresies and their followers Sects divided not onely in opinion but in parties and Schools also So Paul uses the word Act. 26.5 according to the mos◠strict Sect of our Religion I lived a pharisee And is not heresie as bad a word as Schism or is it any advantage for a separatist to change his name from Schismatick to Heretick The Apostle 1 Cor. 11.18.19 uses them promiscuously one for another I heare that there are Schisms among you For there must be heresies among you also The word heresie commonly is used to signifie errour against Faith which sense he is not pleased with p. 46. as Schism is a sin against love If he like not to give his Separation the name of Schism though it hath fully the nature of it let him have good leave to call it Heresie This men gaine when they will dispute about words Besides the Scripture uses other words to signifie Schism in a political sense Math. 12.25 A Kingdome or house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided against it selfe that is into parts and so into civill warres and dissensions cannot stand which Act. 14 4. is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude was divided and that into two parts as well as opinions as it followes and some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were with the Jewes and some with the Apostles as I noted above If this may not rather be understood of an Ecclesiasticall separation for it was occasioned by differences in one Assembly v. 1. They entred into the Synagogue of the Jews c The unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and made their minds ill affected against the brethren v. 2. which caused that separation And the Schism was made by those turbulent Jewes the causes of that separation not by the Apostles or their partie Schism in the Church was but an Embrio in the Apostles time at first a difference or division onely in judgment but quickly grew into separation or division into parties But we need not plead any other text for our notion of Schism but what is included in this place of the Corinthians having made it appeare that there was a separation made in that Church by such as lead away Disciples after them or rather by them who by having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons set up one Minister above another and against another However somthing may be deduced by paritie of reason If divisions of persons in a church in judgment may be is called Schism in Scripture then Separation from a true Church grounded upon those divisions at first in an Assembly about unnecessary things as he said may well and much more be called Schism For sayes he He is a Schismatick p. 43. guiltie of this sinne of Schism who raiseth or entertaineth or persisteth in such differences And is not he much more a Schismatick who having raised groundlesse differences in a Church and persisting in them draws Disciples after him and sets up another Church in opposition to that from whence he separated To separate men in judgment in a Church is a Schism and crime bad enough but to separate them from the Church upon the former is farre worse Now this as it may be done in a Church of many Congregations all professing the same truth and practising the same worship So the persisting in such differences by any one Congregation against the rest is a Schism in that Church as of Corinth and ends commonly in separation from that Church But let us heare further what is required to make guiltie of Schism § 8 1. That they be members of or belong to some one Church which is so by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ The ground of this assertion is that he by one
union be an union of the appointment of Jesus Christ which I shall freely grant him provided he do not limit Schism as formerly he did to the worship of God only yet that he does here againe The consideration of what sort of union in reference to the worship of God marke that is instituted by Jesus Christ is the foundation of what I have further to offer c The Designe of this is that he may have a faire retreat when he is charged with breach of union in other respects and so with Schism to escape by this evasion This breach of union is not in reference to the worship of God in one Assembly met to that end And that is onely Schism in the Scripture notion as he hath often said But I shall attend his motion § 8 This union being instituted in the Church according to the various acceptions of that word so it is distinguished For which purpose he undertakes three things to shew 1. The severall considerations of the Church with which union is to be preserved 2. What that union is p. 82. we are to keep with the Church in each consideration 3. How that union is broken and what the sinne whereby it is done Wherein we shall follow him as farre as we are concerned leaving others to plead for themselves CHAP. IV. Of the Church Catholick Mysticall and its Union § 1 THe Church of Christ in this world is taken in Scripture three wayes 1. For the mysticall body of Christ p. 84. his elect redeemed c commonly called the Church Catholick militant 2. For the universalitie of men called by the Word visibly professing the Gospell called the Church Catholick visible 3. For a particular Church of some place wherein the instituted worship of God in Christ is celebrated according to his mind This distinction of the Church is rather of the word than of the thing intended by it imports not a three-fold Church but one Church under a threefold consideration arising as he sayes from the nature of the things themselves that is the members of that Church who may be considered either as true believers that makes the invisible Church 2 as professors of the same Faith that makes the Catholike visible Church or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship and that is called a particular Church For as the definition of a Church agrees to it in all the three considerations It is a societie of men called out of the world by the word c So the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches or in that threefold consideration of it at once He that is a true believer of the invisible Church is also a professor of the Faith and so a member of the Catholike visible Church and he that is of both those is or ought to be if possible a member of a particular Church Now the Church having its rise and nature from a call as the word imports that call admitting of severall degrees causes this three-fold notion of the Church That call in Scripture is either internall which he calls effectuall or externall and that again admits of degrees men are called either to the profession of Faith onely lacking opportunity of publick Ordinances or to participatâ—on of the instituted worship also In their obedience to the first call they are said to be members of the Church invisible to the second to be members of the Catholike visible to the third to be members of a particular Church And his own way of raising the former distinction is the same for substance p. 84. § 2. Hence the necessitie of Churches in the last acception is not onely because members of a particular Church are bound to externall rules for joynt communion for to those very rules are members of the invisible and visible Church bound also when it is possible but partly because the Catholike Church in either sense cannot all meet in one place and partly because the opportunitie to yeeld obedience to those rules of joynt communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Societie not too great or numerous § 2 1. For his first consideration of the Church which 〈◊〉 calls the Mysticall body of Christ his elect page 84. c the Church Catholike militant I have but a little to say I observe onely first that he restraines the Catholick Church invisible onely to this world as militant whereas commonly our Div nes take it for the whole number of the elect both Militant and Triumphant from Heb. 12.23 The generall assembly and Church of the first borne which are written in heaven 2. That he makes the Church invisible the onely Mysticall body of Christ which is ordinarily applyed to the Catholike visible Church also as contra distinguished to the civill or politicall body of a state 3. See my Vind Vind. p. 9. That he cites Math. 16.28 to prove the Catholike invisible Church which is commonly understood of the Catholike visible Evangelicall Church He sayes They that will apply this text to the Church in any otheâ— sense page 88. must know that it is incumbent on them to establish the promise made to it unto every one that is a true member of the Church in that sense which will be difficult c But I say that the promise in that text and the rest cited is made good to every one that is a true member of the invisible Church is true They are built upon that Rock and the gates of Hell shall never prevaile against them but yet it may be true with respect if not to a particular Church which may faile yet to the Catholike visible Church which as it is built upon that Rock the confession of Peter that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Messiah come So it is to continue to the worlds end and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile totally to destroy it And this himselfe confesses I no way doubt of the perpetuall existence of innumerable believers in every age and such as made the profession that is absolutely necessary to salvation one way or other p. 86. f. There is then a perpetuall existence of the Church not onely invisible as true beleivers but also of the visible as professors of the Faith of the Gospell and so the promise is made good to it Indeed the promise in that text is made to the whole Church indefinitely and respectively but not to every particular person in it nor to every particular Church There shall be a Church of true beleivers and professors of the Faith in all ages but whether it be made to a particular Church That Christ hath had alwayes a Church in this sense in the world himselfe sayes is a needlesse enquiry p. 85. § 5. Of which more perhaps hereafter § 3 The second thing considerable is the Union of the members of this Catholicke invisible Church among themselves which he makes to be pag. 95. The
confirmation and besides now renounce us as no true Churches This we think is Brownistical and highly Schismatical The Anabaptists deal more rationally to their own principles in denying our Ministry and Baptism and all Church-state than they do The old Rule was The sincere preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments are the Characters of a true Church Which we having and they separating from us in all Church-Communion how shall this crime be named but by Schism in the highest degree § 3 But as they have left us so some of their Independent Churches p. 226. have left them viz. Those who have renounced the baptism they received in their infancy and repeat it amongst themselves And have they not done this upon their own principle That all true Church-state is lost in England And if so then no true Ministry no Baptism no Church and then it must be revived by a new-baptism the door of a true Church It was told the Brownists long ago either they must come back to us or go forward to Anabaptism and so must the Independents if their principles and conclusions be consonant to one another yea many are fallen from them to Anabaptsem and I believe nothing but the odium or some private interest keeps many more from following after them But what thinks he of Anabaptists are they Schismaticks or no for their separation Hear his Apology for them yet I suppose that he who upon that single account will undertake to prove them Schismatical may find himself entangled To raise up differences causelesse differences unlesse Paedobaptism be a trivial thing and upon that to separate not only from the judgement and practise of all the Christian Churches in the world at present but from the judgment and practise also of all the primitive and succeeding Churches in all ages and all places if this be not Schismatical I know nothing that deserves that name Sure the Donatists were generally accounted Schismaticks for rebaptizing those that came to them from other Churches but sayes he The case is not exactly with the Anabaptists as it was with the Donatists Exactly the same True for they lived in Africk these in Europe But they do the same thing rebaptize the same that were baptized by us That is granted but not on the same principle yes upon the very same principle though they added another which the Donatists knew not As how p. 226. The Donatists rebaptized those who came to their societies because they believed that all administration of Ordinances not in their Assemblies was null and to be looked on as no such thing And do not Anabaptists think so and say so of all the Ordinances administred in our Church yea of Baptism given to Infants in the Independent Churches Do they not or would they not rebaptize any that comes from them to their Societies because they think their Baptism null if not their other Ordinances But he hath an help for this Our Anabaptists yes your Anabaptists do the same thing but on this plea that though Baptism be yet Infant Baptism is not an Institution of Christ and so is null from the nature of the thing it self not the way of administration of it Yes both ways they hold it null and so much worse and more Schismatical than the Donatists They rebaptized only as some think those that were baptized by Cecilianus or some of his Ordination but did not so with others nor did they think Baptism in infancy to be null in the nature of the thing But Anabaptists rebaptize all come they from what Church they will and are not these the worser Donatists But let him take heed lest in defending a bad cause he make himself guilty of the sin Does not he himself labour in this book to prove that the Administration of Ordinances in our Assemblies are null Our Ordination null p. 197. and Antichristian from the Beast And charging them that insist upon it as keeping up what God would have pullâ—d down p. 198. and consequently the Ordinances by us administred are null And why then is not he rebaptized Yea our Churches are esteemed not of Christs institution because not lawfully gathered See page 206. §. 10. and are not these worse than Donatists But he saies This falls not within the verge of my defence Yet he could not but speak a good word for them They must not be Schismaticks lest he be proved so too They are but one step before him it may be his own case ere long And I durst almost be his prophet to foretell what he and others will do If they stick close to and mannage that principle well That all true Church-state was lost in England they must not stay where they are but go forward either to Anabaptism and be rebaptized or to Quakerism as some already are and deny all use of outward baptism § 4 But hear his conclusion In these several considerations p. 226. we were and do continue members in the Church of God in England and as to our failing herein who is it that convinces us of sin How warily first Members in the Church of England not of it not of any particular Church of England but as of a Church new revived and gathered in England But I ask were they not members of some particular Church of England when they were baptized yea for all Ordinances till of late and some of them Ministers besides And have they not renounced Ministry and Lords Supper and all but Baptism Let them speak plainly Were they baptized as members of any Church or no if of any of what if of none how at all unless they hold Baptism no Church Ordinance And by whom by a Minister as such to them or is not Baptism a ministerial act If they may receive Baptism without Church-communion if we be no Churches why not also the Lords supper If Communion with the Church Catholick may serve for one Ordinance why not for another Or if they may receive Baptism validly in our Churches why not other Ordinances These questions would be seriously and conscientiously answered But how confidently he shuts up As to our failing herein who is it that convinces us of sin He that spake those words first was more than a man It s too much for any meer man to think much more to say Who is it that convinces me of sin in his best performances if men cannot God can But if our Churches were not true sure they failed in joyning so long with us Yet we charge them not with failings in their Communion but for relinquishing that Communion and at parting to cast dirt in their Mothers face that bare them them as is confessed as no honest Woman § 5 The rest that follows for many pages together concerning the union of a National Church and breach of that union I leave to them that are concerned in it Only I shall take notice of one passage which is this Whereas sundry
What difficulty then is there to judge them offenders against that and the whole Church of England in leaving those Congregations without yea against their consent if they had such power over them as he grants But no marvel they find no difficulty or scruple in leaving our Congregations without any leave when they can and do leave own Congregations without or against their leave to which they say they have been marryed and may no more justly divorce them than a man may his wife except for fornication and only for a greater portion or preferment But I must professe I know no such power that any Church hath to engage into and enforce such an explicite consent or to deny leave to any member upon just causes to depart without their leave He said before All men must admit it free for a man to choose where he will fix his habitation Which if just reasons call him to either he must leave that Congregation as too distant from his habitation or else tye himself to much inconvenience to enjoy the Ordinances of God there which he may with ease and as much profit enjoy at his own door If this be not an enslaving of Christians to the prudential if not politick institutions of men and manifest prejudice to the liberty wherein Christ hath made them free I know not what is But the best is their people do not believe any such difficulty to remove from their Churches but take the leave without humbly desiring it which he requires without their consent and run readily to the Anabaptists and Quakers Societies § 14 Yea the Dr. is as ready to indulge this Liberty as they to take it it may be he may get the more disciples by it For as he gives any man the liberty to deâ—ert the communion of any society if it be not reformed according to the mind of Christ p. 265 So he allowes him this liberty upon his own light Hear him speak As the not giving a mans self up p. 259. to any way and submitting to any establishment pretended or pleaded to be of Christ which he hath not light for is no Schism So no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion in one Church in all its relations to joyn with another be so esteemed Where first he seems to me to be a very Sceptick in his way of Independency or to gratifie all the Sects Quakers and all According to that light which men have received with a Toleration For why should they be denyed the liberty of their own light more than others to judge what is or is not according to the mind of Christ and to follow it accordingly submit to p. 46. and desert what way they suppose to be § 26 but pretended as the way of Christ And why should they be denyed to make use of their liberty without such humble asking leave of the Congregation But I woâ—â—d make bo d to ask one question Whether does he indeed believe his own way to be the only true way of Christ for he hath instituted but one way havâ—ng run from and renounced all other waies of Religion in this Nation If so iâ— not every man bound to come into it and not upon any conceited new light to relinquish it If not then why doth he encourage men to leave the Presbyterian way which for ought he knows may be the way of Christ But what 's this to the purpose We do not say it is a Schism for a single person upon good reasons to remove from one Congregation to another as because he can not edifie so well by one Minister as another provided it be not an itching ear that causes it as oft it is or in some necessary worldly respects if he do it peaceably without contempt of the Congregation and Minister from whom he departs and not setting up a new Church against them In this case we leave all our members free It is not actually not communicating with a true Church but renouncing communion that we think makes the Schismatick § 15 But what if he discovers That some of the principles of the Churches constitution are not according to the mind of Christ p. 261. which renders the communion of it by scruples c. not so useful to him as if it were right and that he hath declared his judgment and dissatisfaction if no Reformation ensue c. The question is whether he sees or conceits he sees some errors in a Church constitution and then whether every want or redunduncy in a Church constitution necessitates a separation But he takes no notice but peremptorily determines the case That person I say is doubtlesse at liberty to dispose of himself as to particular Church communion to his own best advantage This is liberality enough and Dictator-like spoken Does not this open a door to all confusion in Church and State and give every man all as well as any liberty if they judge any thing amiss in Church or State to turn Reformers if Superiours cannot or will not Reform it He asks this question Suppose the Congregation whereof a man is a member p. 262. is not reformed will not or cannot reform it self whether in this case is it Schism for any number of men to reform themselves by reducing the practise of worship to its original institution though the minor part 〈◊〉 Put it home in a State or Nationaâ— Church as that of the Jews was it lawful for a few men when State and Church were all corrupted to go and reform both because they who had the power in their hand either could not or would not reform I will not exemplifie it neare home but I think I may safely say this is an Anabaptistical Munster principle at the bottome and say no more § 16 Yet he hath Scripture for it I will boldly say p. 263. this Schism is commanded by the Holy Ghost What Schism means he that a man or men shall separate from the corruptions of a Church or reform themselves from the sins of the place that is certainly commanded But for that man or a minor number of men in a stated National Church to take upon them to reform the Church was never given them in command But see the proofs The first is 1 Tim. 6.5 From such withdraw or separate thy self But this is a great mistake for as the advice is given to a Minister and not a private member so it is not to withdraw from a Church that hath some corruptions in it but from such false Teachers as its likely were of no Church The second is 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn away Who must do it Timothy a Minister Again from whom from such loose professors or false Teachers as creep into houses and there make divisions and then lead captive their Proselytes from the communion of the Church Surely those were not of Timothy's Congregation for then he would have bidden him not only turn away
discourse of mine and some former have given him just occasion to produce that we might be once blessed with the sight of that Model of their way so often desired so often promised and as often unfaithfully denyed We professe our selves utterly unsatisfied with what hath yet been vouchased us to see But he will tell us briefly what are the things of great and weightie importance which must come under debate before a clear account can be given of the case stated in the Objection Before we hear them I cannot but say they have dealt the more unbrotherly with us to say no more and all the Reformed Churches abroad in setting up their way of new Churches and never discover to us sufficiently the grounds of their so doing Let him look back to what he said p. 7 The parties litigant c. But we shall attend him for the particular Heads § 25 1. The true nature of an Instituted Church under the Gospel as to the matter form and all other necessary constitutive causes is to be investigated and found out To which I say 1. Are there any constitutive causes besides Matter Form This I thought had been fully done if not by all Reformed Churches yet by those of New England who have done what they could to clear up their way The constituting causes say they are matter and form the matter visible Saints the form an explicite Covenant of all the members But they have been told they have contradicted themselves by requiring an explicite consent and yet confessing an implicite to be sufficient and this to be in our Churches and yet separated from us 2. I had thought his definition of an instituted particular Church given us above had held out all the constituting causes of such a Church It is a society of men called by the word to the obedience of the Faith in Christ and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same individual Ordinances according to the order prescribed by Christ Such societies are ours in all the particular ingredients of this definition as was shewed above All that can be objected is but to the last particle according to the order by Christ prescribed which is the question between us must not be begged on either side but proved and it concerns him to shew the contrary What Ordinance do we want or what have we of humane addition And as for our joynt consent though we have it implicitely yet sufficiently it is not in his definition which yet is one of the constituting causes of their Churches If then the definition of such a Church be as applicabâ—â— to our Churches as to his own we are true-instituted Churches and whether they be Schismaticks in renouncing communion with us let the whole Christian Church be Iudge And I go on to the next § 26 2. The nature and form of such a Church is to be exemplyfied from the Scripture and the stories of the first Churches before sensibly infeâ—ted with the poyson of Apostacy which ensued This hath abundantly been done by the Assembly and other Divines though he is not pleased to take notice of it and we dare joyn issue with him in this debate when ever he will begin it 3. The extent of the Apostacy under Antichrist p. 271. as to the ruining of instituted Churches making them to be Babylon and their worship fornication is duly and carefully to be examined Here lyes our disorder hence our darknesse c. though we may arise we shall not easily shake our selves out of the dust I suppose he does not mean this last of his own Churches they are not only risen but have shaken off the very dust of that Apostacy I shall not contradict him for his own particular Church because I am a stranger to it but of some of the Churches of the same constitution I dare confidently affirm they are fallen again into the old Apostacy in matter of Doctrine and have more dust upon their garments than many of ours have But we shall be content to put our selves upon the search and if it may appear that yet we retain any thing of that Apostacy we shall promise faithfully to relinquish it But I am very jealous he expects a finer and a higher Reformation than we dare look for in in this world till Christ himself come to Reign visibly on earth as some do expect he will ere long viz by Revelation of the Spirit He speaks suspiciously this way p. 42. When the order spirituality beauty and glory of the Church of Christ shall return c. these disputes will have an issue And again p. 70. When God shall have reduced his Churches to their primitive purity c. And once more p. 200. So soon as Christs Churches are shaken out of the dust of Babylon with his glory shining on them c. § 27 4. By what way and means God begat a new and kept alive his elect p. 271. in their several generations when Antichristian darkness covered the earth supposing an intercision of instituted Ordinances so far as to make a nullity in them as to what was of simple institution c. he may do well to enquire and resolve us He cannot but know that there are many learned men that will not grant him his supposition of an intercision of all instituted Ordinances so far as to make a nullity in them And something hath been said to this above which he may do well to consider The sum is this That if there was an utter intercision and so a nullity of all instituted Ordinances it was impossible to fix the Tabernacle of God with men again without a miracle or some Divine Revelation As for the Bohemian brethren concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian it is not a singular conceit for all reformed Churches are of that opinion They distinguish the Papacy which is as a scab or Leprosie to the hand from the Church of Rome making the former purely Antichristian but not the latter But as perhaps erroneously for Luther and his associats did not so they could not allow of the Ordination of Ministers by any in communion with them So they were perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession which whether our Author does let him declare when he takes into consideration the Bohemian cases They sent to the Greek and Armenian Churches to have Ordination from them therefore they did not believe there was an Iâ—â—â—ision of all instituted Ordinances and when they saw their way was perhaps as superstitious another way having no satisfaction there they took their eaâ—e to be extraordinary and so chose themselâ—es Elders and set them apart by fasting and prayer c. where note a double difference Their case was extraordinary there were no Ministers to ordain them but our brethren were ordained by lawful Ministers or might have found enough to do it if they had not been ordained but they renounced what they
when he saies p. 136. Mens profession of the knowledge of God contradicted by a course of wickedness is not to be admitted as a thing giving any priviledge whatever So that such a man is ipso facto unmembred without excommunication and if he be a wicked Minister he is ipso facto unministred or degraded and all his Ministerial acts are null Adde to this what he saies p. 159. Let those that are prophane profess what they will and cry out a thousand times that they are Christians I shall never acknowledge them for others than visible enemies of the crosse of Christ. Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so They are not within the Church any more than a Jew or Mahumetan within the same precincts There are in a few lines many mistakes For 1. Though they be as bad as or worse than Mahumetans in regard of their spiritual estate yet are they better in regard of Church estate Does the wickedness of their lives make their Baptism a meer nullity then must they be rebaptized upon their conversion as heathens are 2. If they be no better than Heathens then are their children to be denyed Baptism and are very Infidels yet a child of the prophanest Jew was circumcised and had right to other priviledges 3. That is so far from truth That Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so that they cannot possibly be Traytors and Rebels to him unless they be his Subject As he said A man cannot possibly be a Schismatick unlesse he be a Church-member either of a particular or of the Catholick Church 4. Doth not the Apostle call fornicators drunkards unruly walkers brethren 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.17 But these three properties are inâ—â—â—ed on to insinuate that if there be no breach of Union in any of these thâ—re is no Schism to be found in the Catholick Church nor between the members thereof as appears in his application of them § 2 For granting for process sake That Schism is the breach of any union instituted by Christ the enquiry is p. 140. Whether we be guâ—lty of the breach of such an unity And for the first of these the profession of all necessary truths of the Gospel the Church of England in her doctrine is as Orthodox as any Chuch under Heaven consonant to the Scriptures and Apostolicall Church till by Toleration some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies and blasphemies disowned by the Church The Schism then charged upon us by Papists See p. 141 in this respect lieu at their own door who have not only deviated from the common Faith themselves but cause others also so to do and attempt to destroy all that will not joyn with them Unless we may lay it also upon those Sectaries and Hereticks among us who are their Disciples who agree with them in many of their errors and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith of the Church of England As for the second That in our lives we do not manifest a principle utterly inconsistent with the truths we profess As Rome hath little reason to charge us with Schism in this respect whose lives generally are as abominable as their Doctrines So I may rather wish I could See p. 148 than professe I can acquit our Churches from the charge § 8 It cannot be denyed but the conversations of too many eminent Professors and Saints as they would be called are not such as becomes that truth of Doctrine which we have so long enjoyed And as for the last That we add not unto them in opinion or worship such things as are destructive of them or render them insufficient to be saving unto us For our worship we may I hope without offence say that it is in the publick Congregations whatever it is in private Conventicles according to the simplicity of the Gospel though perhaps in some circumstances defective wherein yet we are endeavouring a Reformation § 7 Thus far we are cleared of breach of Unity and so of Schism But I have intimated and partly proved there may be a breach of Union with respect to the Catholick Church upon other considerations As first there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church See pag. 205. § 7. to joyn together in exercising the same specifical Ordinances of worship When then any man shall refuse to joyn with others or refuse others to joyn with him in these Ordinances here is a breach of Love and Union among the members of the Catholick Church and in the particular Churches as parts of the Catholick And what thinks he of those Churches who deny Baptism to Infants altogether or those that deny Baptism to the children of godly Parents not of their own confederate Church and the Lords Supper to the Parents of such Children The Anabaptists do the one contrary to the practiâ—e of the Universal Church in all Ages since the Apostles and themselves do the other daylâ— as is too well known Is not this a raising of differences in the Universal Church a breach of union and so a Schism Yet as he is earnest to free himâ—elf from Schism in his sâ—paration so he seems not to think Anabaptism to be a Schism p. 226. He that will upon that account undertake to prove them Schismaticall may find himself to be entangled Of which more hereafter § 8 That this Catholick Church is visible he grants which others of his friends have denyed p. 146. That it is an Organical political body in a right sense is largely and learnedly proved by others Mr. Huds though he denies it to them I refer it One thing I cannot but take notice of he sayes It will not suffice to say that Christ is its Head for if as a visible politicall body it hath a politicall Head that Head also must be visible But 1. What necessity is there the Head must be visible p. 148. seeing he confesses the Common-wealth of the Jewes was a Politicall Body and God who is invisible was their Political Head 2. Jesus Christ the Head of the Church is a visible Head yea sometimes more visus seen of men while on earth though now for a time in Majesty as some great Princes do he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth yet is he seen of Angels and Saints in Heaven But that by the by CHAP. VI. Independentism is Donatism § 1 VVHat he sayes for many leaves together for vindication of Protestants from the charge of Schism in their just separation from Rome as the Catholicke Church I cannot but acknowledge to be rationall solid and judicious Onely I am not satisfied with his assertion That he not onely denyes the Church of Rome so called to be a particular Church p. 154. but also affirmes it to be no Church at all page 156. Wherein he hath deserted most