of church members of the right of the members of the Catholick church to all ordinances of the miscarriage of the Independents of church Matriculations and such like things not once considered by me in my proposall of the matter in hand are fallen upon By the way he fals upon my judgment about the inhabitation of the Spirit calls it an error and saies so it hath been reputed by all that are orthodox raising terrible suspitions and intimations of judgments on our way from God by my falling into that error when yet I say no more then the Scripture saith in expresse tearms forty times for which I referre him to what I have written on that subject wherein I have also the concurrence of Polanus Bucanus Dorchetus with sundry others Lutherans and Calvinists It may be when he hath seriously weighed what I have offered to the clearing of that glorious truth of the Gospell he may entertain more gentle thoughts both concerning it and mee The rest of the chapter I have passed thorow once and againe and cannot fix on any thing worthy of farther debate A difference is attempted to be found in my description of the union of a particular Church in this and another place because in one place I require the consent of the members to walke together in another mention only their so doing when the mention of that only was necessary in that place not speaking of it absolutely but as it is the difference of such a church from the church Catholick some impropriety of expression is pretended to be discovered id populus curat scilicet which yet is a pure mistake of his not considering unto what especiall end and purpose the words are used He repeats sundry things as in opposition to me that are things laid down by my selfe and granted Doth he attempt to prove that the union of a Church is not rightly stated he confesseth the form of such a Church consists in the obscrvance and performance of the same ordinances of worship numerically I aske is it the command of Christ that believers should so doe is not their obedience to that command their consent so to do are not particular churches instituted of Christ is it not the duty of every believer to join himselfe to some one of them was not this acknowledged above can any one do so without his consenting to do so is this consent any thing but his voluntary submission to the ordinances of worship therein As an expresse consent and subjection to Christ in generall is required to constitute a man a member of the Church Catholick visible so if the Lord Jesus hath appointed any particular church for the celebration of his ordinances is not their consent who are to walke in them necessary thereunto But the Topick of an explicite covenant presenting its selfe with an advantage to take up some leaves would not be waved though nothing at all to the purpose in hand After this my confession made in as much condescension unto compliance as I could well imagine of the use of greater assēblies is examined and excepted against as being in my esteem he saith though it be not so indeed a matter of prudence only But I know full well that he knows not what esteeme or disesteem I have of sundry things of no lesse importance The consideration of my postulata proposed in a preparation to what was to be insisted on in the next Chapter as influenced from the foregoing dissertations alone remaines and indeed alone deserve our notice My first is this The departing of any man or men from any particular Church as to the communion peculiar to such a Church is no where called Schisme nor is so in the nature of the thing it selfe but is a thing to be judged and recieve a title according to the circumstances of it to this he adjoines this is not the Question a simple secessiō of a man or mē upon some just occasion is not called schisme but to make causless differences in a Church and then separating from it as no Church denying communion with it hath the nature and name of schisme in all mens judgments but his own An. What Question doth our Reverend Author meane I feare he is still fancying of the difference between Presbyterians and Independents and squaring all things by that Imagination whether it be a Question stated to his mind or no I cannot tell but it is an assertion expressive of mine owne which he may do well to disprove if he can Who told him that raising causlesse differences in a Church and then separating from it is not in my judgment schisme May I possibly retaine hopes of making my selfe understood by this Reverend Author I suppose though that a pertinacious abiding in a mistake is neither schisme nor heresy And so this may be passed over My second is one Church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them is not Schisme properly so called The reply hereunto is twofold 1. That one Church may raise differences in and with another church and so cause Schisme 2 That the Independents deny any communion of churches but what is prudentiall and so that communion cannot be broken To the first I have spoken sufficiently before the latter is but an harping on the same string I am not speaking of Independent churches nor upon the principles of Independents much lesse on them which are imposed on them Let the Reverend Author suppose or aver what communion of churches he pleaseth my position holds in reference to it nor can he disprove it however for my part I am not acquaintcd with those Independents who allow no communion of churches but what is prudentiall and yet it is thought that I know as many as this Reverend Author doth Upon the last proposall we are wholly agreed so that I shall not need to repeat it only he gives me a sad farewell at the close of the Chapter which must be taken notice of is saith he not the design of his book to prove if he could and condemne us as no churches let the world be judge and I say let all the saints of God judge and Jesus Christ will judge whither I have not outragious injury done me in this imputation but saith he unless this be proved he can never justify his separatiō Sr. when your our brethren told the Bishops they thanked God they were none of them and defied the Prelaticall church did they make a separation or no were they guilty of Schisme I suppose you will not say so nor do I yet have I done any such thing in reference to you or your churches I have no more separated from you then you have done from me and as for the distance which is between us upon our disagreement about the way of reformation let all the churches of God judge on which side it hath been managed with more breach of love on yours or mine Let me assure you Sir through
to church priviledges they are indeed in some places as to providentiall advantages of hearing the word preached but woe unto them on that account it shall be more tolerable for Mahumetans in that day of Christ then for them shall their Baptisme availe them though it were valid in its administration that is was celebrated in obedience to the cōmād of Christ is it not null to thē is not their circumcision uncircūcision shall such persons give their children any right to church priviledges let them if you please be so subjects to Christ as Rebells and Traitors are subject to their earthly princes they ought indeed to be so but are they so do they owne their Authority are they obedient to them do they enjoy any priviledge of Lawes or doth the Apostle anywhere call such persons as live in a course of wickednesse manifesting principles utterly inconsistent with the profession of the Gospell brethren God forbid we should once imagine these things so to be And so much for that chapter CHAP. VIII Of Independentisme and Donatisme THe Title of our Authors book is Independency a great Schisme of this chapter that it may be the better known what kind of schisme it is Independentisme is Donatisme Men may give what title they please to their books and chapters though perhaps few books make good their titles I am sure this doth not as yet nisi accusasse sufficiat Attempts of proof we have not as yet met withall what this chapter will furnish us withall we shall now consider He indeed that shall weigh the title Independentisme is Donatisme then casting his eye upon the first lines of the chapter it selfe find that the Reverend Author saies he cannot but acknowledge that what I plead for the vindication of protestants from the charge of schisme in their separation from Rome as the Catholick church to be rationall solid and judicious will perhaps be at a losse in conjecturing how I am like to be dealt withall in the following discourse a little patience will let him see that our Author laies more weight upon the Title then the preface of this chapter and that with all my fine trappings I am enrolled in the black booke of the Donatists but 1 quod fo rs feret feramus aequo animo or as another saith debemus optare optima cogitare difficulima ferre quaecunque erunt as the case is fallen out we must deal with it as we can 1. He saith he is not satisfied that he not only denies the Church of Rome so called to be a particular Church pag. 154. but also affirms it to be no Church at all That he is not satisfied with what I affirm of that Synagogue of Sathan where he hath his throne I cannot helpe it though I am sorry for it I am not also without some trouble that I cannot understand what he means by placeing my words so as to intimate that I say not only that the church of Rome is no particular church but also that it is no church at all as though it might in his judgment or mine be any Church if it be not a particular church For I verily suppose neither he nor I judg it to be that Catholick Church whereto it pretends But yet as I have no great reason to expect that this Reverend Author should be satisfied in any thing that I affirme so I hope that it is not impossible but that without any great difficulty he may be reconciled to himselfe affirming the very same thing that I do p. 113. It is of Rome in that sence wherein it claims it self to be a church that I speak in that sence he saies it is no church of Christs institution and so for my part I account it no church at all but he adds that he is far more unsatisfied that I undertake the cause of the Donatists and labour to exempt them from Schisme though I allow them guilty of other crimes But do I indeed undertake the cause of the Donatists do I plead for thē will he manifest it by saying more against them in no more words then I haved one do I labour to exempt them from Schisme are these the waies of peace love and truth that the Reverend Author walks in do I not condemne all their practises and pretensions from the beginning to the end can I not speak of their cause in Reference to the Catholick Church and its union but it must be affirmed that I plead for them But yet as if righteousnesse and truth had been observ'd in this crimination he undertakes as of a thing granted to give my grounds of doing what he affirms me to have done The first is as he saies His singular notion of Schisme limiting it only to differences in a particular Assembly 2. His jealousy of the charge of Schisme to be objccted to himselfe and party if separating from the true Churches of Christ be truly called Schisme A. What may I expect from others when so grave and Reverend a person as this Author is reported to be shall thus deal with me Sr I have no singular notion of Schisme but embrace that which Paul hath long since declared nor can you manifest any difference in my notion from what he hath delivered nor is that notion of Schisme at all under consideration in Reference to what I affirme of the Donatists who in truth were concerned in it the most of them to them to the utmost but the union of the Church Catholick and the breach thereof Neither am I jealous or fearfull of the charge ' of Schisme from any person living on the earth and least of all from men proceeding in church affaires upon the principles you proceed on Had you not been pleased to have supposed what you please without the least ground or colour or reason perhaps you would have as little satisfyed your selfe in the charge you have undertaken to manage against me as you have done many good men as the case now stands even of your own judgment in other things Having made this entrance he proceeds in the same way and pag. 164. laye's the foundation of the title of his booke this chapter of his charge of donatisme in these words This lies in full force against him and his party who have broken the union of our churches and separated themselves from all the protestant churches in the world not of their own constitution and that as no true churches of Christ this I say is the foundatiō of his whole ensuing discourse all the groūd that he hath to stand upon in the defence of the Invidious title of this chapter and what fruit he expects from this kind of proceeding I know not The day will manifest of what sort this work is Although he may have some mistaken apprehensions to countenance his conscience in the first part of his assertion or that it may be forgiven to inveterate praejudice though it be false namely that I and my party
I am also very remote from mannaging any opposition unto it I thinke it necessary by vertue of precept and that to be continued in a way of succession It is I say according to the mind of Christ that he who is to be ordained unto office in any Church receive imposition of hands from the Elders of that Church if there be any therein And this is to be done in a way of succession that so the Churches may be perpetuated That alone which I oppose is the denying of this successive ordination through the Authority of Antichrist Before the blessed and glorious Reformation begun â—nd carried on by Zuinglius Luther Calvin and others there were and had been two States of men in the world professing the name of Christ and the Gospell as to the outward profession thereof The one of them in glory splendor outward beauty and order calling themselves the Church the only Church in the world the Catholike Church being indeed and in truth in that state wherein they so prided themselves the mother of harlots the beast with his false Prophet The other party poore despised persecuted generally esteemed and called Hereticks Schismaticks or as occasion gave advantage for their farther reproach Waldenses Albigenses Lollards and the like As to the claime of a successive ordination down from the Apostles I made bold to affirme that I could not understand the validity of that successive ordination as successive which was derived downe unto us from and by the first partie of men in the world This Reverend Authors reply hereunto is like the rest of his discourse pag. 118. He tels me this casts dirt in the face of their Ministry as do all their good friends the Sectaries and that he hath much a doe to forbeare saying The Lord rebuke thee How he doth forbeare it having so expressed the frame of his heart towards me others will judge the searcher of all hearts knowes that I had no designe to cast dirt on him or any other godly man's ministry in England Might not another answer have been returned without this wrath This is so or it is not so in reference to the ministry of this Nation If it be not so and they plead not their successive ordination from Rome there is an end of this difference If it be so can Mr. C. hardly refraine from calling a man Sathan for speaking the truth It is well if we know of what spirit we are But let us a little farther consider his answer in that place He asketh first Why may not this be a sufficient foundation for their Ministry as well as for their Baptisme if it be so be so acknowledged whence is that great provocation that arose from my enquiry after it For my part I must tell him that I judge their Baptisme good and valid but to deale clearly with him not on that foundation I cannot believe that that Idolater murtherer man of sin had since the dayes of his open Idolatry persecution and enmity to Christ any authority more or lesse from the Lord Jesus committed to him in or over his Churches But he addes secondly That had they received their ordination from the woman flying into the wildernesse the two witnesses or Waldenses it had been all one to mee and my party for they had not their ordination from the people except some extraordinary cases but from a Presbytery according to the institution of Christ So then ordination by a Presbytery Is it seemes opposed by me and my party but I pray Sir who told you so when wherein by what meanes have I opposed it I acknowledge my selfe of no party I am sory so grave a Minister should suffer himselfe to be thus transported that every answer every reply must be a reflection and that without due observation of truth and love That-those first reformers had their Ordination from the people is acknowledged I have formerly evinced it by undeniable testimony So that the proper succession of a Ministry amongst the Churches that are their off-spring runs up no higher than that rise Now the good Lord blesse them in their Ministry and the successive ordination they enjoy to bring forth more fruit in the earth to the praise of his glorious grace But upon my disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting the ministry of all those who yet hold their ordination on the accompt of its successive derivation from Rome he cries out egregiam verò laudem and saies that yet I secretly derive their pedigree from Rome well then he doth not so why then what need these exclamations we are as to this matter wholly agreed nor shall I at present farther pursue his discourse in that place it is almost totally composed and made up of scornefull revilings reflections and such other ingredients of the whole He frequently very positively affirms without the least hesitation that I have renounced my own ordination adds hereunto that what ever else they pretend unlesse they renounce their ordination nothing will please me that I condemn all other Churches in the world as no Churches but who I pray told him these things did he enquire so far after my mind in them as without breach of charity to be able to make such positive and expresse assertions concerning them A good part of his book is taken up in the repetition of such things as these drawing inferences and conclusions from the suppositions of them and warming himselfe by them into a great contempt of my selfe and party as he calls them I am now necessitated to tell him that all these things are false and utterly in part and in whole untrue and that he is not able to prove any one of them And whether this kind of dealing becomes a minister of the Gospell a person professing Godlinesse I leave it to himselfe to judge For my owne part I must confesse that as yet I was never so dealt withall by any man of what party soever although it hath been my unhappinesse to provoke many of them I do not doubt but that he will be both troubled and ashamed when he shall review these things That whole Chapter which he entitles Independentisme is Donatisme as to his application of it unto me or any of my perswasion is of the same importance as I have sufficiently already evinced I might instance in sundry other particulars wherein he ventures without the least check or supposition to charge me with what he pleaseth that may serve the turn in hand so that it may serve to bring in he and his party are Schismaticks are Sectaries have separated from the church of God are the cause of all our evills and troubles with the like tearmes of reproach and hard censures lying in a faire subserviency to a designe of widening the difference between us and mutually exasperating the spirits of men professing the Gospell of Jesus Christ one against another nothing almost comes amisse His sticking upon by matters diverting from the maine
I assure you Sr. I am more troubled with your not understanding the business and designe I mannage then I am with all your reviling termes you have laden me withall Once for all unlesse you prove that there was a separation frō that Church of Corinth be it of what constitution it may by any be supposed as such into another church and that this is reproved by the Apostle under the name of Schisme you speak not one word to invalidate the principle by me laid downe and for what he addes that for what I say there was no one church divided against another or separated from another is assumed but not proved unlesse by a negative which is invallid he wrests my words I say not there was no such thing but that there was no mention of any such thing for though it be as cleare as the noone day that indeed there was no such thing it sufficeth my purpose that there was no mention of any such thing and therefore no such thing reproved under the name of Schisme With this one observation I might well dismisse the whole ensuing treatise seeing of how litle use it is like to prove as to the businesse in hand when the Author of it indeed apprehends not the principle which he pretends to oppose I shall once more tell him that he abide not in his mistake that if he intend to evert the principle here by me insisted on it must be by a demonstration that the Schisme charged on the Corinthians by Paul consisted in the separation from and relinquishment of that church whereof they were members and congregating into another not before erected or established for this is that which the Reformed Churches are charged to do by the Romanists in respect of their Churches and accused of schisme thereupon But the differences which he thinks good to mannage and maintain with and against the Independents do so possesse the thoughts of this Reverend Author that what ever occurres to him is immediately measured by the regard which it seems to bear or may possibly bear thereunto though that consideration were least of all regarded in its proposall The next observation upon the former thesis that he takes into his examination so far as he is pleased to transcribe it is this Here is no mention of any particular man or number of men separating from the assembly of the whole church or subducting of themselves from its power only they had groundlesse causlesse differences amongst themselves Hereunto our Author variously replyes and saies 1. was this all were not separations made if not from that church yet in that church as well as divisions Let the Scripture determine chap. 1. 11. ch. 5. 3. I am a Disciple of Paul said one and I a Disciple of Apollo said another in our language I am a member of such a ministers congregation saies one such a man for my money and so a third and hereupon they most probably separated themselves into such and such congregations ana is not separation the ordinary issue of such envyings I doubt not but that our Reverend Author supposeth that he hath here spoken to the purpose and matter in hand and so perhaps may some others think also I must crave leave to enter my dissent upon the account of the insuing reasons for 1. It is not separation in the Church by mens divisions and differences whilst they continue members of the same Church that I deny to be here charged under the name of Scisme but such a separation from the Church as was before described 2. The disputes amongst them about Paul and Apollos the instruments of their conversion cannot possibly be supposed to relate unto Ministers of distinct congregations among them Paul and Apollos were not so and could not be figures of them that were so that those expressions do not at all answer those which he is pleased to make parallell unto them 3. Grant all this yet this proves nothing to the cause in hand men may crye up some the Minister of one congregation some of another and yet neither of them separate from the one or other or the congregations themselves fall into any separation wherefore 4 He saies probably they separated into such and such congregations But this is most improbable for first there is no mention at all of those many congregations that are supposed but rather the contrary as I have declared is expressly asserted 2. There is no such thing mentioned or intimated nor 3. are they in the least rebuked for any such thing though the forementioned differences which are a lesse evill are reproved again and againe under the name of Schisme so that this most improbable improbability or rather vaine conjecture is a very mean refuge and retreat from the evidence of expresse Scripture which in this place is alone inquired after-Doth indeed the Reverend Author think will he pretend so to do that the holy Apostle should so expresly weightily and earnestly reprove their dissentions in the church whereof they were members and yet not speak one word or give the least intimation of their separation from the church had there indeed been any such thing I dare leave this to the conscience of the most partially addicted person under heaven to the Authors cause who hath any conscience at all nor dare I dwell longer on the confutation of this fiction though it be upon the matter the whole of what I am to contend withall But he farther informes us that there was a separation to parties in the church of Corinth at least as to one ordinance of the Lords supper as appears c. 11. v. 18 21 22 23. and this was part of their Schisme v. 16. And not long after they separated into other Churches sleighting and undervaluing the first ministers and churches as nothing or lesse pure then their owne which we see practised sufficiently at this day A. Were not this the head seate of the first part of the controversie insisted on I should not be able to prevaile with my selfe to cast away precious time in the consideration of such things as these being tendered as suitable to the businesse in hand It is acknowledged that there were differences amongst them and disorders in the administration of the Lords supper that therein they used respect of persons as the place quoted in the margin by our Author Jam. 2. 1 2 3. manifests that they were ready to do in other places the disorder the Apostle blames in the administration of the ordinances was when they came together in the Church v. 18. when they came together in one place v. 20. there they tarried not one for another as they ought v. 33. but coming unprepared some having eaten before some being hungry v. 21. all things were mannaged with great confusion amongst them v. 22. and if this prove not that the Schisme they were charged withall consisted in a separation from that church with which they came together in one place
that 's the phraseology this Author in his love to unity delights in have broken the union of their churches which we have no more done then they have broken the union of ours for we began our reformation with them on even tearms and were as early at work as they yet what coulour what excuse can be invented to alleviate the guilt of the latter part of it that we have separated from all the reformed churches as no churches and yet he repeats this again pag. 106. with especiall reflexion on my selfe I wonder not saith he that the Doctor hath unchurched Roome for he hath done as much to England and all forraign 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 Now truly though all righteous laws of men in the world will afford recompence and satisfaction for calumniating accusations and slaunders of much lesse importance then this here publickly ownd by our Reverend Author yet seeing the gospell of the blessed God requires to forgive and passe by greater injuries I shall labour in the strength of his grace to bring my heart unto conformity to his will therein notwithstanding which because by his providence I am in that place and condition that others also that fear his name may be some way concern'd in this unjust imputatiō I must declare that this is open unrighteousness wherein neither love nor truth hath been observed How little I am concernd in his following parallell of Independentisme and Donatisme wherein he proceeds with the same truth and candor or in all that followes thereupon is easy for any one to judg He proceeds to scan my Answers to the Romanists as in reference to their charge of Schisme upon us and saies I do it sutable to my own principles And truly if I had not I think I had been much to blame I referre the Reader to the Answers given in my book and if he like them not notwithstanding this Authors exceptions I wish he may fix on those that please him better in them there given my conscience doth acquiesce But he comes in the next place to Arguments wherein if he prove more happy then he hath done in Accusations he will have great cause to rejoyce By a double Argument as he saies he will prove that there may be Schisme besides that in a particular Church His first is this Schisme is a breach of Union but there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible church His second this where there are differenccs raysed 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 matter of faith professed Ergo Having thus laid down his Arguments he falls to conjecture what I will answer and how I will evade but it will quickly appear that he is no lesse unhappy in arguing and conjecturing then he is and was in accusing For to consider his first Argument if he will undertake to make it good as to its forme I will by the same way of arguing ingage my selfe to prove what he would be unwilling to find in a regular conclusion But as to the matter of it 1. Is Schisme every breach of union or is every breach of Union schisme Schisme in the Ecclesiasticall notion is granted to be in the present dispute the breach of the union of a church which it hath by the institution of Christ and this not of any union of Christs institution but of one certaine kind of union for as was proved there is an union whose breach can neither in the language of the Scripture nor in reason nor common sense be called or accounted schisme nor ever was by any man in the world nor can be without destroying the particular nature of schisme and allowing only the generall notion of any separation good or bad in what kind soever So that secondly it is granted not onlie that there may be a breach of union in the Catholick church but also that there may be a breach of the union of the Catholick church by a deniall or relinquishment of the profession wherein it consists but that this breach of union is sehisme because sehisme is a breach of union is as true as that every man who hath two eyes is every thing that hath two eyes For his second it is of the same importance with the first there may be differences in the Catholick church and breaches of union among the members of it which are far enough from the breach of the union of that church as such Two professors may fall out and differ and yet I think continue both of them professors still Paul and Barnabas did so Chrysostome and Epiphanius did so Cyrill and Theodoret did so That which I denied was that the breach of the union of the catholick church as such is Schisme He proves the contrary by affirming there may be differences among the members of the catholick church that do not break the union of it as such But he saies though there be Apostasy or Heresy yet there may be Schisme also but not in respect of the breach of the same union which only he was to prove Besides evill surmizes reproaches false criminations and undue suggestions I find nothing wherein my discourse is concerned to the end of this chap. pag. 109. upon the passage of mine we are thus come off from this part of Schisme for the relinquishment of the Catholick church which we have not done and so to do is not schisme but a sin of another nature and importance he adds that the ground I goe upon why separation from a true church he must meane the catholick church or he speaks nothing at all the businesse in hand is no schisme is that afore mentioned that a schisme in the Scripture notion is onely a division of jugment in a particular assembly But who so blind as they that will not see the ground I proceeded on evidently openly solely was taken from the nature of the Catholick church its union and the breach of that union and if obiter I once mention that notion I do it upon my confidence of its truth which I here againe tender my selfe in a readinesse to make good to this Reverend Author if at any time he will be pleased to command my personall attendance upon him to that purpose To repeat more of the like mistakes and surmizes with the wranglings that ensue on such false suppositions to the end of this chapter is certainly needlesse for my part in and about this whole businesse of separation from the catholick church I had not the least respect to Presbyterians or Independents as such nor to the differences betweē them which alone our Author out of his zeale to truth and peace attends unto If he will fasten the guilt of Schisme on any