Ordinances of the worship of God p. 245. are rightly to be administred only in a Church and Ministers do evidently relate thereunto the denyal of a National Church-state seems to deny that we had either Ministers or Ordinances here in England How will he answer this especially having renounced his own Ministry received in this National Church and all besides in respect of Church Communion except his Baptism as null or naught Thus he saies and that 's all It may seem so to do but it doth not unlesse you will say that unlesse ye be a National Church-state there is no other which is too absurd for any one to imagine The consequence cannot well be denyed in his notion of this Church For if there were no Ministers but ordained by those National Officers and those Officers not of Christs institution as he hath often pleaded it follows necessarily that first there were no Ministers lawful in this Church and so no Ordinances truly administred in it and at last no Church at all This I doubt or rather believe by what he hath said is his judgement but he durst not speak out For I ask Does he in his conscience believe there were any true Ministers in this Church in the time of its being National and if no Ministers no Ordinances rightly administred But why does he not tell us what that other Church-state is of which he speaks he denies all but the Independent state of new gathered Churches which were not found in the Prelates times except some Brownistical Societies we shall not thank him for this jejune and empty vindication but shall plead for our selves Our former Divines of the first reformation and since have pleaded and justifyed their Ordination for the essentialls of it received from Rome which being purged from all those super-induced corruptions they propagated unto us who may therefore the better justifie our own Those Bishops that ordained us had as he told us above a double capacitie One as Lord Bishops received from the state p. 227. Another as Ministers of the Gosspell to preach administer Sacraments to joyne in Ordination of Ministers p. 231. Now in this latter some of themselves professed and so we understood it that they ordained Presbyters as presbyters not as Bishops Hence it followes that though they presumed to themselves a Lordly power not according unto the institution of Christ whereby they called themselves a nationall Church c. Yet the Ordination being according to the Rule of the Gospell as we beleive it is sufficiently proved and never yet sufficiently answered there were Ministers lawfully called and Ordinances by them rightly administred and that is the other Church state which he would not doe us the honour to name least he should there by condemn himself as a Schismatick in departing from this Church-state These true and faithfull Ministers with their people in their severall Congregations administring the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ whereof their baptism was one were and still are the true Church-state of England for which we plead and he hath forsaken Some additions of humane prudence cannot annull the Ordinances of Christ § 6 The way of the prelates he told us p. 235. p. 246. to stablish a nationall Church was descendendo of the Presbyterians ascendendo That is that such a thing should rise from the particular Congregations by sundry Associations and subordinations of Assemblyes in and by the representatives of those Churches But this may prove a mistake For 1. The Presbyterians rather goe descendendo as well as the prelates did at least in part They agree both in this that they acknowledge their rise and originall to be from the Apostles who were the first founders of all Churches and the supreme Officers of the Church For them were other Ministers ordained in subordination to them Bishops say some Archbishops and then Bishops say others and they ordained Presbyters subordinate unto them or as he styles them parochiall Priests p. 235 The Presbyterians say the Apostles first made Presbyters and gave them power to rule their particular Churches and as occasion required to meet together by Delegates in a Classis or Synod as that â—t Jerusalem consisted partly of Elders with the Apostles 2. They lay the rise of Ministerial power to be universall as well as the Prelates supposing a Minister to be a Minister in what part soever of the world his lot happen to be and do not upon his removall give him a new Ordination though he may not for order sake exercise that power but when and where he hath a call 3. That call may be different 1. as he is called to take care of a particular Congregation 2. as a Delegate to a Classis or Synod which himself allowes in the Independent way as above 3. As he is in the absence of a particular Minister desired to Preach or Baptise or do any other Ministeriall dutie to another people as when the Parliament commands Doctor O. to Preach a Sermon to and pray with them Now this Delegation which he meanes by ascendendo doth not give him a new power distinct from what he had before by his Ordination but a particular designation to act this power pro hic nunc As he hath often heard but will take no notice of it § 7 Whether a Church may be called nationall p. 247. when all the particular Congregations of one nation agreeing in doctrine and worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblyes as some learned Divines have asserted I will not dispute but leave what they have said to the further consideration of their Adversaries Though this may be said they did not make this the only or the principall way of that denomination That was rather when all the Congregation of a nation agree in the Doctrine and worship and celebrate it accordingly The Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to the Church nor absolutely necessary and the Church may exist and be nationall without it much lesse do any of ours say That subjection to one civill Government and agreement on the same doctrine and worship specifically c doth constitute one Church or as he expresses it afterwards p. 251. they do not say that being under one civâ—ll government does constitute a Nationall Church for if so sayes he its forme and unitie as such must be given it by the civill Government For the unitie thereof consists still in the agreement in the same doctrine and worship and not in the modell of civill Government of what kind soever p. 250. And if he allow as he does an Association of the Delegates from severall Churches to meet for matters of common concernment by the same reason whether it be by Institution or prudence he must allow those subordinate Assemblyes For the light of nature teaches the necessitie of Appeales in male-administrations for ending of troubles and decision of differences in particular Congregations as was instanced in the
instituted Rulers of the Church walking in the truths and waies of Christ as well as against any other members of the Church it may be so far called Rebellion against the Rulers of the Church as they that despâ—se Christs Embassadors despise Him also the mischiefs whereof extend to the whole Church And commonly the Schism begins against the Rulers of the Church as that against Moses and Aaron did So that at Corinth in Clements time This is too evident at this time That all the present Schisms strike principally at the Ministers of the Gospel All Sects contending against them primarily and reproaching of them either as Antichristian He calls them parochial Priests pag. 235. or as no true Ministers besides worser names of ignominie and contempt wherein the Dr. and his party are not a little guilty as will appear before we have done § 16 Whether Schismaticks be Church Members or no is a question of no great concernment The Doctor is peremptory It is impossible a man should be a Schismatick p. 51. unless he be a Church member If he mean it of a member of the Catholick Church it s granted for an Heathen cannot be a Schismatick But if he mean as I believe he does no man can be such unless he be a member of a particular Church it is made appear to the contrary above and shall be more hereafter For the present I only say Suppose a Schismatick of himself departs from the Church or is ejected by the Church yet still persists to maintaine the differences by him raised in that Church I desire to know whether he ceases to be a Schismatick because he is now no member of that Church or is not still such by the Doctors own principles But too much of that § 17 Upon the Definition of Schâ—sm given by himself A causless difference or division amongst the members of any particular Church pag. 52. Is not this a mans definition the strength of it this such an act is Schisme therefore none else is See p. 44. that meet or ought to meet to the worship of God c. he proceeds to deliver the Aggravations of the sin of Schism wherein I shall agree with him fully though not in his definition in all particulars as was said above That that is a Schism I confess contains a part but not the whole nature thereof For as I believe a Schism may be made in a particular Church by one that is no member thereof seducers use to creep into houses and Churches and raise differences So I think a particular Church or some members of it may make a Schism in from the Catholick Church or other particular Churches which shall be capable of those aggravations by him given Look as in the body natural there may be supposed a Schism amongst the fingers of either hand whereof they are the more immediate members which yet may truly be said to be a Schism in relation to the whole body which hath influence into and interest in those members and shall suffer not a litle by their divisions So it is in the body mystical though the divisions immediatly disturb the particular Church where they arise yet they also reach to the disquiet and danger of the next Congregations and then of the whole Church A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump A mutinie begun in a single troop hath been the ruin of the whole Army The Design however disclaimed p. 47. f. I fear is this This definition of Schism is forelaid and so oft repeated to prevent the charge thereof upon himself and his own select congregation If they have but so much wit or so much grace as either not to raise or not to discover any causlesse differences amongst themselves though they separate from and disturbe the peace and union of the whole national Church or all the Churches of a Nation they are by no means to be styled Schismaticks But more of this in Hypothesi when he comes to apply it to themselves § 18 Whether the Church of Rome is a Church of Christ or no pag. 56. and how they are Schismatical I list not to be their Advocate they are old enough to answer his charge themselves I think he hath said enough if not too much to vindicate the Protestant Churches from Schism in their separation from Rome But his principle will carry him further not only to unchurch Rome but also all Protestant Churches at home and abroad for want as he thinks of a right constitution by Jesus Christ as well as to free himself and his from the crime of Schism as will presently appear Only I observe that he does not charge Rome it self to be Schismatical but upon supposition that it is a Church which he denies below then indeed by her intestine divisions she is the most schismatical Church in the world but if no Church not schismaticall whereas our Divines have proved her schismatical not only by her intestine differences but chiefly by her schismatical principles as those above mentioned That she is the Catholick Church and none out of her Communion are any better than Hereticks Our Conventicles are no Churches but styes of beasts p. 63. say they or Heathens That Ordination is void except done by her Bishops and also and especially by her abominable corruptions doctrine and worship departing therein from the Scriptures and example of the Apostolical Churches Now his chief if not only principle to conclude himself not schismatical in separating from Rome is this That there was never any such thing pag. 60. as that which is called the Church of Rome instituted in reference to the worship of God by Jesus Christ which he hereafter affirms also of National and Presbyterian Churches as he thereby frees himself from Schism in separating from all Churches in the world So he therewith unchurcheth all our Churches as well as Rome § 19 For so he saies upon the same principle a plea pag. 64. for freedom from the charge of any Church really or pretended as National may be founded and confirmed That principle is the definition of Schism before given Schism is an evil amongst the members of a Church And hence he inferred against the Church of Rome If our own Congregations be not Churches whatsoever we are we are not Schismaticks And against them that plead for a National Church and charge them with Schism for separating from it he saies again If we are not of the National Church pag. 67. as they protest they are not whatever we are we are not Schismaticks And this will once more be made use of against the charge of Schism in separating from our present Churches as we shall see below But he makes a Dilemma and thinks it both waies unanswerable either we are of the National Church of England or we are not If not whatever we are we are not Schismaticks If we are and must be of it whether we will or
commonly make differences amongst professors before they totally depart He must be remembred of what he said p. 161. § 12. The breach of this union in the Catholick Church and therein the relinquishment of the communion of the Church lies in relinquishment of or some opposition to some or all of the saving necessary truths of the Gospel Now this is not Schism but Heresie or Apostacie That must be thus If it be the relinquishment of all truths of the Gospell it is Apostacie If of some onely and they fundatally maintained with obstinacie its Heresie but if it be of some truths onely of lesser or greater concernment about which differences are by some raised amongst the members of this Church Catholick it may by his own principles be called Schism His evasions will be one of these two 1. That he did condiscend to gratifie his Adversaries that Schism is a breach of union but that he denyes to be the Scripture notion of Schism 2. That upon the same account he denyes differences to be Schism any where but in a particular Assembly Wherein he is singular and alone and is sufficiently disproved above § 7 But fearing belike that in his so answering some of ours would be readie to take up those words spoken to our Saviour upon another occasion Master in so saying thou puttest us to rebuke also He starts an objection pag. 196. from the consequence of it utterly unchurching Rome thus Whether the devesting of the Synagogue of Rome of the priviledges of a Church in any sense arise not to the denyall of that Ministry at this day in England To which before we take his answer I would say 1. That most of our pious learned Divines have hitherto not denyed but that Rome was a Church in some sense not a true but a corrupt Church as having some priviledges or rather some remainders of a Church See D. Hall Apol. against Brownists Sect. 23. as the same Articles of Faith baptism and a kind of Ministry c. 2. That hereupon they have defended our Ministry to be true though sometimes coming thorough their foule hands with many superadditions to the institution of Christ Others perhaps would say we had it not from Rome there were other Bishops in England before Austin came hither from whom we might receive our Ordination successively But heare his kind answer If any man hath nothing to plead for his Ministry but meerely that successive Ordination which he hath received through the Church of Rome I cannot see a stable bottome of owning him so to be But not yet to regest to him his successive Baptism which he received through the Church of Rome this would go neere to annull the Ministry of those martyr-Martyr-Bishops and Ministers our first Reformers who at first had nothing to plead but their successive ordination from Rome and acted upon it accordingly He cannot gratifie Rome better than to asperse the Ministry of England it is the Jesuiticall business in all the present Sectaries They look upon himself his partie who have either none or have renounced their ordination as no Ministers at all If we be none also then have wee as they slander us no Church at all God help the poore despised Ministers of England The Romanists say we are no Ministers because we have not our Ordination from Rome The Sectarists say we are no Ministers because we have our Ordination from Rome which shall wee believe Neither for we have it from Jesus Christ by whose hands soever we had it But as a little blushing at this hard saying p. 196. he will mollifie it a little I do not say if he will plead nothing else but if he hath nothing else to plead He may have that which will constitute him a Minister though he will not own that so it doth What ever else we plead unlesse we will renounce our Ordination it will not please them That by Bishops is by them pleaded null or Antichristian and that by the people which he intends we think is nothing and cannot own it as a ground of our Ministry though perhaps we have their call as well as himselfe We may have as many of us have our call and election to be their Ministers from the people but our Ordination we shall justifie to be from Christ p. 197. and not from the people But hear more Nor is it said that any have their Ministry from Rome as though the office which is an Ordinance of Christ was instituted by Antichrist but the question is whether this be a sufficient foundation of any mans ininterest in the office of the Ministry that he hath received Ordination in a succession through the Administration of not the woman flying into the Wildernesse not of the two witnesses not from them whom we succeed in Doctrine as the Waldenses â—ut the Beast it selfe Does he not by this cast dirt in the face of our Ministry as all our good friends the Sectaries doe I have much adoe to forbeare saying ' The Lord rebuke thee But I answer 1. Why may it not be as sufficient a foundation of our Ministry Either he must go forward to Anâ—baptism as many have done or come back to us as was said to the Brownists by Dr. Hall Apol. Sect. 11. as for our Baptism which was never questioned hitherto but by our late Independent Anabaptists upon another ground 2. Had we received our Ordination from the woman flying into the Wildernesse or from the two witnesses or the Waldenses all had been one to him and his partie For they had not their Ordination from the people except some extraordinary cases but from a presbytery according to the Institution of Christ And yet forsooth he will not plead this at large professedly disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Antichristian who yet adhaere to this Ordination being many of them eminently guifted of God and submitted to by his people c. Egregiam verò laudem While he secretly derives their pedigree from Rome and Antichrist the Beast c that yet adhere to that Ordination if they have nothing else to plead As for their eminent guifts as they do not plead that as suffâ—cient for their interests in the office without Ordination so many of his and our brethren have those guifts whom we judge not therefore to be Ministers though he do And as for the submission of the people to us we had that ever if not explicitely as often yet implicitely which some Independents allow as sufficient to make us true Ministers and true Churches though we do not own Ordination as from that submission of our people but from Jesus Christ Even from such also they separate § 8 But some aske Why not Ordination from Rome as well as the Scripture which question I like not p. 198. but should rather after why not ordination as well as baptism All our fore Fathers doubtlesse received their baptism by the hands of Romanists
the verge of one Church as if all their Divisions were confined to the Church whereas there were Schisms and differences abroad and out of the Church which I shall evince first from the Scripture it selfe The differences or Schisms were of severall kinds Some out of the Assembly chap. 1. chap. 3. sidings about their Teachers as he speaks p. 27. one said I am of Paul c these were its likely abroad as they met one with another Some were in the Assembly as those he charges them with chap 11.18 When you come together in the Church I heare that there are divisions among you But the Doctor carryes it so as if all their differences were in the Church meeting when they met to worship God for reasons hereafter to be given The Apostle seemes to charge them thus I hear there are Schisms among you not only in private conferences chap. 1. but also which is worse in your solemne Assemblyes chap. 11. when you meet to worship God And this is the Doctors own Glosse unawares confessed not content to make this difference p. 27. the matter of their debates and disputes from house to house but even when they met for publick worship or that which they all met in and for they were divided on that account also chap. 11. This was their Schism but not the only though the worser Schism which he confounds too much to lead us away in a mist 4. That there was no one Church divided against another or separated from another is assumed but not proved unlesse by a Negative which is invalid There is no mention of such a separation therefore there was none of which in the next § 5 2. Here is no mention of any particular man or number of men's separation from the Assemblyes of the whole Church p. 30. or of subduction of themselves from its power c only they had groundlesse causelesse differences amongst themselves But was this all were there not separations made if not from that Church yet in that Church as well as divisions Let the Scripture determine this 1. The Apostle cap. 1. charges them with sidings about their Teachers v. 11. It hath beene declared to mee that there are Schisms among you One saith I am of Paul and I of Apollo c And againe chap. 3. v. 3. Whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions are ye not carnall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and walke as men For while one saith I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo are ye not carnall That is I am a discitle of Paul said one and I of Apollo said another In our language I am a member of such a Ministers Congregation sayes one such a man for my mony and I am of such a mans Congregation said another and so a third And hereupon they most probably separated themselves into such and such Congregations with slighting and contempt of other Ministers with respect to their own And is not Separation the ordinary issue of such envying strife and contentions Let experience this day speake As Love is the Mother of Union so Envy and strife of Separation 2. That there was a separation of parties in the Church of Corinth at least as to one Ordinance appeares cap. 11. that of the Lords Supper as some do now v. 18. with 21.22.33 They would See Jeams 2.1 2. c. such a companie the richer sort perhaps meet and receive the Supper together and separating themselves not tarry to take the poore with them This was part of their Schism which the Apostle charges them with and warnes them of They were not yet gone so farre in Schism as to separate from the Church by gathering of Churches in opposition to it but they were next door to it they made separations in the Church first in their differences of judgment and then into parties as to some Ordinances Not long after they separated into other Churches slighting and undervaluing the first Ministers or Churches as nothing or lesse pure than their own which wee see practised sufficiently at this day 3. But suppose it granted there was but one single congregation at Corinth yet the Apostle dehorting the Brethren v. 10. from Schisme and writing to more than the Church of Corinth v. 2. even all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in every place § 6 3. Here is no mention of any substraction of obedience from Bishâ—ps Rulers the Pope c p. 31. Nor does the Apostle charge them as Schismaticks from the nationall Church of Achaia c For the first part it is no wonder for such kind of Creatures were not yet hatched till many or some generations after And for the other the Church was yet but small in Achaia See him p. 37. f some scattered saints there might be but few Churches and therefore they are charged only for their Divisions and separations in or from the Church of Corinth according to the severall Ministers which they set up as is most probable As in the like case p. 32. by him instanced in the time of clement Some few unquiet persons at Corinth drew the whole Societie into division and an opposition to their Elders a few men acted by pride and madness yet such power had those persons in the Congregation that they prevailed to depose the Elders and cast them out of Office Is it not reasonable to thinke they set up new Elders and new Congregations and most unreasonable to thinke that the whole Church ranne into this madnesse and so some Congregations remaining sound the rest made Separations from them and this Clement calls their Schism And besides his severall words to describe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to lead away a partie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c those that walk well from their honoured Service though the Doctor wayes to know what it meant and misconstrues it I say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implyes a separation into other Assemblyes as the manner of seducers is speaking perverse things to draw away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples after them Act. 20.30 The like may be conceived though not so cleerly expressed in this first Schism at Corinth the same Church and place Surely those differences noted by Clement in the same Church were not divisions in the Church met together to worship God but out of the Church and causing separations from the Elders and so from the Church breaking of it into fractions which yet he calls their Schism As for his notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clement to signifie then p. 34. not a province as some but a citie Church consisting of many Congregations the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c I am apt to believe his conjecture to be true The Church inhabâ—ting Rome or the Church at Rome which at that time had no such large Territories as a Church provinciall