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
of no particular Church but only of the Catholick meeting together and having a Minister among them may not joyn together to worship God in prayer preaching and partaking of the Sacrament as well as the members of several particular Churches and himself among them may do the same as they do often at London and Oxford when he preaches unlesse he will count those Ordâ—nances then and there administred no acts of instituted worship And if he grant them to be worship how can he deny that Assembly to be a particular Church though it be not fixed nor gathered and united by any explicite Covenant or consent to live and dye together I shall only note again that herein he deserts his friends in New England Ubi supr who say particular Churches are parts of the universal as a Totum or Integrum And none think otherwise but they to use his words who have profit by the fable § 2 What then is the specificative form of a particular Church p. 114. The formall reason constituting a particular Church is their joyning together in the same numerical Ordinances for Gods worship It is true indeed the Catholick Church as now it is enlarged hath not the same specification form For whether it be considered as a Genus or as a Totum it cannot have the same form with the Species or parts But if it have another specificative form of its own it may from that be called an Universal Church as well as a particular from its form may be called a particular Church Why then is the Catholick called a Church Universal Because all Christians through the world excepting some individuals providentially excluded do upon the enjoyment of the same preaching of the Word the same Sacraments administred in Specie professe one common Faith Hope The sum is the specificative form of the Catholick visible Church if it have any is the profession of the same Faith and Hope of the Gospel whether the members enjoy the same Word and Sacraments administred in Specie or no And he needed not to have excepted any individualls providentially excluded from those Ordinances for himself tells us an instance of a man that never was partaker of those Ordinances and yet a subject of Christs visible Kingdom a member of this Church in the world p. 139. And before that supposes A man may be instructed in the knowledge of the Gospel by the Scripture it self and make profession of it where he lives though he be a thousand miles distant from any particular Church wherein the Ordinances are administred nor perhaps knows there is any such Church in the world p. 137. If then a joyning together in the same numerical Ordinances be the specificative form of a particular Church of which more anone why may not the profession of the same Faith and hope of the Gospel be the specificative form of the Catholick Church The truth is the Church considered in the threefold notion with the threefold differences is not distinguished into Species or hath any such specificative forms but is one and the same Church considered in that threefold Notion as the members may be considered as 1. Believers 2. As Professors 3. As Partakers of the same numericall Ordinances of worship as is said above and shall appear more hereafter § 3 The Union of this Church comes next to be considered which we shall easily grant him pag. 116. is not first the same with that of the Catholick invisible because many are members of this who are not true believers 2. Nor the same with that of a particular Church because many are of the Catholick who never were of a particular Church 3. Nor yet hath it its union by a Relation to any one Officer given to the whole or a subordination of Officers as Papists pretend In all these we consent with him and therefore passe by the large discourse about them as not concerned in it It consists saies he In the profession of one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5 p. 133. That all the members of the Catholick Church are united in this profession is very true but this is not all they are bound to more than this viz. to the exercise of the same specifical Ordinances to subjection to the same Discipline as also to Love to one another and where it is possible to the celebrating together of the same numerical worship And in any of these to make any differences is a breach of that union that ought to be among the members of the Catholick visible Church Whereupon that is a strange assertion or addition of his pag. 117. If there he not an institution for joyning in the same Numerical Ordinances the union of this Church is not really a Church-union For when Christ hath instituted that every Church meeting together and every member of of the Catholick Church should exercise the same specifical Ordinances is not this a Church union or union of Churches And let it then be considered That if every member of the Church Catholick may be a member of any or every particular Church where providence may cast him being rightly qualified thereunto having right first to the same specifical Ordinances as a member of the Catholick and then to the same numerical Ordinances where he comes and finds them as some of his own way do grant and cannot well be denyed then the denyal of such a person to joyn in those numerical Ordinances is a breach of that union and love which ought to be between the members of the Cath. Church which whether it may be called a Schism or no we shall examine hereafter Sure we are this is done continually by some particular Churches and members of the same § 4 The properties of that profession for the preservation of this Union he makes to be three 1. p. 134. That all necessary truths of the Gospel be believed and professed 2. That no other principle of the mind inconsistent with the real belief of those truths professed be manifested by the professors Those that are enemies of the Crosse of Christ are not any members of his Church 3. That no opinion error or false doctrine everting any necessary truth professed be added and deliberately professed also To which I have but this to say 1. The Apostles of Christ were for a time ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospel and some professors there were that had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost or no. Acts 19. Yet these were members of thâ— Catholick Church 2. Those whom the Apostle called enemies of the Crosse of Christ were Christians and so members at least of the Catholick Church if not of a particular As the incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth till he was ejected And it is a position of his own party A scandalous member tolerated is a member to all Ordinances for himself and his seed wherewith how this Reverend Author agrees may be seen
and never scrupled it to be rebaptized why not Ordination also without a new Ordination They received not baptism from them as if instituted by Antichrist but as an Ordinance of Christ They baptized not as Antichristian not as Bishops or Romish Priests but as Presbyters in whose hands we say Ordination also is Onely since we have taken away those humane Additions which they had sinfully introduced into the Ordinances of Christ The Scriptures are not the Inheritance of Rome but Priviledges for all the people of God where ever they find them and therefore we deny we received them from Rome any more than the Jews received the Golden vessells from Babylon because they were sent by the hands of Cyrus It s false then that Ordination is pleaded from the Authority of the Church of Rome p. 199. as such Nor doth the granting true Ordination as also true baptism to the Church of Rome prove that it is a true Church This he sayes he understands not They who ordained had no power so to do but as they were officers of that Church as such they did it and if others had ordained who were not officers of that Church all will confesse that action to be null Do but change the scene to baptism and heare what he will say They who baptized had no power so to do but as officers of that Church as such they did it both which must be denyed See Apol. against Brown Sect. 27. or he must deny his baptism They did it as Officers not as Officers of that Church that Papall Antichristian Hierarchy And if others had baptised ordained who were not Officers of that Church or they as Officers but not as Officers of that Church which is as a scab upon the hand no rationall man hitherto hath asserted that action to be null This is no such dark passage that the Doctour cannot see one step before him unlesse his new light hath dazled his eyes that he cannot see Wood for Trees which before he fell into this way he saw so many learned and pious men walk in before him For our parts See p. 199 But they who will not be contented c. we professe that in his way of personall qualifications and acceptation of the people to make a man without Ordination a Minister the passages in Scripture or Church stories are so darke that wee cannot see one step before us But this hath sufficiently by others been discussed CHAP. VII Of the particular Church and its Union § 1 VVE are now come to the last Acception of a Church as it frequently signifies a particular Church p. 202. though all the places produced by the Doctor do not I think prove that sense But I shall not contend about it That the Church of Hierusalem was called one Church is true but that those many thousands could meet in one Congregation in one place is nothing probable it possible But take his definition of a particular instituted Church It is a Societie 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 Individuall Ordiances according to the order by Christ prescribed In this definition there are some things to be considered 1. The definition of a particular Church by him given will be applicable and is by himselfe or others of his side applyed to the three severall notions of a Church or the Church in those severall notions 1. To the Catholick invisible Church It is a Societie of men called out of the World D. Ames The Church in generall is a societie of men called out of the world p. 64 s 2. by the Word to the obedience of the faith in Christ and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same Individuall Ordinances according to the order by Christ prescribed This is all of it true of the invisible Church they are called which will be the onely exception to the joynt performance of the worship of God in the same specificall and where its possible individuall Ordinances And all the members thereof ordinarily being of some particular Church it s both possible and necessary to joyne in that performance 2. The same may be said of the Catholick visible Church It is a Societie of men called out of the World by the Word c So himselfe describes it It is a collection of all that are duely called Christians in respect of their profession p. 113. and before that p. 112. All Professors of the Gospell throughout the World called to the knowledge of Christ by the Word do make up and constitute his visible Kingdome by their professed subjection to him which subjection hath reference to the commands of Christ to worship him in the same specificall Ordinances indefinitely and in the same Individualls where they are administred And the members of this Church living ordinarily in some particular Church its possible and necessary for them also to joyne in that performance And this is as much is the members of a particular Church are bound to no man being bound to what is to him impossible and it often happening by absence sicknesse or otherwise that it is not possible for them to joyne in that worship 3. That it is the definition of a particular Church we also grant as understood afore 4. But we shall adde by way of improvement that such societies are all our particular Congregations Societies of men called out of the world by the word c holding parallel in every particular with his definition and why we should not be esteemed and called Churches as well as theirs I am to learne the reason What exception may be made we shall heare an one § 2 2. The Order prescribed by Christ is not that all Christians must be of the same Individuall particular congregation but of this or that as is most convenient for them by their habitations Supposing severall meetings or Congregations in Jerusalem one of Paul another of Apollo c no man was obliged by any order from Christ to be of Pauls Congregation or of anothers so he joyned himselfe to one for the participation of the same Ordinances And when a Christian did joyne himselfe to this or that Congregation he did not explicitely enter into a Covenant Every belie is obliged to joyne himselfe to some one of those Churches that therein he may abide in doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer p. 206. to live and dye in this Congregation but thought himselfe bound to be of one by the obligation of his membership in the Catholike Church with a libertie reserved to remove to another if he saw just reason as our Authour will confesse anone Whence it is evident that from the beginning of Christianity there was no such explicite covenanting or as some speake marrying of the Minister and people or of people one to another that they might not depart without leave but as they had
of members together for observance of the Ordinances and to exercise mutuall duties of love to one another as hath been said But as I said above these are not three Churches differing specifically but a notionall distinction of that one Church or the members of it as they may be considered 1. As true believers 2. As professors of the same Faith 3. As partakers of the same worship Now its evident that one and the same person may be all these an invisible believer a visible professor and a fellow worshipper As we use to say in Philosophy there is a threefold life vegetative sensitive and rationall which may be all three in one man yet but one man or creature So then the forme of a particular Church if it have any is rather communion in the same numericall worship than joynt consent to communicate in that worship That consent Dr. Ames makes not the forme of a particular Church but the bond to tye the members faster together to their publick and private duties among themselves For as a man may be a believer or a professor and yet not have opportunity to communicate in the same worship as he said above â—o all and eâ—ery member of a Church every Christian is bound to beleive to professe that faith and to joyne in the performance of the same numericall worship when and where onely he hath opportunity Which he granted above p. 205. § 12 But I desire to know what he means by that joynt consent of all the members of a particular Church I suppoâ—e he intends it as his predecessors did of an explâ—cite covenant entered by every partie that joynes in that societie gathered or to be gathered This is their dayly practise But then I desire an instance of any Church in Scripture or story so consenting so coâ—enanting as before And withall I would aske whether none be members of his Congregation but onely such as give this explicate consent If he say Not any but such I aske whether the Children of such Chuch-members born and bred up in that Church be not to be accounted members If he say they are confaedâ—rate in their parents I regest that 's but an Implicite consent but he required an explicite one And then I would tell him that the brethren of New England grant that an Implicite consent or covenant is sufficient to make our Churches true Churches and yet oâ—r brethren here separate from us as no Churches 2. I wouâ—d gladly be informed where the Scripture speaks of any other consent or Covenant to Church-membership than that of Christianitie wherein they engaged at baptism to serve God according to his will and word and to walke up to all duties of all Relations one towards another 3. I would yet be satisfyed whether this explicite consent be exclusive that none may partake of those Ordinances common to all Christians in their societies but such as enter this consent Their practiâ—e here and in New England is or hath been that none can have Communion with them in Church Ordinances but onely such as are confdoecrate 1. They will not baptize the child of the most godly parent nor admit to the Supper the best knowing and pious perâ—on not matriculated into their Church If they have relinquish'd this practise it s well but if they have they destroy their own principles and prove themselves the more injurious to our Churches in separating from them 5. And as for those offices of Love spoken of I aske once more are they also exclusive to be tendered to none but their own combined members It should seeme so because they are here limited to the members of this particular Church in their respective places and stations And their practise hath been answerable As they account none to be within but such so some have said They had no more to do with a Christian not of their own way than with an Heathen How truely is Schism attended with breach of Charitie § 13 But yet behold his liberalitie I shall further grant that over and above the unâ—on p. 216. that is between the members of severall particular Churches by virtue of their interest in the Church Catholick which draws after it a necessitie of the occasionall exercise of love one towards another and that Communion they have as members of the Catholicke visible Church c There is aâ—â—â—mmunion also to be observed between those Churches as such which is or may be exerted in their Assemblyes by their Delegates c What doth he meane That the members of each particular Church among themselves have communion but not with the members of another particular Church That was their practise somewhere Or that the members of severall particular Churches have union and communion in the worship of God in the same Church This was not their practise once though they were Churches of the same constitution with their own A member of one Church might not receive the Supper in another Nor one Minister administer baptism or the Supper in another's Church preach they might as gifted brethren which they allowed them to do to Heathens What union or communion was here of severall Churches And for those Offices of love he speaks of they were onely occasionally which they owe and tender to an Heathen which not onely their interest in the Catholicke Church but even the Law of Humanitie drawes after it an occasionall exercise of duties of Love as the Samaritane once expressed In a word this Communion of members of severall Churches is nothing but what is due to and from the members of the Catholick visible Church that never were joyned in communion with any particular Church Lastly as for that communion between Churches as such in their Assemblyes by Delegates it is not a commâ—n â—n in his esteeme by an institution of Christ but a matter of prudence onely which he so much decryed before p. 210. § 14 And now we are coming to consider how he can wash his hands from the guilt of Schism in making dâ—fferences first and then separating from our Churches To this end he layes down some Postulata which he takes as granted because before debated which are all disproved and need not here to be done againe Yet we shall briefly take notice of them and give them a further answer p. 217. 1. That the departing of any man or men from any particular Church as to that communion peculiar to such a Church is no where called Schism nor is so in the nature of the thing it selfe c. This is not the question as was said above A simple secession of a man or men upon some juâ—t occasion is not called Schism But to make causelesse differences in a Church and then separating from it as no Church denying communion with it hath the nature and name of Schism in all mens judgments but his own Yea according to his own principles to rase differences in a Church is propery Schism to persist in
had and took it again of the people 2. The Bohemians did it but once prima 〈◊〉 but afterwards kept up Ordination by Ministers and not by the people but ours still continue it by the people I might add a third but I forbear § 28 5. What was the way of the first Reformation p. 272. in this Nation and what principles those godly men proceeded on how far what they did may be satisfactory to our consciences c. It is confessed on both sides they did 〈◊〉 in well but by the badnesse of the times were not able to finish their work But how unsatisfactory their wayes and principles are to our brethrens consciences to concurr with them their practise does demonstrate walking contrary â—o them in deformation of the Church not repairing the oâ—â— but founding and building up a new Church and renouncing their principles 6. Whether ordinary Officers be before or after the Church and whether a Church-state is preserved in the preservation of Officers forraâ—gn to that Church or the Office be preserved and consequenly the Officers in the preservation and constitution of a Church is the last thing oâ— importance to be considered For the first whether ordinary Officers were before the Church hath been discussed elsewhere Instances may be given on both sides Sometimes the Church is before the ordinary Officer viz. when one dying another succeeds to that Church in his room Sometimes the ordinary Officer is before the Church aâ— in the gathering of a Church out of Heathens Mr. Eliot in New England an ordinary Officer he converts and baptizes many Indians and gathers them into a Church I hope they do not look for extraordinary Officers now as the Seekers of late did I know his exception aboâ—e This is in ecclesiae constituenda not in ecclesia constituta but I shall give him another instance suppose a Minister comes young to a people lives till all the ancient people he found there be deceased All that remain in the Parish were admitted by him into the Church by baptism here the Officer is before the Church in a Church constituted But this is as very a nicitie as which is first the Hen or the Egg. I perceiâ—e what he aimes at in the second question See pag. 199. They who will not be contented c. Whether a Church-state is preserved in the Officer or the Officer in the constitution of a Church He upon his principles must hold the latter part for he holds that no man is an Officer out of his own Church is either the Church be destroyed or he be removed from it he ceases to be an Officer whence it follows that 1 No Minister quà Minister can convert the Heathens 2 That if all Church-state be lost it cannot be raised up by an Officer who is forraign to that Church as he speaks here The result is according to his principles the Office first and then the Officers inclusively is preserved in the constitution of a Church As how A company of single Christians So the Anabaptists Confess â—ct 36. may meet and joyn themselves in a Church society which done they may out of themselves for other Churches or Ministers are forraign to to them chuse them Officers and set them apart by fasting and Prayer This is pretty and never exemplyfied in an ordinary case till t'other day But he forgot the main businesse that he supposes all Church-state lost but these Christians joyning together are supposed to be baptized which is a part of a Church-state and without which they could never make a Church much lesse an Officer as was discoursed above To raise up and revive a decayed Church-state in an ordinary way there is but one of these waies either a Minister in Office must baptize converted Heathens and so make them a Church or a company of baptized persons when no Minister is to be found must for once joyn and chuse themselves Officers which comes near to an extraordinary cafe and not among us now to be made use of but yet still the Church-state depends upon the Minister originally that baptized them and not upon those people supposing them unbaptized But more of this above When he takes those important things he speaks of into his discussion let him take those things by me propounded into consideration also as things of some importance § 29 The task undertaken is now at it issue p. 273. The miscarriages that he speaks of as ensuing for want of a due and right apprehension of the thing that is Schism we have been now long exercised in the consideration of may with no more ease than truth be rolled back upon himself It is not impossible that he may begin to apprehend that he hath been too hasty to judging our Churche to be none and himself and his party no Schismaticks in separating from them as no Churches And it may perhap appear to him that he is the man that is more ready to charge highly than able to make good his charge The Schisms that have ensued by their causlesse imputation of a no-Church-state among us and setting up new Churches is too well known And being in one fault of renouncing communion with us he hath now confirmed himself and his party in it by a new but false notion of Schism which none of his Predecessors had the hap to stumble upon I might parallel the rest in that Section but I forbear and leave it to the Reader § 30 2. In these differences about the way of Religion we have endeavoured to drive them to their Rise and Spring p. 275. and find Schism to be as formidable in its first Original in respect of its terminus a quo as in the streams though much increased by many generations in regard of the terminus ad quem And I cannot but observe how he seems to extenuate the crime of Schism before aggravated by his comparisons Schism at its first rise and Scripture notion if he mistake not was but a little Spring but swelled to a great breadth by mens disputations about it Hear his swelling words What a stood of abominations doth Schism seem to be as rolling down to us through the writings of Cyprian Austin and Opratus of old c. Go to its rise and you will find it quite another thing As if he had said Schism is not so formidable a thing as it 's made by all but himself if you would but take it for some petty differences within one Assembly the charge of it is not so dreadful as some would makestâ— For so he adds p. 276. Whilst I have an uncontroulable faithful witness that I do not willingly break any unity of the institution of Christ. p. 277. Whilst I disturb not the Peace of that particular Church whereof by my own consent I am a member nor do raise up nor continue in any can slessâ—d differences with them or any of them with whom I walk in the fellowship
p. 207. to which humane prudence may add nothing is a certain truth denyed by none but fanatical spirits And as for the institution of particular Churches by express words of Scripture it is no where visible but by a fair and necessary consequence That which is of Institution was that Gods people should serve and worship him severally and joyntly in such and such Ordinances of worship and consequently by a necessity of nature there must be a place for people to meet together in or more as their number is God institutes publick prayer preaching Sacraments therefore there must be societies to perform this worship 1. Because of the multitude of Christians which can neither meet all in one place nor exercise those acts of worship in too great a company 2. For the better obligation of all professors as to the exercise of all acts of publick worship which some if left free to joyn with all or any would utterly neglect so of all those private duties required of fellow members which cannot well be performed as was said by persons not conbined But the circumstances of those societies how many how great what persons shall associate is left to humane prudence with an eye to the general Rules of Scripture that all be done decently in order and to edification And that those that are so joyned are so confined that they cannot or may not worship God in the same Ordinances occasionally in other Churches let him that can shew the Institution for I know none yet this is the chief piece of Independency never yet undertaken to be proved by any of that party Our Author grants that a man is at Liberty to settle in what Congregation he pleases and remove at pleasure And the light of common prudence upon supposition that there must be such societies seems to to dictate that when all of a Nation are Christians there should be a distinction o Churches or as we call them Parishes made by the bounds of mens habitations so that the divisions be discreetly made that the Congregations be neither too big nor too litle and that the parties of each Society may dwell so near together that they may be fitter to perform the services of God in publick decently and in order to edification and also those mutual private duties of brotherly inspection Admonition c. required by Christ Matth. 18.15 1 Thessal 5.14 c. § 7 And this he in a manner confesses That there is in the Institutions of Christ p. 209. much that answers a naturall principle in men who are fitted for society A confederation and consultation to carry on any design of common concernment c. I suppose he may intend this of Synods carryed on by Delegates from several Churches which is sutable to that prudence we see in States assembling in Parliament c. But I shall improve this further As the light of nature taught men to unite themselves in Towns and Cities for their better security and mutual assistance and comfort So the same prudence taught the Ancients to distinguish Cities into Parishes for their better Assembling some else would be of no Church as pretending to be of all or any as we see at this day for carrying on the services of God in a better and more profitable Order and for those private duties afore spoken of Nor does any man rationally hence conclude That there is no more but this in this Church constitution that men may be cast into any prudential form c. For the way of worship is peculiarly instituted but the way of constituting particular Churches for persons for number c. needs no institution but is left to the prudence of men or Churches as afore § 8 Whether by any promise of Christ there shall be alwaies somewhere a visible Church visibly celebrating his Ordinances p. 211. he told us above was a needless enquiry p. 85. yet both there and here enclines to the Negative that all such Church state may cease for some time and hereafter talks of an intercision of all Ordinances so far as to make a nullitie in them as to what was of simple and pure institution p. 271 In this pâ—ace he glosses some Scriptures alledged of others as meant of the Catholick visible Church to be understood of the spiritual Reign of Christ in true believers Luke 1.33 Math. 16.18 Of the sense of which place I shall not now contest with him For the thing it self something shall be said in answering those questions which here he propounds 1. It is said true Churches were at first planted in England how then did they cease to be How or by what Act did God unchurch them They did it themselves meritoriously by Apostacy and Idolatry God legally by his Institution of a Law of rejection of such Churches But first if Idolatry and grievous Apostacy will merit an actual unchurching not only the Israelites but they of Judah had deserved it long before they were unchurched And if Apostacy in a great measure will unchurch a people England hath of late years Apostatiz'd sufficiently from our Ancient truths 2. Where hath God instituted such a Law to reject a Church presently so soon as it proves Idolatrous or Apostatical Rome had not then been standing at this day 3. It is a question whether God ever absolutely unchurches a people till he utterly destroys them as he did the Israelites of old and the whole Jewish Church after Christs death and the seven famous Churches of Asia since 4. As also it would be resolved when God did unchurch England which he insinuates as granted Whether whilst it was Popish Antichristian or since the Reformation 5. Let him resolve us whether our first Reformers did intend or undertake to raise up a new Church or to repair the old corrupted state thereof as they that returned from the Babylonish Captivity did not build a new Temple but repair and purge the old 6. Whether at the Reformation in K. Edw. Q. Eliz. days there were not true Churches planted in England then how they came to cease to be seeing they were rather perfected since than corrupted 7. Lastly Whether our Reverend Author do not in his conscience think There were no true Churches in England till the Brownists their Fathers the Anâ—baptists their elder Brothers and themselves arose and gathered new Churches not out of true Churches but out of Babylon as their Predecessors used to speak which he yet seems to insinuate when he saies The Catholick mystical p. 212. and that visibly professing being preserved entire he that thinketh there needs a miracle for those who are members of them to joyn in such a Society as those spoken of according to the Institution of Christ is a person delighting in needless scruples As if he should say There was no Church of Christs Institution in England till they or their Predecessors arose and gathered such Societies and when all Church State was here lost
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
order of the Gospel whilst I labour to exercise faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ and love towards all the Saints I do keep the unity which is of the appointment of Christ and let men say from principles utterly forreign to the Gospel what they please or can to the contrary I am no Schismatick That is though by raising differences I set all the Churches of England on fire I am no Schismatick if I disturb not the peace of my own particular Church How true and reasonable the particulars of his enumeration are let the impartial Reader judge § 31 3. I still return him his own words with a very little change p. 277. Perhaps the discovery which hath been made how much he and his party are concerned in that charge of Schism upon them which is the greatest ball of strife this day in England with respect to the Church may be a most effectual engine or means to reconcile them that truly fear God though engaged in several waies I can heartily say Amen to this but yet must add what follows I have not any great hope of much success on this account whilst men are fore-stalled with prejudices and have their affections engaged thereunto c. But all our hearts are in the hand of God c. § 32 4. To conclude What vaâ—n janglings men are endlesly engaged in who will lay their own false hypotheses such as the Authors new notion of Schism is as a ground of farther procedure is in part evident by what hath been delivered Hence is that doughtie dispute 1. Which is first the Hen or the Egg the Church or its Officers 2. Whether a man may be a Schismatickâ— that is not a member of a particular Church 3. Whether the member of one Church may partake of the Sacraments in another Church and that of the same constitution 4. Whether the child of a scandalous person may be baptized by the Minister of that Church 5. Whether our Churches be true Churches our members true members because not gathered by an explicite Covenant Which as it was never doubted of by Non-conformists at home nor any Reformed Churches abroad till Brownists arose so it may be concluded from his own words in his conclusion He is a member or a particular Church who having been in a due order p. 279. joyned thereunto hath nâ—â—ther voluntarily desâ—rted it nor been judicially ejected out of it But I assume The members of our particular Churches have been in a due order joyned 〈…〉 and neither voluntarily haâ—e deserted them I noâ— been judicially ejected out of them Therefore they are true members of particular Churches and conâ—equently our Churches are true Churches and by a further consequence They that raise differences in them and draw disciples from them and renounce communion with them say they what they please or can to the contrary are Schismaticks Quod erat demonstrandum AN APPENDIX TO The former Discourse of Schism Shewing the inconstancy of the Dr. and the inconsistency of his former and present Opinions § 1 SInce my finishing of the former Discourse there came happily to my hands a Book of the Learned Doctors entitled The duty of Pastors and people distinguished licensed and highly commended by the Reverend and judicious Mr. Joseph Caryl as Written with much clearnesse of judgment and moderation of Spirit put forth in the year 1644. By comparing whereof with this of his of Schism I perceive that wise and judicious men are still but men subject to mistakes and therefore had need of some of the policy or prudence of the five Apologists Apol. Narr pag. 11. not to be too peremptory in their new opinions or wayes not too presumptuous in despising others proceedings but to reserve to themselves a latitude and to keep some casements open to take in New light This our Reverend Authour hath exemplyfied to be necessary for himself to make use of as well as others of his present Independent way or else he will be concluded to contradict himself and in many things to make good the Apostles Dictate Jam. 1.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet had he changed to the better from errour to Truth the thing had been not only justly excusable but truly commendable and might have been salved by a Tract of Retractations as Austin sometime did without any prejudice to his Reputation But to run from opinion to opinion from way to way from truth to errour as many have done not only to contrariety but to contradiction and and take no notice of the difference of Judgment and inconstancy of opinions and waies is too palpable a discovery of an unsettled Spirit that knows not where to fix All the hope is that if their new Notions waies be really discovered ingenuously by them acknowledged to be erroneous they that can change from truth to errour may in Gods good time which is very rare change back again from errour to truth Which wishing that the Dr. and his party may do I shall only present to him â—ome few of his former thoughts to shew in how dissonant they are to his later modernâ— kings § 2 In this Tract his main design is to discover the distance between the Pastors and their people pag. 2. that the sacred calling may retain its ancient dignity and the people of God not deprived of their Christian liberty For in former times he tells us Some would have all Christians to be almost Ministers others none but Ministers to be Gods Clergy Those would give the people the Keyes these use them to lock them out of the Church The one ascribing to them primarily all Ecclesiastical power for the ruling of the Congregation the other abridging them of spiritual duties for the building up of their own souls as though there were no habitable earth between the valley I had almost said the piâ— of Democraticall confusion and the rock of Hierarchical tyranny Who these parties were needs no comment to declare only it would be observed whether our Author be not since fallen into that very pit of Democratical confusion by flying from the rock of Hierarchical tyranny I leave it to his consideration Evident it is that in a true Church-state he sets out the limits or the people that they may not under a pretence of Christian liberty invade the dignity of the sacred calling of the Ministry And much he grants to the people both under the Law and Gospel Alwaies provided that they abstain from fingring the Arke or medling with those things which were appropriated to the office of the Priests p. 17. or of the Minister p. 46. except they can shew some extraordinary call or case for their so doing p. 28. of which he thus delivers his opinion and states the question In cases extraordinary it may perhaps be affirmed that every Christian is so far a Minister of the Gospel as to teach and declare the faith to others although he have no outward
must be taken cum graâ—â— salis or else they may prove insipid if not worse As 1. Christ took upon him our nature essentially but he bestows his flesh and blood upon us spiritually and mystically 2. The union of the two natures in Christ was proper and personal into one person hypostatically as the Soul and Body in us make one man But the union of many persons with Christ is not into one nature properly but mystically into one person we are members of his body flesh bones but mystically otherwise the union of many persons into one nature should be like that of Christs two natures into one person hypostatically And like unto the union of the three persons in the Trinity into the same nature or essence which is incomprehensible 3. We are made parts of him of his mystical body that he and we become thereby as it were that is improperly and mystically one Christ 4. We are made partakers of the Divine nature not essentially and personally as Christ but in its graces and operations as generally all Divines understand it renewed by the Spirit into that Divine Image which we had by nature but lost by the fall 5. The same Spirit is indeed in Christ and in us but with this assigned difference In him dwelleth the fulness of it fulness of grace and truth Joh. 1.14 it is bestowed on us in measure 6. This same Spirit makes us one with him that is still mystically not as the Soul of man being one makes with the body one man for that is hypostatically and personally one The words thus expounded and candyed may passe for Orthodox otherwise not to be admitted But now in his Tract of Schism p. 94. of Schism he is declined into that Heterodox opinion so judged by most and best Divines that the holy Spirit dwells personally and essentially in us For 1. he tells us he cannot consent that the Divine nature given us should be no more than the new creature 2 That it is in the person of the Spirit wherof we are by the promise made partakers he is the Spirit of promise pag. 95. and in the participation of the Divine nature consists the union of the Saints with Christ 3. That the union of the head and members is the oneness of the Soul whereby the whole is animated and that which answers hereunto in the mystical body of Christ is the animation of the whole by his Spirit Now every body knows that the Soul is the form of a man and the union of Soul and Body is personal So then must the union of Christ and his body the Church be personal as animated by the same Spirit if the person of the holy Spirit be the Soul that animates the body of Christ And so he saies it is The form of the Church Catholick p. 236. absolutely so called is the unity with Christ and in it self by the one Spirit whereby it is animated I shall not enter upon the contest at this time it being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main businesse its enough to shew the difference of himself from himself then and now § 5 We now return after this digression to consider with him the evidences and signs of an extraordinary vocation which some of late pretend unto There is only one thing briefly to be taken notice of that is Whether the Ministers of the Gospel are by the Scripture to be called Priests which name some have arrogated and ascribed to the Clergy O which he affirms peremptorily p. 25. The name of Priests is no where in the Scripture attributed distinctly to the Ministers of the Gospel Priests and Prelates are a sort of Church Officers whom Christ never appointed c. These were his then thoughts and its like are so still only I would desire to know why he gives that name its suppoâ—ed in scorn to the Ministers of our particular Congregations calling them Parochial Priests or Schism p. 235. I leave him to give or others to guesse the reason of that Appellation and so proceed to what I named before § 6 There are but three waies given by him to receive and be assured that a man is extraordinarily called to the Teaching of others or to be a Preacher 1. p. 30. By immediate Revelation 2. By concurrence of Scripture Rules 3. By some outward acts of providence Concerning w ich in general it may be said 1. That p. 28. he thus resolved In cases extraordinary it may perhaps be affirmed that every one that is allowed to teach or preach the Gospel for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God But of all his three wayes named only one of them is by immediate call from God viz. that of immediate Revelation such as the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles had the other by Rules of Scripture and Acts of providence are but mediate calls or warrants and may be common to all Christians as the case may be 2. Before this p. 15. and again p. 40. In such extraordinary cases of a corrupt Church c. no more is required but Gifts in the man and consent of the people which latter is an outward call and that by men and the former a call from God inward indeed but not immediate These things do not well agree § 7 But come to the particulars The first way of extraordinary calling is immediate Revelation This is specially in two cases p. 33. 1. Either the inchoation of some divine worke to be established among men by a new revelation of Gods will 2. Or a restauration of the same when collapsed and corrupted by men The only question will be Whether there be any revelation to be expected now with respect to either of those And he answers negatively to both To the first thus Nothing in such a way shall again take place God having ultimatly revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation c. To the second thus There being an infallible Rule for the performance of it making it fall within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation and instructed with ordinary Gifts God doth not alwaies immediatly call men unto it But grant that he doth not alwaies immediatly call men to it as oft he did heretofore it would have been resolved Whether sometimes God do now immediatly call men to the work of Restauration of Religion To which he saies nothing If he shall say he does not he contradicts himself who said p. 28. In this case of a corrupted Church every one for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God If he say he does sometimes immediatly now call men to it I would say 1. This is needless by his own grant For there being an infallible rule it falls within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation instructed with ordinary Gifts as he newly said 2. And then I would call for those